13910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018] 

[MO 92210-0-0008-B2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Findings for 

Petitions to List the Greater SageGrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 

as Threatened or Endangered 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

findings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

three 12–month findings on petitions to 

list three entities of the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We find that listing the 

greater sage-grouse (rangewide) is 

warranted, but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. We will develop 

a proposed rule to list the greater sagegrouse as our priorities allow. 

We find that listing the western 

subspecies of the greater sage-grouse is 

not warranted, based on determining 

that the western subspecies is not a 

valid taxon and thus is not a listable 

entity under the Act. We note, however, 

that greater sage-grouse in the area 

covered by the putative western 

subspecies (except those in the Bi-State 

area (Mono Basin), which are covered 

by a separate finding) are encompassed 

by our finding that listing the species is 

warranted but precluded rangewide. 

We find that listing the Bi-State 

population (previously referred to as the 

Mono Basin area population), which 

meets our criteria as a distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the greater 

sage-grouse, is warranted but precluded 

by higher priority listing actions. We 

will develop a proposed rule to list the 

Bi-State DPS of the greater sage-grouse 

as our priorities allow, possibly in 

conjunction with a proposed rule to list 

the greater sage-grouse rangewide. 

DATES: The finding announced in the 

document was made on March 23, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and www.fws.gov. 

Supporting documentation we used to 

prepare this finding is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5353 

Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; telephone 

(307) 772-2374; facsimile (307) 772- 

2358. Please submit any new 

information, materials, comments, or 

questions concerning this species to the 

Service at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

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

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

any petition containing substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that the listing may be warranted, we 

make a finding within 12 months of the 

date of the receipt of the petition on 

whether the petitioned action is (a) not 

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted, but that immediate proposal 

of a regulation implementing the 

petitioned action is precluded by other 

pending proposals to determine whether 

species are threatened or endangered, 

and expeditious progress is being made 

to add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of 

the Act requires that we treat a petition 

for which the requested action is found 

to be warranted but precluded as though 

resubmitted on the date of such finding; 

that is, requiring a subsequent finding to 

be made within 12 months. We must 

publish these 12–month findings in the 

Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Action 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

On July 2, 2002, we received a 

petition from Craig C. Dremann 

requesting that we list the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

endangered across its entire range. We 

received a second petition from the 

Institute for Wildlife Protection on 

March 24, 2003, requesting that the 

greater sage-grouse be listed rangewide. 

On December 29, 2003, we received a 

third petition from the American Lands 

Alliance and 20 additional conservation 

organizations (American Lands Alliance 

et al.) to list the greater sage-grouse as 

threatened or endangered rangewide. 

On April 21, 2004, we announced our 

90–day petition finding in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 21484) that these 

petitions taken collectively, as well as 

information in our files, presented 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. On July 9, 2004, we 

published a notice to reopen the period 

for submitting comments on our 90–day 

finding, until July 30, 2004 (69 FR 

41445). In accordance with section 

4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, we completed a 

status review of the best available 

scientific and commercial information 

on the species. On January 12, 2005, we 

announced our not-warranted 12–month 

finding in the Federal Register (70 FR 

2243). 

On July 14, 2006, Western Watersheds 

Project filed a complaint in Federal 

district court alleging that the Service’s 

2005 12–month finding was incorrect 

and arbitrary and requested the finding 

be remanded to the Service. On 

December 4, 2007, the U.S. District 

Court of Idaho ruled that our 2005 

finding was arbitrary and capricious, 

and remanded it to the Service for 

further consideration. On January 30, 

2008, the court approved a stipulated 

agreement between the Department of 

Justice and the plaintiffs to issue a new 

finding in May 2009, contingent on the 

availability of a new monograph of 

information on the sage-grouse and its 

habitat (Monograph). On February 26, 

2008, we published a notice to initiate 

a status review for the greater sagegrouse (73 FR 10218), and on April 29, 

2008, we published a notice extending 

the request for submitting information 

to June 27, 2008 (73 FR 23172). 

Publication of the Monograph was 

delayed due to circumstances outside 

the control of the Service. An amended 

joint stipulation, adopted by the court 

on June 15, 2009, required the Service 

to submit the 12–month finding to the 

Federal Register by February 26, 2010; 

this due date was subsequently 

extended to March 5, 2010. 

Western Subspecies of the Greater SageGrouse 

The western subspecies of the greater 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus 

phaios) was identified by the Service as 

a category 2 candidate species on 

September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). At 

the time, we defined Category 2 species 

as those species for which we possessed 

information indicating that a proposal to 

list as endangered or threatened was 

possibly appropriate, but for which 

conclusive data on biological 

vulnerability and threats were not 

available to support a proposed rule. On 

February 28, 1996, we discontinued the 

designation of category 2 species as 

candidates for listing under the Act (61 

FR 7596), and consequently the western 

subspecies was no longer considered to 

be a candidate for listing. 

We received a petition, dated January 

24, 2002, from the Institute for Wildlife 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13911 

Protection requesting that the western 

subspecies occurring from northern 

California through Oregon and 

Washington, as well as any western 

sage-grouse still occurring in parts of 

Idaho, be listed under the Act. The 

petitioner excluded the Mono Basin area 

populations in California and northwest 

Nevada since they already had 

petitioned this population as a distinct 

population segment (DPS) for 

emergency listing (see discussion of BiState area (Mono Basin) population 

below). The petitioner also requested 

that the Service include the Columbia 

Basin DPS in this petition, even though 

we had already identified this DPS as a 

candidate for listing under the Act (66 

FR 22984, May 7, 2001) (see discussion 

of Columbia Basin below). 

We published a 90–day finding on 

February 7, 2003 (68 FR 6500), that the 

petition did not present substantial 

information indicating the petitioned 

action was warranted based on our 

determination that there was 

insufficient evidence to indicate that the 

petitioned western population of sagegrouse is a valid subspecies or DPS. The 

petitioner pursued legal action, first 

with a 60–day Notice of Intent to sue, 

followed by filing a complaint in 

Federal district court on June 6, 2003, 

challenging the merits of our 90–day 

finding. On August 10, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of 

Washington ruled in favor of the Service 

(Case No. C03-1251P). The petitioner 

appealed and on March 3, 2006, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

reversed in part the ruling of the District 

Court and remanded the matter for a 

new 90–day finding (Institute for 

Wildlife Protection v. Norton, 2006 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 5428 9th Cir., March 3, 

2006). Specifically, the Court of Appeals 

rejected the Service’s conclusion that 

the petition did not present substantial 

information indicating that western 

sage-grouse may be a valid subspecies, 

but upheld the Service’s determination 

that the petition did not present 

substantial information indicating that 

the petitioned population may 

constitute a DPS. The Court’s primary 

concern was that the Service did not 

provide a sufficient description of the 

principles we employed to determine 

the validity of the subspecies 

classification. On April 29, 2008, we 

published in the Federal Register (73 

FR 23170) a 90–day finding that the 

petition presented substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing western sage-grouse may be 

warranted and initiated a status review 

for western sage-grouse. 

In a related action, the Service also 

has made a finding on a petition to list 

the eastern subspecies of the greater 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus 

urophasianus). On July 3, 2002, we 

received a petition from the Institute for 

Wildlife Protection to list the eastern 

subspecies, identified in the petition as 

including all sage-grouse east of Oregon, 

Washington, northern California, and a 

small portion of Idaho. The petitioners 

sued the Service in U.S. District Court 

on January 10, 2003, for failure to 

complete a 90–day finding. On October 

3, 2003, the Court ordered the Service 

to complete a finding. The Service 

published its not-substantial 90–day 

finding in the Federal Register on 

January 7, 2004 (69 FR 933), based on 

our determination that the eastern sagegrouse was not a valid subspecies. The 

not-substantial finding was challenged, 

and on September 28, 2004, the U.S. 

District Court ruled in favor of the 

Service, dismissing the plaintiff’s case. 

Columbia Basin (Washington) 

Population of the Western Subspecies 

On May 28, 1999, we received a 

petition dated May 14, 1999, from the 

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and the 

Biodiversity Legal Foundation. The 

petitioners requested that the 

Washington population of western sagegrouse (C. u. phaios) be listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Act. 

The petitioners requested listing of the 

Washington population of western sagegrouse based upon threats to the 

population and its isolation from the 

remainder of the taxon. Accompanying 

the petition was information relating to 

the taxonomy, ecology, threats, and the 

past and present distribution of western 

sage-grouse. 

In our documents we have used 

‘‘Columbia Basin population’’ rather 

than ‘‘Washington population’’ because 

we believe it more appropriately 

describes the petitioned entity. We 

published a substantial 90–day finding 

on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51578). On 

May 7, 2001, we published our 12– 

month finding (66 FR 22984), which 

included our determination that the 

Columbia Basin population of the 

western sage-grouse met the 

requirements of our policy on DPSs (61 

FR 4722) and that listing the DPS was 

warranted but precluded by other higher 

priority listing actions. As required by 

section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act, we have 

subsequently made resubmitted petition 

findings, announced in conjunction 

with our Candidate Notices of Review, 

in which we continued to find that 

listing the Columbia Basin DPS of the 

western subspecies was warranted but 

precluded by other higher priority 

listing actions (66 FR 54811, 67 FR 

40663, 69 FR 24887, 70 FR 24893, 74 FR 

57803). Subsequent to the March 2006 

decision by the court on our 90–day 

finding on the petition to list the 

western subspecies of the greater sagegrouse (described above), our 

resubmitted petition findings stated we 

were not updating our analysis for the 

DPS, but would publish an updated 

finding regarding the petition to list the 

Columbia Basin population of the 

western subspecies following 

completion of the new rangewide status 

review for the greater sage-grouse. 

Bi-State Area (Mono Basin) Population 

of Sage-grouse 

On January 2, 2002, we received a 

petition from the Institute for Wildlife 

Protection requesting that the sagegrouse occurring in the Mono Basin area 

of Mono County, California, and Lyon 

County, Nevada, be emergency listed as 

an endangered distinct population 

segment (DPS) of Centrocercus 

urophasianus phaios, which the 

petitioners considered to be the western 

subspecies of the greater sage-grouse. 

This request was for portions of Alpine 

and Inyo Counties and most of Mono 

County in California and portions of 

Carson City, Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, 

and Mineral Counties in Nevada. On 

December 26, 2002, we published a 90– 

day finding that the petition did not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted 

(67 FR 78811). Our 2002 finding was 

based on our determination that the 

petition did not present substantial 

information indicating that the 

population of greater sage-grouse in this 

area was a DPS under our DPS policy 

(61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and thus 

was not a listable entity (67 FR 78811; 

December 26, 2002). Our 2002 finding 

also included a determination that the 

petition did not present substantial 

information regarding threats to indicate 

that listing the petitioned population 

may be warranted (67 FR 78811). 

On November 15, 2005, we received 

a petition submitted by the Stanford 

Law School Environmental Law Clinic 

on behalf of the Sagebrush Sea 

Campaign, Western Watersheds Project, 

Center for Biological Diversity, and 

Christians Caring for Creation to list the 

Mono Basin area population of greater 

sage-grouse as a threatened or 

endangered DPS of the greater sagegrouse (C. urophasianus) under the Act. 

On March 28, 2006, we responded that 

emergency listing was not warranted 

and, due to court orders and settlement 

agreements for other listing actions, we 

would not be able to address the 

petition at that time. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13912 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

On November 18, 2005, the Institute 

for Wildlife Protection and Dr. Steven G. 

Herman sued the Service in U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of 

Washington (Institute for Wildlife 

Protection et al. v. Norton et al., No. 

C05-1939 RSM), challenging the 

Service’s 2002 finding that their petition 

did not present substantial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted. On April 11, 2006, 

we reached a stipulated settlement 

agreement with both plaintiffs under 

which we agreed to evaluate the 

November 2005 petition and 

concurrently reevaluate the December 

2001 petition (received in January 

2002). The settlement agreement 

required the Service to submit to the 

Federal Register a 90–day finding by 

December 8, 2006, and if substantial, to 

complete the 12–month finding by 

December 10, 2007. On December 19, 

2006, we published a 90–day finding 

that these petitions did not present 

substantial scientific or commercial 

information indicating that the 

petitioned actions may be warranted (71 

FR 76058). 

On August 23, 2007, the November 

2005 petitioners filed a complaint 

challenging the Service’s 2006 finding. 

After review of the complaint, the 

Service determined that we would 

revisit our 2006 finding. The Service 

entered into a settlement agreement 

with the petitioners on February 25, 

2008, in which the Service agreed to a 

voluntary remand of the 2006 petition 

finding, and to submit for publication in 

the Federal Register a new 90–day 

finding by April 25, 2008. The 

agreement further stipulated that if the 

new 90–day finding was positive, the 

Service would undertake a status review 

of the Mono Basin area population of 

the greater sage-grouse and submit for 

publication in the Federal Register a 

12–month finding by April 24, 2009. 

On April 29, 2008, we published in 

the Federal Register (73 FR 23173) a 

90–day petition finding that the 

petitions presented substantial scientific 

or commercial information indicating 

that listing the Mono Basin area 

population may be warranted and 

initiated a status review. Based on a 

joint stipulation by the Service and the 

plaintiffs to extend the due date for the 

12–month finding, on April 23, 2009, 

the U.S. District Court, Northern District 

of California, issued an order that if the 

parties did not agree to a later 

alternative date, the Service would 

submit a 12–month finding for the 

Mono Basin population of the greater 

sage-grouse to the Federal Register no 

later than May 26, 2009. On May 27, 

2009, the U.S. District Court, Northern 

District of California, issued an order 

accepting a joint stipulation between the 

Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, 

which states that the parties agree that 

the Service may submit to the Federal 

Register a single document containing 

the 12–month findings for the Mono 

Basin area population and the greater 

sage-grouse no later than by February 

26, 2010. Subsequently, the due date for 

submission of the document to the 

Federal Register was extended to March 

5, 2010. 

Both the November 2005 and the 

December 2001 petitions as well as our 

2002 and 2006 findings use the term 

‘‘Mono Basin area’’ to refer to greater 

sage-grouse that occur within the 

geographic area of eastern California 

and western Nevada that includes Mono 

Lake. For conservation planning 

purposes, this same geographic area is 

referred to as the Bi-State area by the 

States of California and Nevada (Greater 

Sage-grouse Conservation Plan for 

Nevada and Eastern California, 2004, 

pp. 4–5). For consistency with ongoing 

planning efforts, we will adopt the ‘‘BiState’’ nomenclature hereafter in this 

finding. 

Biology and Ecology of Greater SageGrouse 

Greater Sage-Grouse Description 

The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) is the largest North 

American grouse species. Adult male 

greater sage-grouse range in length from 

66 to 76 centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 

inches (in.)) and weigh between 2 and 

3 kilograms (kg) (4 and 7 pounds (lb)). 

Adult females are smaller, ranging in 

length from 48 to 58 cm (19 to 23 in.) 

and weighing between 1 and 2 kg (2 and 

4 lb). Males and females have dark 

grayish-brown body plumage with many 

small gray and white speckles, fleshy 

yellow combs over the eyes, long 

pointed tails, and dark green toes. Males 

also have blackish chin and throat 

feathers, conspicuous phylloplumes 

(specialized erectile feathers) at the back 

of the head and neck, and white feathers 

forming a ruff around the neck and 

upper belly. During breeding displays, 

males exhibit olive-green apteria (fleshy 

bare patches of skin) on their breasts 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2). 

Taxonomy 

Greater sage-grouse are members of 

the Phasianidae family. They are one of 

two congeneric species; the other 

species in the genus is the Gunnison 

sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). In 

1957, the American Ornithologists’ 

Union (AOU) (AOU 1957, p 139) 

recognized two subspecies of the greater 

sage-grouse, the eastern (Centrocercus 

urophasianus urophasianus) and 

western (C. u. phaios) based on 

information from Aldrich (1946, p. 129). 

The original subspecies designation of 

the western sage-grouse was based 

solely on differences in coloration 

(specifically, reduced white markings 

and darker feathering on western birds) 

among 11 museum specimens collected 

from 8 locations in Washington, Oregon, 

and California. The last edition of the 

AOU Check-list of North American 

Birds to include subspecies was the 5th

Edition, published in 1957. Subsequent 

editions of the Check-list have excluded 

treatment of subspecies. Richard Banks, 

who was the AOU Chair of the 

Committee on Classification and 

Nomenclature in 2000, indicated that, 

because the AOU has not published a 

revised edition at the subspecies level 

since 1957, the subspecies in that 

edition, including the western sagegrouse, are still recognized (Banks 2000, 

pers. comm.). However, in the latest 

edition of the Check-list (7th Ed., 1998, 

p. xii), the AOU explained that its 

decision to omit subspecies, ‘‘carries 

with it our realization that an uncertain 

number of currently recognized 

subspecies, especially those formally 

named early in this century, probably 

cannot be validated by rigorous modern 

techniques.’’ 

Since the publication of the 1957 

Check-list, the validity of the subspecies 

designations for greater sage-grouse has 

been questioned, and in some cases 

dismissed, by several credible 

taxonomic authorities (Johnsgard 1983, 

p. 109; Drut 1994, p. 2; Schroeder et al. 

1999, p. 3; International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2000, p. 

62; Banks 2000, 2002 pers. comm.; 

Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Benedict et al. 

2003, p. 301). The Western Association 

of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA), an organization of 23 State 

and provincial agencies charged with 

the protection and management of fish 

and wildlife resources in the western 

part of the United States and Canada, 

also questioned the validity of the 

western sage-grouse as a subspecies in 

its Conservation Assessment of Greater 

Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats 

(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 8-4 to 8-5). 

Furthermore, in its State conservation 

assessment and strategy for greater sagegrouse, the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW) stated that ‘‘recent 

genetic analysis (Benedict et al. 2003) 

found little evidence to support this 

subspecies distinction, and this Plan 

refers to sage-grouse without reference 

to subspecies delineation in this 

document’’ (Hagen 2005, p. 5). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13913 

The Integrated Taxonomic 

Information System (ITIS), a database 

representing a partnership of U.S., 

Canadian, and Mexican agencies, other 

organizations, and taxonomic specialists 

designed to provide scientifically 

credible taxonomic information, lists 

the taxonomic status of western sagegrouse as ‘‘invalid – junior synonym’’ 

(ITIS 2010). In an evaluation of the 

historical classification of the western 

sage-grouse as a subspecies, Banks 

stated that it was ‘‘weakly characterized’’ 

but felt that it would be wise to 

continue to regard western sage-grouse 

as taxonomically valid ‘‘for management 

purposes’’ (Banks, pers. comm. 2000). 

This statement was made prior to the 

availability of behavioral and genetic 

information that has become available 

since 2000. In addition, Banks’ opinion 

is qualified by the phrase ‘‘for 

Management purposes.’’ Management 

recommendations and other 

considerations must be clearly 

distinguished from scientific or 

commercial data that indicate whether 

an entity may be taxonomically valid for 

the purpose of listing under the Act. 

Although the Service had referred to 

the western sage-grouse in past 

decisions (for example, in the 12–month 

finding for a petition to list the 

Columbia Basin population of western 

sage-grouse, 66 FR 22984; May 7, 2001), 

this taxonomic reference was ancillary 

to the decision at hand and was not the 

focal point of the listing action. In other 

words, when past listing actions were 

focused on some other entity, such as a 

potential distinct population segment in 

the State of Washington, we accepted 

the published taxonomy for western 

sage-grouse because that taxonomy itself 

was not the subject of the review and 

thus not subject to more rigorous 

evaluation at the time. 

Taxonomy is a component of the 

biological sciences. Therefore, in our 

evaluation of the reliability of the 

information, we considered scientists 

with appropriate taxonomic credentials 

(which may include a combination of 

education, training, research, 

publications, classification and/or other 

experience relevant to taxonomy) as 

qualified to provide informed opinions 

regarding taxonomy, make taxonomic 

distinctions, and/or question taxonomic 

classification. 

There is no universally accepted 

definition of what constitutes a 

subspecies, and the use of subspecies 

may vary between taxonomic groups 

(Haig et al. 2006, pp. 1584-1594). The 

Service acknowledges the diverse 

opinions of the scientific community 

about species and subspecies concepts. 

However, to be operationally useful, 

subspecies must be discernible from one 

another (i.e., diagnosable); this element 

of ‘‘diagnosability,’’ or the ability to 

consistently distinguish between 

populations, is a common thread that 

runs through all subspecies concepts. 

The AOU Committee on Classification 

and Nomenclature offers the following 

definition of a subspecies: ‘‘Subspecies 

should represent geographically discrete 

breeding populations that are 

diagnosable from other populations on 

the basis of plumage and/or 

measurements, but are not yet 

reproductively isolated. Varying levels 

of diagnosability have been proposed for 

subspecies, typically ranging from at 

least 75% to 95% * * * subspecies that 

are phenotypically but not genetically 

distinct still warrant recognition if 

individuals can be assigned to a 

subspecies with a high degree of 

certainty’’ (AOU 2010). In addition, the 

latest AOU Check-list of North 

American Birds describes subspecies as: 

‘‘geographic segments of species’ 

populations that differ abruptly and 

discretely in morphology or coloration; 

these differences often correspond with 

difference in behavior and habitat’’ 

(AOU 1998, p. xii). 

In general, higher levels of confidence 

in the classification of subspecies may 

be gained through the concurrence of 

multiple morphological, molecular, 

ecological, behavioral, and/or 

physiological characters (Haig et al. 

2006, p. 1591). The AOU definition of 

subspecies also incorporates this 

concept of looking for multiple lines of 

evidence, in referring to abrupt and 

discrete differences in morphology, 

coloration, and often corresponding 

differences in behavior or habitat as 

well (AOU 1998, p. xii). To assess 

subspecies diagnosability, we evaluated 

all the best scientific and commercial 

information available to determine 

whether the evidence points to a 

consistent separation of birds currently 

purported to be ‘‘western sage-grouse’’ 

from other populations of greater sagegrouse. This evaluation incorporated 

information that has become available 

since the AOU’s last subspecies review 

in 1957, and included data on the 

geographic separation of the putative 

eastern and western subspecies, 

behavior, morphology, and genetics. If 

the assessment of these multiple 

characters provided a clear and 

consistent separation of the putative 

western subspecies from other 

populations of sage-grouse, such that 

any individual bird from the range of 

the western sage-grouse would likely be 

correctly assigned to that subspecies on 

the basis of the suite of characteristics 

analyzed, that would be considered 

indicative of a likely valid subspecies. 

Geography 

The delineation between eastern and 

western subspecies is vaguely defined 

and has changed over time from its 

original description (Aldrich 1946, p. 

129; Aldrich and Duvall 1955 p. 12; 

AOU 1957, p. 139; Aldrich 1963, pp. 

539-541). The boundary between the 

subspecies is generally described along 

a line starting on the Oregon–Nevada 

border south of Hart Mountain National 

Wildlife Refuge and ending near Nyssa, 

Oregon (Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; 

Aldrich 1963, pp. 539-541). Aldrich 

described the original eastern and 

western ranges in 1946 (Aldrich 1946, p. 

129), while Aldrich and Duvall (1955, p. 

12) and Aldrich (1963, pp. 539-541) 

described an intermediate form in 

northern California, presumably in a 

zone of intergradation between the 

subspecies. All of Aldrich’s citations 

include a portion of Idaho within the 

western subspecies’ range, but the 1957 

AOU designation included Idaho as part 

of the eastern subspecies (AOU 1957, p. 

139). 

Our evaluation reveals that a 

boundary between potential western 

and eastern subspecies may be drawn 

multiple ways depending on whether 

one uses general description of 

historical placement, by considering 

topographic features, or in response to 

the differing patterns reported in 

studying sage-grouse genetics, 

morphology, or behavior. In their 

description of greater sage-grouse 

distribution, Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 

369) noted the lack of evidence for 

differentiating between the purported 

subspecies, stating ‘‘We did not quantify 

the respective distributions of the 

eastern and western subspecies because 

of the lack of a clear dividing line 

(Aldrich and Duvall 1955) and the lack 

of genetic differentiation (Benedict et al. 

2003).’’ Based on this information, there 

does not appear to be any clear and 

consistent geographic separation 

between sage-grouse historically 

described as ‘‘eastern’’ and ‘‘western.’’ 

Morphology 

As noted above, the original 

description of the western subspecies of 

sage-grouse was based solely on 

differences in coloration (specifically, 

reduced white markings and darker 

feathering on western birds) among 11 

museum specimens (10 whole birds, 1 

head only) collected from 8 locations in 

Washington, Oregon, and California 

(Aldrich 1946, p. 129). By today’s 

standards, this represents an extremely 

small sample size that would likely 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13914 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

yield little confidence in the ability to 

discriminate between populations on 

the basis of this character. Furthermore, 

the subspecies designation was based on 

this single characteristic; no other 

differences between the western and 

eastern subspecies of sage-grouse were 

noted in Aldrich’s original description 

(Aldrich 1946, p. 129; USFWS 2010). 

Banks (1992) noted plumage color 

variation in the original specimens 

Aldrich (1946) used to make his 

subspecies designation, and agreed that 

the specimens from Washington, 

Oregon, and northern California did 

appear darker than the specimens 

collected in the eastern portion of the 

range. However, individual 

morphological variation in greater sagegrouse, such as plumage coloration, is 

extensive (Banks 1992). Further, given 

current taxonomic concepts, Banks 

(1992) doubted that most current 

taxonomists would identify a subspecies 

based on minor color variations from a 

limited number of specimens, as were 

available to Aldrich during the mid1900s (Aldrich 1946, p. 129; Aldrich 

and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 1963, 

pp. 539-541). Finally, the AOU 

Committee on Classification has stated 

that, because of discoloration resulting 

from age and poor specimen 

preparation, museum specimens ‘‘nearly 

always must be supplemented by new 

material for comprehensive systematic 

studies.’’ (AOU, Check-list of North 

American Birds, 7th ed., 1998, p. xv.) 

Schroeder (2008, pp. 1-19) examined 

previously collected morphological data 

across the species’ range from both 

published and unpublished sources. He 

found statistically significant 

differences between sexes, age groups, 

and populations in numerous 

characteristics including body mass, 

wing length, tail length, and primary 

feather length. Many of these differences 

were associated with sex and age, but 

body mass also varied by season. There 

also were substantial morphometric 

(size and shape) differences among 

populations. Notably, however, these 

population differences were not 

consistent with any of the described 

geographic delineations between eastern 

and western subspecies. For example, 

sage-grouse from Washington and from 

Northern Colorado up to Alberta 

appeared to be larger than those in 

Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and California 

(Schroeder 2008, p. 9). This regional 

variation was not consistent with 

differences in previously established 

genetic characteristics (Oyler-McCance 

et al. 2005, as cited in Schroeder 2008, 

p. 9). Thus our review revealed no clear 

basis for differentiating between the two 

described subspecies based on plumage 

or morphology. 

Behavior 

The only data available with respect 

to behavior are for strutting behavior on 

leks, a key component of mate selection. 

One recent study compared the male 

strut behavior between three sage-grouse 

populations that happen to include 

populations from both sides of the 

putative eastern-western line (Taylor 

and Young 2006, pp. 36-41). However, 

the classification of these populations 

changes depending on the description of 

western sage-grouse used. The Lyon/ 

Mono population falls within the 

intermediate zone identified by Aldrich 

and Duvall (1955, p. 12) but would be 

classified as eastern under Aldrich 

(1963, p. 541). The Lassen population 

may be considered either western 

(Aldrich 1946, p. 129) or intermediate 

(Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 

1963, p. 541). The Nye population falls 

within the range of the eastern sagegrouse (Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; 

Aldrich 1963, p. 541). The researchers 

found that male strut rates were not 

significantly different between 

populations, but that acoustic 

components of the display for the Lyon/ 

Mono and Lassen populations 

(considered intermediate and/or 

western) were similar to each other, 

whereas the Nye population (eastern) 

was distinct. We consider these results 

inconclusive in distinguishing between 

eastern and western subspecies because 

of the inconsistent results and limited 

geographic scope of the study. 

Schroeder (2008, p. 9) also examined 

previously collected data on strutting 

behavior on leks, including Taylor and 

Young (2006). He noted that, although 

there was regional variation in the strut 

rate of sage-grouse, it was not clear if 

this variation reflected population-level 

effects or some other unexplained 

variation. Based on the above limited 

information, we do not consider there to 

be any strong evidence of a clear 

separation of the western sage-grouse 

from other populations on the basis of 

behavioral differences. 

Genetics 

Genetic research can sometimes 

augment or refine taxonomic definitions 

that are based on morphology or 

behavior or both (discussed in Haig et 

al. 2006, p. 1586; Oyler-McCance and 

Quinn in press, p. 19). Benedict et al. 

(2003, p. 309) found no genetic data 

supporting a subspecies designation. To 

investigate taxonomic questions and 

examine levels of gene flow and 

connectedness among populations, 

Oyler-McCance et al. (2005, p. 1294) 

conducted a comprehensive 

examination of the distribution of 

genetic variation across the entire range 

of greater sage-grouse, using both 

mitochondrial and nuclear 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence 

data. Oyler-McCance et al. (2005, p. 

1306) found that the overall distribution 

of genetic variation showed a gradual 

shift across the range in both 

mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data 

sets. Their results demonstrate that 

greater sage-grouse populations follow 

an isolation-by-distance model of 

restricted gene flow (gene flow resulting 

from movement between neighboring 

populations rather than being the result 

of long distance movements of 

individuals) (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, 

p. 1293; Campton 2007, p. 4), and are 

not consistent with subspecies 

designations. Oyler-McCance and Quinn 

(in press, entire) reviewed available 

studies that used molecular genetic 

approaches, including Oyler-McCance 

et al. (2005). They examined the genetic 

data bearing on the delineation of the 

western and eastern subspecies of 

greater sage-grouse, and determined that 

the distinction is not supported by the 

genetic data (Oyler-McCance and Quinn 

in press, p. 4). The best available genetic 

information thus does not support the 

recognition of the western sage-grouse 

as a separate subspecies. 

Summary: Taxonomic Evaluation of the 

Subspecies 

The AOU has not revisited the 

question of whether the eastern and 

western subspecies are valid since their 

original classification in 1957. We have 

examined the best scientific information 

available regarding the putative 

subspecies of the greater sage-grouse 

and have considered multiple lines of 

evidence for the potential existence of 

western and eastern subspecies based 

on geographic, morphological, 

behavioral, and genetic data. In our 

evaluation, we looked for any consistent 

significant differences in these 

characters that might support 

recognition of the western or eastern 

sage-grouse as clear, discrete, and 

diagnosable populations, such that 

either might be considered a subspecies. 

As described above, the boundaries 

distinguishing the two putative 

subspecies have shifted over time, and 

there does not appear to be any clear 

and consistent geographic separation 

between sage-grouse historically 

described as ‘‘eastern’’ and ‘‘western.’’ 

Banks (1992) and Schroeder (2008, p. 9) 

both found morphological variations 

between individuals and populations, 

but Banks stated that the differences 

would not be sufficient to recognize 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13915 

subspecies by current taxonomic 

standards, and Schroeder noted that the 

differences were not consistent with any 

of the described geographic or genetic 

delineations between putative 

subspecies. Schroeder (2008 p. 9) also 

noted regional behavior differences in 

strut rate, but stated it was not clear if 

this variation reflected population-level 

effects. Finally, the best available 

genetic information indicates there is no 

distinction between the putative 

western and eastern subspecies 

(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 309; OylerMcCance and Quinn in press, p. 12). 

Because the best scientific and 

commercial information do not support 

the taxonomic validity of the purported 

eastern or western subspecies, our 

analysis of the status of the greater sagegrouse (below) does not address 

considerations at the scale of 

subspecies. (See Findings section, 

below, for our finding on the petition to 

list the western subspecies of the greater 

sage-grouse.) 

Life History Characteristics 

Greater sage-grouse depend on a 

variety of shrub-steppe habitats 

throughout their life cycle, and are 

considered obligate users of several 

species of sagebrush (e.g., Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. wyomingensis (Wyoming 

big sagebrush), A. t. ssp. vaseyana 

(mountain big sagebrush), and A. t. 

tridentata (basin big sagebrush)) 

(Patterson 1952, p. 48; Braun et al. 1976, 

p. 168; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 970- 

972; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-1; Miller 

et al. in press, p. 1). Greater sage-grouse 

also use other sagebrush species such as 

A. arbuscula (low sagebrush), A. nova 

(black sagebrush), A. frigida (fringed 

sagebrush), and A. cana silver sagebrush 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 4-5; Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 3-4). Thus, sage-grouse 

distribution is strongly correlated with 

the distribution of sagebrush habitats 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364). Sagegrouse exhibit strong site fidelity 

(loyalty to a particular area even when 

the area is no longer of value) to 

seasonal habitats, which includes 

breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and 

wintering areas (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

3-1). Adult sage-grouse rarely switch 

between these habitats once they have 

been selected, limiting their adaptability 

to changes. 

During the spring breeding season, 

male sage-grouse gather together to 

perform courtship displays on areas 

called leks. Areas of bare soil, shortgrass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed 

knolls, or other relatively open sites 

typically serve as leks (Patterson 1952, 

p. 83; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-7 and 

references therein). Leks are often 

surrounded by denser shrub-steppe 

cover, which is used for escape, 

thermal, and feeding cover. The 

proximity, configuration, and 

abundance of nesting habitat are key 

factors influencing lek location 

(Connelly et al., 1981, and Connelly et 

al., 2000 b, cited in Connelly et al., in 

press a, p. 11). Leks can be formed 

opportunistically at any appropriate site 

within or adjacent to nesting habitat 

(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970), and, 

therefore, lek habitat availability is not 

considered to be a limiting factor for 

sage-grouse (Schroeder 1999, p. 4). Nest 

sites are selected independent of lek 

locations, but the reverse is not true 

(Bradbury et al. 1989, p. 22; Wakkinen 

et al. 1992, p. 382). Thus, leks are 

indicative of nesting habitat. 

Leks range in size from less than 0.04 

hectare (ha) (0.1 acre (ac)) to over 36 ha 

(90 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-3) and 

can host from several to hundreds of 

males (Johnsgard 2002, p. 112). Males 

defend individual territories within leks 

and perform elaborate displays with 

their specialized plumage and 

vocalizations to attract females for 

mating. Although males are capable of 

breeding the first spring after hatch, 

young males are rarely successful in 

breeding on leks due to the dominance 

of older males (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 

14). Numerous researchers have 

observed that a relatively small number 

of dominant males account for the 

majority of copulations on each lek 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 8). However, 

Bush (2009, p. 106) found on average 

that 45.9 percent (range 14.3 to 54.5 

percent) of genetically identified males 

in a population fathered offspring in a 

given year, which indicates that males 

and females likely engage in off-lek 

copulations. Males do not participate in 

incubation of eggs or rearing chicks. 

Females have been documented to 

travel more than 20 km (12.5 mi) to their 

nest site after mating (Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 970), but distances between a 

nest site and the lek on which breeding 

occurred is variable (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 4-5). Average distance 

between a female’s nest and the lek on 

which she was first observed ranged 

from 3.4 km (2.1 mi) to 7.8 km (4.8 mi) 

in five studies examining 301 nest 

locations (Schroeder et al. 1999 p. 12). 

Productive nesting areas are typically 

characterized by sagebrush with an 

understory of native grasses and forbs, 

with horizontal and vertical structural 

diversity that provides an insect prey 

base, herbaceous forage for pre-laying 

and nesting hens, and cover for the hen 

while she is incubating (Gregg 1991, p. 

19; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly 

et al. 2000a, p. 971; Connelly et al. 2004, 

pp. 4-17, 18; Connelly et al. in press b, 

p. 12). Sage-grouse also may use other 

shrub or bunchgrass species for nest 

sites (Klebenow 1969, p. 649; Connelly 

et al. 2000a, p. 970; Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 4-4). Shrub canopy and grass cover 

provide concealment for sage-grouse 

nests and young, and are critical for 

reproductive success (Barnett and 

Crawford 1994, p. 116; Gregg et al. 1994, 

p. 164; DeLong et al.1995, p. 90; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). Published 

vegetation characteristics of successful 

nest sites included a sagebrush canopy 

cover of 15–25 percent, sagebrush 

heights of 30 to 80 cm (11.8 to 31.5 in.), 

and grass/forb cover of 18 cm (7.1 in.) 

(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 977). 

Sage-grouse clutch size ranges from 6 

to 9 eggs with an average of 7 eggs 

(Connelly et al. in press a, pp. 14-15). 

The likelihood of a female nesting in a 

given year averages 82 percent in 

eastern areas of the range (Alberta, 

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Colorado, Wyoming) and 78 percent in 

western areas of the range (California, 

Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

Utah ) (Connelly et al. in press a, p. 15). 

Adult females have higher nest 

initiation rates than yearling females 

(Connelly et al. in press a, p. 15). Nest 

success (one or more eggs hatching from 

a nest), as reported in the scientific 

literature, varies widely (15–86 percent 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 11). Overall, 

the average nest success for sage-grouse 

in habitats where sagebrush has not 

been disturbed is 51 percent and for 

sage-grouse in disturbed habitats is 37 

percent (Connelly et al., in press a, p. 1). 

Re-nesting only occurs if the original 

nest is lost (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 11). 

Sage-grouse re-nesting rates average 28.9 

percent (based on 9 different studies) 

with a range from 5 to 41 percent 

(Connelly et al. 2004. p. 3-11). Other 

game bird species have much higher renesting rates, often exceeding 75 

percent. The impact of re-nesting on 

annual productivity for most sagegrouse populations is unclear and 

thought to be limited (Crawford et al. 

2004, p. 4). In north-central Washington 

State, re-nesting contributed to 38 

percent of the annual productivity of 

that population (Schroeder 1997, p. 

937). However, the author postulated 

that the re-nesting efforts in this 

population may be greater than 

anywhere else in the species’ range 

because environmental conditions allow 

a longer period of time to successfully 

rear a clutch (Schroeder 1997, p. 939). 

Little information is available on the 

level of productivity (number of chicks 

per hen that survive to fall) that is 

necessary to maintain a stable 

population (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13916 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

970). However, Connelly et al. (2000b, 

p. 970, and references therein) suggest 

that 2.25 chicks per hen are necessary 

to maintain stable to increasing 

populations. Long-term productivity 

estimates of 1.40–2.96 chicks per hen 

across the species range have been 

reported (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 

20). Productivity declined slightly after 

1985 to 1.21–2.19 chicks per hen 

(Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 20). 

Despite average clutch sizes of 7 eggs 

(Connelly et al. in press a, p. 15) due to 

low chick survival and limited 

renesting, there is little evidence that 

populations of sage-grouse produce 

large annual surpluses (Connelly et al. 

in press a, p. 24). 

Hens rear their broods in the vicinity 

of the nest site for the first 2–3 weeks 

following hatching (within 0.2–5 km 

(0.1–3.1 mi)), based on two studies in 

Wyoming (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-8). 

Forbs and insects are essential 

nutritional components for chicks 

(Klebenow and Gray 1968, p. 81; 

Johnson and Boyce 1991, p. 90; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-9). Therefore, 

early brood-rearing habitat must provide 

adequate cover (sagebrush canopy cover 

of 10 to 25 percent; Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 977) adjacent to areas rich in 

forbs and insects to ensure chick 

survival during this period (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 4-9). 

All sage-grouse gradually move from 

sagebrush uplands to more mesic areas 

(moist areas such as streambeds or wet 

meadows) during the late brood-rearing 

period (3 weeks post-hatch) in response 

to summer desiccation of herbaceous 

vegetation (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

971). Summer use areas can include 

sagebrush habitats as well as riparian 

areas, wet meadows, and alfalfa fields 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4). These areas 

provide an abundance of forbs and 

insects for both hens and chicks 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly et 

al. 2000a, p. 971). Sage-grouse will use 

free water although they do not require 

it since they obtain their water needs 

from the food they eat. However, natural 

water bodies and reservoirs can provide 

mesic areas for succulent forb and insect 

production, thereby attracting sagegrouse hens with broods (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 4-12). Broodless hens and cocks 

also will use more mesic areas in close 

proximity to sagebrush cover during the 

late summer, often arriving before hens 

with broods (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4- 

10). 

As vegetation continues to desiccate 

through the late summer and fall, sagegrouse shift their diet entirely to 

sagebrush (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). 

Sage-grouse depend entirely on 

sagebrush throughout the winter for 

both food and cover. Sagebrush stand 

selection is influenced by snow depth 

(Patterson 1952, p. 184; Hupp and 

Braun 1989, p. 827), availability of 

sagebrush above the snow to provide 

cover (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-13, 

and references therein) and, in some 

areas, topography (e.g., elevation, slope 

and aspect; Beck 1977, p. 22; Crawford 

et al. 2004, p. 5). 

Many populations of sage-grouse 

migrate between seasonal ranges in 

response to habitat distribution 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-5). Migration 

can occur between winter and breeding 

and summer areas, between breeding, 

summer, and winter areas, or not at all. 

Migration distances of up to 161 km 

(100 mi) have been recorded (Patterson 

1952, p.189); however, distances vary 

depending on the locations of seasonal 

habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3). 

Migration distances for female sagegrouse generally are less than for males 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-4), but in one 

study in Colorado, females traveled 

farther than males (Beck 1977, p. 23). 

Almost no information is available 

regarding the distribution and 

characteristics of migration corridors for 

sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4- 

19). Sage-grouse dispersal (permanent 

moves to other areas) is poorly 

understood (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3- 

5) and appears to be sporadic (Dunn and 

Braun 1986, p. 89). Estimating an 

‘‘average’’ home range for sage-grouse is 

difficult due to the large variation in 

sage-grouse movements both within and 

among populations. This variation is 

related to the spatial availability of 

habitats required for seasonal use, and 

annual recorded home ranges have 

varied from 4 to 615 square kilometers 

(km2) (1.5 to 237.5 square miles (mi2)) 

(Connelly et al., in press a, p. 10). 

Sage-grouse typically live between 3 

and 6 years, but individuals up to 9 

years of age have been recorded in the 

wild (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-12). 

Hens typically survive longer due to a 

disproportionate impact of predation on 

leks to males (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 

14). Juvenile survival (from hatch to first 

breeding season) is affected by food 

availability, habitat quality, harvest, and 

weather. Based on a review of many 

field studies, juvenile survival rates 

range from 7 to 60 percent (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 3-12). The variation in 

juvenile mortality rates may be 

associated with gender, weather, harvest 

rates, age of brood female (broods with 

adult females have higher survival), and 

with habitat quality (rates increase in 

poor habitats) (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 

14; Connelly et al., in press a, p. 20). 

The average annual survival rate for 

male sage-grouse (all ages combined) 

documented in various studies ranged 

from 38 to 60 percent and 55 to 75 

percent for females (Schroeder et al. 

1999, p. 14). Higher female survival 

rates account for a female-biased sex 

ratio in adult birds (Schroeder 1999, p. 

14; Johnsgard 2002, p. 621). The sex 

ratio of sage-grouse breeding 

populations varies widely with values 

between 1.2 and 3 females per male 

being reported (Connelly et al., in press 

a, p. 23). Although seasonal patterns of 

mortality have not been thoroughly 

examined, over-winter mortality 

appears to be low (Connelly et al. 

2000b, p. 229; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

9-4). While both males and females are 

capable of breeding the first spring after 

hatch, young males are rarely successful 

due to the dominance of older males on 

the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). 

Nesting rates of yearling females are 25 

percent less than adult females 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 13). 

Habitat Description and Characteristics 

Sage-grouse are dependent on large 

areas of contiguous sagebrush (Patterson 

1952, p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4- 

1; Connelly et al. in press a, p. 10; 

Wisdom et al. in press, p. 4), and largescale characteristics within surrounding 

landscapes influence sage-grouse habitat 

selection (Knick and Hanser in press, p. 

26). Sagebrush is the most widespread 

vegetation in the intermountain 

lowlands in the western United States 

(West and Young 2000, p. 259) and is 

considered one of the most imperiled 

ecosystems in North America (Knick et 

al. 2003, p. 612; Miller et al. in press, 

p. 4, and references therein). Scientists 

recognize 14 species and 13 subspecies 

of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5- 

2; Miller et al. in press, p. 8), each with 

unique habitat requirements and 

responses to perturbations (West and 

Young 2000, p. 259). Sagebrush species 

and subspecies occurrence in an area is 

dictated by local soil type, soil moisture, 

and climatic conditions (West 1983, p. 

333; West and Young 2000, p. 260; 

Miller et al. in press, pp. 8-11). The 

degree of dominance by sagebrush 

varies with local site conditions and 

disturbance history. Plant associations, 

typically defined by perennial grasses, 

further define distinctive sagebrush 

communities (Miller and Eddleman 

2000, pp. 10-14; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

5-3), and are influenced by topography, 

elevation, precipitation, and soil type. 

These ecological conditions influence 

the response and resiliency of sagebrush 

and their associated understories to 

natural and human-caused changes. 

Sagebrush is typically divided into 

two groups, big sagebrush and low 

sagebrush, based on their affinities for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13917 

different soil types (West and Young 

2000, p. 259). Big sagebrush species and 

subspecies, such as A. tridentata ssp. 

wyomingensis, are limited to coarsetextured and/or well-drained sediments. 

Low sagebrush, such as A. nova, 

typically occur where erosion has 

exposed clay or calcified soil horizons 

(West 1983, p. 334; West and Young 

2000, p. 261). Reflecting these soil 

differences, big sagebrush will die if 

surfaces are saturated long enough to 

create anaerobic conditions for 2 to 3 

days (West and Young 2000, p. 259). 

Some low sagebrush are more tolerant of 

occasionally supersaturated soils, and 

many low sage sites are partially 

flooded during spring snowmelt. None 

of the sagebrush taxa tolerate soils with 

high salinity (West 1983, p. 333; West 

and Young 2000, p. 257). Sagebrush that 

provide important annual and seasonal 

habitats for sage-grouse include three 

subspecies of big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. 

wyomingensis, A. t. ssp. tridentata and 

A. t. ssp. vaseyana), two low forms of 

sagebrush (A. arbuscula (little 

sagebrush) and A. nova), and A. cana 

ssp. cana (Miller et al. in press, p. 8). 

All species of sagebrush produce large 

ephemeral leaves in the spring, which 

persist until reduced soil moisture 

occurs in the summer. Most species also 

produce smaller, over-wintering leaves 

in the late spring that last through 

summer and winter. Sagebrush have 

fibrous tap root systems, which allow 

the plants to draw surface soil moisture, 

and also to access water deep within the 

soil profile when surface water is 

limited (West and Young 2000, p. 259). 

Most sagebrush flower in the fall. 

However, during years of drought or 

other moisture stress, flowering may not 

occur. Although seed viability and 

germination are high, seed dispersal is 

limited. Sagebrush seeds, depending on 

the species, remain viable for 1 to 3 

years. However, Wyoming big sagebrush 

seeds do not persist beyond the year of 

their production (West and Young 2000, 

p. 260). 

Sagebrush is long-lived, with plants of 

some species surviving up to 150 years 

(West 1983, p. 340). They produce 

allelopathic chemicals that reduce seed 

germination, seedling growth, and root 

respiration of competing plant species 

and inhibit the activity of soil microbes 

and nitrogen fixation. Sagebrush has 

resistance to environmental extremes, 

with the exception of fire and 

occasionally defoliating insects (e.g., 

webworm (Aroga spp.); West 1983, p. 

341). Most species of sagebrush are 

killed by fire (West 1983, p. 341; Miller 

and Eddleman 2000, p. 17; West and 

Young 2000, p. 259), and historic firereturn intervals were as long as 350 

years, depending on sagebrush type and 

environmental conditions (Baker in 

press, p. 16). Natural sagebrush 

recolonization in burned areas depends 

on the presence of adjacent live plants 

for a seed source or on the seed bank, 

if present (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 

17), and requires decades for full 

recovery. 

Plants associated with the sagebrush 

understory vary, as does their 

productivity. Both plant composition 

and productivity are influenced by 

moisture availability, soil 

characteristics, climate, and topographic 

position (Miller et al., in press, pp. 8- 

14). Forb abundance can be highly 

variable from year to year and is largely 

affected by the amount and timing of 

precipitation. 

Very little sagebrush within its extant 

range is undisturbed or unaltered from 

its condition prior to EuroAmerican 

settlement in the late 1800s (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 612, and references therein). 

Due to the disruption of primary 

patterns, processes, and components of 

sagebrush ecosystems since 

EuroAmerican settlement (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 612; Miller et al. in press, p. 4), 

the large range of abiotic variation, the 

minimal short-lived seed banks, and the 

long generation time of sagebrush, 

restoration of disturbed areas is very 

difficult. Not all areas previously 

dominated by sagebrush can be restored 

because alteration of vegetation, 

nutrient cycles, topsoil, and living 

(cryptobiotic) soil crusts has exceeded 

recovery thresholds (Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 620). Additionally, processes to 

restore sagebrush ecology are relatively 

unknown (Knick et al. 2003, p. 620). 

Active restoration activities are often 

limited by financial and logistic 

resources and lack of political 

motivation (Knick et al. 2003, p. 620; 

Miller et al. in press, p. 5) and may 

require decades or centuries (Knick et 

al. 2003, p. 620, and references therein). 

Meaningful restoration for greater sagegrouse requires landscape, watershed, or 

eco-regional scale context rather than 

individual, unconnected efforts (Knick 

et al. 2003, p. 623, and references 

therein; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 27). 

Landscape restoration efforts require a 

broad range of partnerships (private, 

State, and Federal) due to 

landownership patterns (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 623; see discussion of 

landownership below). Except for areas 

where active restoration is attempted 

following disturbance (e.g., mining, 

wildfire), management efforts in 

sagebrush ecosystems are usually 

focused on maintaining the remaining 

sagebrush (Miller et al. in press, p. 5; 

Wisdom et al. in press, pp. 26, 30). 

Greater sage-grouse require large, 

interconnected expanses of sagebrush 

with healthy, native understories 

(Patterson 1952, p. 9; Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 623; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-15; 

Connelly et al. in press a, p. 10; Pyke 

in press, p. 7; Wisdom et al. in press, 

p. 4). There is little information 

available regarding minimum sagebrush 

patch sizes required to support 

populations of sage-grouse. This is due 

in part to the migratory nature of some 

but not all sage-grouse populations, the 

lack of juxtaposition of seasonal 

habitats, and differences in local, 

regional, and range-wide ecological 

conditions that influence the 

distribution of sagebrush and associated 

understories. Where home ranges have 

been reported (Connelly et al. in press 

a, p. 10 and references therein), they are 

extremely variable (4 to 615 km2 range 

(1.5 to 237.5 mi2)). Occupancy of a 

home range also is based on multiple 

variables associated with both local 

vegetation characteristics and landscape 

characteristics (Knick et al. 2003, p. 

621). Pyke (in press, p. 18) estimated 

that greater than 4,000 ha (9,884 ac) was 

necessary for population sustainability. 

However, he did not indicate whether 

this value was for migratory or 

nonmigratory populations, nor if this 

included juxtaposition of all seasonal 

habitats. Large seasonal and annual 

movements emphasize the landscape 

nature of the greater sage-grouse (Knick 

et al. 2003, p. 624; Connelly et al. in 

press a, p. 10). 

Range and Distribution of Sage-Grouse 

and Sagebrush 

Prior to settlement of western North 

America by European immigrants in the 

19th century, greater sage-grouse 

occurred in 13 States and 3 Canadian 

provinces—Washington, Oregon, 

California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South 

Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, 

Arizona, British Columbia, Alberta, and 

Saskatchewan (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 

2; Young et al. 2000, p. 445; Schroeder 

et al. 2004, p. 369). Sagebrush habitats 

that potentially supported sage-grouse 

occurred over approximately 1,200,483 

km2 (463,509 mi2) before 1800 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 366). 

Currently, greater sage-grouse occur in 

11 States (Washington, Oregon, 

California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South 

Dakota, and North Dakota), and 2 

Canadian provinces (Alberta and 

Saskatchewan), occupying 

approximately 56 percent of their 

historical range (Schroeder et al. 2004, 

p. 369). Approximately 2 percent of the 

total range of the greater sage-grouse 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13918 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

occurs in Canada, with the remainder in 

the United States (Knick in press, p. 14). 

Sage-grouse have been extirpated 

from Nebraska, British Columbia, and 

possibly Arizona (Schroeder et al. 1999, 

p. 2; Young et al. 2000 p. 445; Schroeder 

et al. 2004, p. 369). Current distribution 

of the greater sage-grouse is estimated at 

668,412 km2 (258,075 mi2; Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 6-9; Schroeder et al. 2004, 

p. 369). Changes in distribution are the 

result of sagebrush alteration and 

degradation (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 

363). 

Sage-grouse distribution is associated 

with sagebrush (Schroeder et al. 2004; 

p. 364), although sagebrush is more 

widely distributed. However, sagebrush 

does not always provide suitable habitat 

due to fragmentation and degradation 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 369, 372). 

Very little of the extant sagebrush is 

undisturbed, with up to 50 to 60 percent 

having altered understories or having 

been lost to direct conversion (Knick et 

al. 2003, p. 612 ). There also are 

challenges in mapping altered and 

depleted understories, particularly in 

semi-arid regions, so maps depicting 

only sagebrush as a dominant cover type 

are deceptive in their reflection of 

habitat quality and, therefore, use by 

sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616). 

As such, variations in the quality of 

sagebrush habitats (from either abiotic 

or anthropogenic events) are reflected 

by sage-grouse distribution and 

densities (Figure 1). 

Sagebrush occurs in two natural 

vegetation types that are delineated by 

temperature and patterns of 

precipitation (Miller et al. in press, p. 7). 

Sagebrush steppe ranges across the 

northern portion of sage-grouse range, 

from British Columbia and the 

Columbia Basin, through the northern 

Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and 

Montana, and into the Wyoming Basin 

and northern Colorado. Great Basin 

sagebrush occurs south of sagebrush 

steppe, and extends from the Colorado 

Plateau westward into Nevada, Utah, 

and California (Miller et al. in press, p. 

7). Other sagebrush types within greater 

sage-grouse range include mixed-desert 

shrubland in the Bighorn Basin of 

Wyoming, and grasslands in eastern 

Montana and Wyoming that also 

support A. cana and A. filifolia (sand 

sagebrush) (Miller et al. in press, p. 7). 

Due to differences in the ecology of 

sagebrush across the range of the greater 

sage-grouse, the Western Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 

delineated seven Management Zones 

(MZs I-VII) based primarily on floristic 

provinces (Figure 2; Table 1; Stiver et al. 

2006, p. 1-6). The boundaries of these 

MZs were delineated based on their 

ecological and biological attributes 

rather than on arbitrary political 

boundaries (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-6). 

Therefore, vegetation found within a 

MZ is similar and sage-grouse and their 

habitats within these areas are likely to 

respond similarly to environmental 

factors and management actions. The 

WAFWA conservation strategy includes 

the Gunnison sage-grouse, and the 

boundary for MZ VII includes its range 

(Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 1-1, 1-8), which 

does not overlap with the range of the 

greater sage-grouse. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP23MR10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13919 

TABLE 1—THE MANAGEMENT ZONES OF THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AS DEFINED BY STIVER et al. (2006, PP. 1-7, 1-11). 

MZ STATES AND PROVINCES INCLUDED FLORISTIC REGION 

I MT, WY, ND, SD, SK, AL Great Plains 

II ID, WY, UT, CO Wyoming Basin 

III UT, NV, CA Southern Great Basin 

IV ID, UT, NV, OR Snake River Plain 

V OR, CA, NV Northern Great Basin 

VI WA Columbia Basin 

VII CO, UT Colorado Plateau 

As stated above, due to the variability 

in habitat conditions, sage-grouse are 

not evenly distributed across the range 

(Figure 1). The MZs I, II, IV, and V 

encompass the core populations of 

greater sage-grouse and have the highest 

reported densities (Table 2, Figures 1, 2; 

Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-12). The MZ III 

is composed of lower density 

populations in the Great Basin, while 

fewer numbers of more dispersed birds 

occur in MZ VI (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1- 

7). 

TABLE 2—RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LEKS, AND NUMBERS OF MALES ATTENDING LEKS BY MANAGEMENT ZONE, BASED ON THE MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LEKS AND MEAN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MALES ATTENDING LEKS BY MZ DURING 2005–2007. 

MZ Relative Abundance of Leks Relative Abundance of Males 

Attending Leks 

I 0.17 0.15 

II 0.48 0.50 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP23MR10.001</GPH>
13920 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF GREATER SAGE-GROUSE LEKS, AND NUMBERS OF MALES ATTENDING LEKS BY MANAGEMENT ZONE, BASED ON THE MEAN NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL LEKS AND MEAN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MALES ATTENDING LEKS BY MZ DURING 2005–2007.—Continued 

MZ Relative Abundance of Leks Relative Abundance of Males 

Attending Leks 

III 0.06 0.07 

IV 0.19 0.18 

V 0.09 0.10 

VI 0.004 0.005 

VII 0.003 0.003 

Land Ownership of Habitats 

Greater sage-grouse extant habitats 

have multiple surface ownerships, as 

reflected in Table 3. Most of the habitats 

occur on Federal surfaces, a reflection of 

land disposal practices during 

EuroAmerican settlement of the western 

United States (Knick in press, pp. 5-10). 

Lands dominated by sagebrush that 

were disposed to private ownership 

typically had deeper soils and greater 

available water capacity or access to 

water (valley bottoms), reflecting their 

capacity for agricultural development or 

increased grazing activities (Knick in 

press, p. 15). The lands remaining in 

Federal ownership were of poorer 

overall quality. The resulting low 

productivity on Federal surfaces affects 

their ability to recover from disturbance 

(Knick in press, p. 17). 

Federal agencies manage almost twothirds of the sagebrush habitats (Table 

3). The Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) manages just over half of sagegrouse habitats, while the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) is responsible for 

management of approximately 8 percent 

of sage-grouse habitat (Table 3). Other 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau 

of Reclamation (BOR), National Park 

Service (NPS), Department of Defense 

(DOD), and Department of Energy (DOE) 

also are responsible for sagebrush 

habitats, but at a much smaller scale 

(Table 3). State agencies manage 

approximately 5 percent of sage-grouse 

habitats. 

TABLE 3—PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF TOTAL SAGEBRUSH AREA (KM2 (MI2)) WITHIN THE SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES (FROM KNICK IN PRESS, P. 39). OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES INCLUDE THE SERVICE, BOR, NPS, DOD, 

AND DOE. MZ VII INCLUDES BOTH GUNNISON AND GREATER SAGE-GROUSE. 

Sage-grouse 

MZ km2 mi2

Sagebrush Management and Ownership 

BLM 

Percent 

Private 

Percent 

USFS 

Percent 

State 

Percent 

BIA 

Percent 

Other 

Federal 

Percent 

I Great Plains 50,264 19,407 17 66 2 7 4 3 

II Wyoming 

Basin 

108,771 41,996 49 35 4 7 4 1 

III Southern 

Great Basin 

92,173 35,588 73 13 10 3 1 0 

IV Snake 

River Plain 

134,187 51,810 53 29 11 6 1 0 

V Northern 

Great Basin 

65,536 25,303 62 21 10 1 1 6 

VI Columbia 

Basin 

12,105 4,674 6 64 2 12 13 3 

VII Colorado 

Plateau 

17,534 6,770 42 36 6 6 9 1 

TOTALS 480,570 185,549 52 31 8 5 3 1 

Population Size 

Estimates of greater sage-grouse 

abundance were mostly anecdotal prior 

to the implementation of systematic 

surveys in the 1950s (Braun 1998, p. 

139). Early reports suggested the birds 

were abundant throughout their range, 

with estimates of historical populations 

ranging from 1,600,000 to 16,000,000 

birds (65 FR 51580, August 24, 2000). 

However, concerns about extinction 

were raised in early literature due to 

market hunting and habitat alteration 

(Hornaday 1916, pp. 181-185). 

Following a review of published 

literature and anecdotal reports, 

Connelly et al. (2004, ES-1-3) concluded 

that the abundance of sage-grouse has 

declined from presettlement (defined as 

1800) numbers. Most of the historical 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13921 

population changes were the result of 

local extirpations, which has been 

inferred from a 44 percent reduction in 

sage-grouse distribution described by 

Schroeder et al. 2004 (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 6-9). 

Population numbers are difficult to 

estimate due to the large range of the 

species, physical difficulty in accessing 

some areas of habitat, the cryptic 

coloration and behavior of hens (Garton 

et al. in press, p. 6), and survey 

protocols. Problems with inconsistent 

sampling protocols for lek surveys (e.g., 

number of times a lek is counted, 

number of leks surveyed in a year, 

observer bias, observer experience, time 

counted) were identified by Walsh et al. 

(2006, pp. 61-64) and Garton et al. (in 

press, p. 6), and many of those problems 

still persist (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 3-1). 

Additionally, estimating population 

sizes using lek data is difficult as the 

relationship of those data to actual 

population size (e.g., ratio of males to 

females, percent unseen birds) is 

usually unknown (WAFWA 2008, p. 3). 

However, the annual counting of males 

on leks remains the primary approach to 

monitor long-term trends of populations 

(WAFWA 2008, p. 3), and standardized 

techniques are beginning to be 

implemented throughout the species’ 

range (Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 3-1 to 3- 

16). The use of harvest data for 

estimating population numbers also is 

of limited value since both harvest and 

the population size on which harvest is 

based are estimates. Given the 

limitations of these data, States usually 

rely on a combination of actual counts 

of birds on leks and harvest data to 

estimate population size. Estimates of 

populations by State, generated from a 

variety of data sources, are provided in 

Table 4. 

TABLE 4—SAGE-GROUSE POPULATION ESTIMATES BASED ON DATA FROM STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES. 

Location Data Year Source Estimated 

Population 

CA/NV 2004 California/Nevada Sage-grouse Conservation Team (2004, p. 26) 88,000 

CO 2008 2007 CO Conservation plan, based on adjusted male lek counts (count + 

1.6 multiplier, sex ratio females:males) (Colorado Greater Sage-grouse 

Steering Committee 2008, p. 56) 

22,646 

ID 2007 Calculated based on assumption of 5% of population is harvested 

(Service, unpublished data) 

98,700 

MT 2007 Calculated based on assumption of 5% of population is harvested 

(Service, unpublished data) 

62,320 

ND 2007 2008 lek counts adjusted (assumes 75% of males counted at lek, & sex 

ratio of 2:1) (A. Robinson, NDGFD, pers. comm., 2008) 

308 

OR 2003 2003 Oregon Conservation Plan Estimate (Hagen 2005, p. 27) 40,000 

SD 2007 South Dakota Game and Fish web page (last updated in 2007) 1,500 

UT 2002 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (2002, p. 13) 12,999 

WA 2003 Washington Division of Fish and Wildlife (Stinson et al. 2004, p. 21) 1,059 

WY 2007 Calculated based on assumption of 5% of population is harvested 

(Service, unpublished data) 

207,560 

Canada 2006 Government of Canada 2010 450 

Braun (1998, p. 141) estimated that 

the minimum 1998 rangewide spring 

population numbered about 157,000 

sage-grouse, derived from numbers of 

males counted on leks. The same year, 

State wildlife agencies within the range 

of the species estimated the population 

was at least 515,000 based on lek counts 

and harvest data (Warren 2008, pers. 

comm.). In 2000, we estimated the 

rangewide abundance of sage-grouse 

was between a minimum of 100,000 

(taken from Braun 1998, p. 141) up to 

500,000 birds (based on harvest data 

from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and 

Wyoming, with the assumption that 10 

percent of the population is typically 

harvested) (65 FR 51578, August 24, 

2000). In 2003, based on increased lek 

survey efforts, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 

13-5) concluded that rangewide 

population numbers were likely much 

greater than the 157,000 estimated by 

Braun (1998, p. 141), but they were 

unable to generate a rangewide 

population estimate. Garton et al., (in 

press, p. 2) estimated a rangewide 

minimum of 88,816 males counted on 

leks in 2007, the last year data were 

formally collated and reported. 

Estimates of historical populations 

range from 1,600,000 to 16,000,000 

birds (65 FR 51580). 

Population Trends 

Although population numbers are 

difficult to estimate, the long-term data 

collected from counting males on leks 

provides insight to population trends. 

Periods of historical decline in sagegrouse abundance occurred from the 

late 1800s to the early-1900s (Hornaday 

1916, pp. 179-221; Crawford 1982, pp. 

3-6; Drut 1994, pp. 2-5; WDFW 1995; 

Braun 1998, p. 140; Schroeder et al. 

1999, p. 1). Other noticeable declines in 

sage-grouse populations occurred in the 

1920s and 1930s, and then again in the 

1960s and 1970s (Connelly and Braun 

1997, pp. 3-4; Braun 1998, p. 141). 

Declines in the 1920s and 1930s were 

attributed to hunting, and declines in 

the 1960s and 1970s were primarily as 

a result of loss of habitat quality and 

quantity (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 

2). State wildlife agencies were 

sufficiently concerned with the decline 

in the 1920s and 1930s that many closed 

their hunting seasons and others 

significantly reduced bag limits and 

season lengths as a precautionary 

measure (Patterson 1952, pp. 30-33; 

Autenrieth 1981, p. 10). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13922 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Using lek counts as an index for 

abundance, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 6- 

71) reported rangewide declines from 

1965 through 2003. Declines averaged 2 

percent per year from 1965 to 2003. The 

decline was more dramatic from 1965 

through 1985, with an average annual 

change of 3.5 percent. The rate of 

decline rangewide slowed to 0.37 

percent annually during 1986 to 2003 

and some populations increased 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). Based on 

these analyses, Connelly et al. 2004 (p. 

6-71) estimated that sage-grouse 

population numbers in the late 1960s 

and early 1970s were likely two to three 

times greater than current numbers 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). Using a 

statistical population reconstruction 

approach, Garton et al. (in press, p. 67) 

also demonstrated a pattern of higher 

numbers of sage-grouse in the late 1960s 

and early 1970s, which was supported 

by data from several other sources 

(Garton et al. in press, p. 68). 

In 2008, WAFWA conducted new 

population trend analyses that 

incorporated an additional 4 years of 

data beyond the Connelly et al. 2004 

analysis (WAFWA 2008, entire). 

Although the WAFWA analyses used 

different statistical techniques, lek 

counts also were used. WAFWA results 

were similar to Connelly et al. (2004) in 

that a long-term population decline was 

detected during 1965 to 2007 (average 

3.1 percent annually; WAFWA 2008, p. 

12). WAFWA attributed the decline to 

the reduction in number of active leks 

(WAFWA 2008, p. 51). Similar to 

Connelly et al. (2004), the WAFWA 

analyses determined that the rate of 

decline lessened during 1985 to 2007 

(average annual change of 1.4 percent 

annually) (WAFWA 2008, p. 58). Garton 

et al. (in press, pp. 68-69) also had 

similar results. While the average 

annual rate of decline has lessened 

since 1985 (3.1 to 1.4 percent), 

population declines continue and 

populations are now at much lower 

levels than in the early 1980’s. 

Therefore, these continuing negative 

trends at such low relative numbers are 

concerning regarding long-term 

population persistence. Similarly, shortterm increases or stable trends, while on 

the surface seem encouraging, do not 

indicate that populations are recovering 

but may instead be a function of losing 

leks and not increases in numbers 

(WAFWA 2008, p.51). Population 

stability may also be compromised if 

cycles in sage-grouse populations 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 15; Connelly 

et al. 2004, p.6-71) are lost, which 

current analyses suggest, minimizing 

the opportunities for population 

recovery if habitat were available 

(Garton 2009, pers. comm.). 

Although the MZs were not formally 

adopted by WAFWA until 2006, the 

population trend analyses conducted by 

Connelly et al. (2004) included trend 

analyses based on the same floristic 

provinces used to define the zones. 

While the average annual rate of change 

was not presented, the results of those 

analyses indicated long-term declines in 

greater sage-grouse for MZs I, II, III, IV 

and VI. Population trends in MZs V and 

VII were increasing, but the trends were 

not statistically significant (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 6-71; Stiver et al. 2006, p. 

1-7). WAFWA (2008) and Garton et al. 

(in press) population trend analyses did 

consider MZs. The WAFWA (2008, pp. 

13-27) and Garton et al. (in press, pp. 

22-62) reported that MZs I through VI 

had negative population trends from 

1965 to 2007. All population trend 

analyses had similar results, with the 

exception of MZ VII (Table 5). However, 

this MZ has one of the highest 

proportions of inactive leks (Garton et 

al. in press, p. 65), which may imply 

that male numbers on the remaining 

leks are increasing as birds relocate. The 

analysis of this MZ also suffered from 

small sample sizes and therefore large 

confidence intervals (Garton et al. in 

press, p. 217), so the trend may not 

actually reflect the population status. 

TABLE 5—LONG-TERM POPULATION TREND ESTIMATES FOR GREATER SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES. 

MZ 

States and 

Provinces 

Included 

Population Trend Estimates 1965- 

2003* (Connelly et al. 2004) 

Population Trend Estimates Based 

on Annual Rates of Change (%) 

1965-2007(WAFWA 2008) 

Population Trend Estimates 

Based on Annual Rates of 

Change (%) 1965–2007 (Garton 

et al. in press) 

I MT, WY, ND, SD, 

SK, AL 

Long-term decline -2.9 -2.9 

II ID, WY, UT, CO Long-term decline -2.7 -3.5 

III UT, NV, CA Long-term decline -2.2 -10** 

IV ID, UT, NV, OR Long-term decline -3.8 -4** 

V OR, CA, NV Change statistically undetectable -3.3 -2** 

VI WA Long-term decline -5.1 -6.5 

VII CO, UT Change statistically undetectable No detectable trend +34** 

*Average annual rate of change was not reported. 

**Due to sample inadequacies for the statistical analyses used, only data from 1995 to 2007 could be used. 

Differences in the MZ trends observed 

between the three analyses are minimal, 

with the exception of MZs III, V, and 

VII. While the results of Connelly et al. 

(2004) and WAFWA (2008) were similar 

for MZ III, Garton et al. (in press) 

showed a larger rate of decline. This 

difference may be due to the shortened 

time period (12 versus 42 years) Garton 

et al. (in press) used for the analyses 

because some earlier data were not 

suitable for the statistical procedures 

used. This increased rate of decline was 

not observed for MZ IV where Garton et 

al.’s (in press) analyses also spanned 

only 12 years, suggesting that declines 

in MZ III may have recently accelerated. 

No explanation was offered by WAFWA 

(2008) about the difference between 

their analyses and Connelly et al. (2004) 

for MZ V. However, Garton et al. (in 

press) results are similar to WAFWA for 

the same area. 

The difference in the annual rate of 

change between Connelly et al. (2004) 

and WAFWA (2008) as compared to 

Garton et al. (in press) for MZ VII is 

substantial (Table 5). Garton et al. (in 

press) did not offer an explanation of 

this difference, but Connelly et al. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13923 

(2004; as cited by (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 

1-7)) indicated population trends were 

increasing in this MZ, although those 

increases were not statistically 

significant. However, Garton et al. (in 

press, pp. 62-63) reported that the 

number of leks in MZ VII declined by 

39 percent during the same analysis 

period. The increase in annual rate of 

change may simply reflect increases on 

remaining leks as habitat became more 

limited. 

In addition to calculating annual rates 

of change by MZ, Garton et al (in press) 

also reported the percent change in 

number of males per lek from 1965 to 

2007, the percent change of active leks 

from 1965 to 2007, and minimum male 

population estimates in 2007 (Table 6). 

The percent change in number of males 

per lek and the percent change in active 

leks reflect population declines, and 

possibly habitat loss in all MZs. 

TABLE 6—MINIMUM MALE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE POPULATION ESTIMATES IN 2007, PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF

MALES PER LEK AND PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF ACTIVE LEKS BETWEEN 1965 AND 2007 BY MANAGEMENT ZONE

(FROM GARTON et al. IN PRESS, PP. 22-64). 

MZ Min Population Est in 2007 

(# of males) 

Percent Change in 

# of Males per Lek (1965–2007) 

Percent Change of Active Leks 

(1965–2007) 

I 14,814 -17 -22 

II 42,429 -30 -7 

III 6,851 -24 -16 *** 

IV 15,761 -54 -11*** 

V 6,925 -17** -21** 

VI 315 -76 -57 

VII 241 -13 -39* 

*1995 to 2007 — due to sample sizes, only data from this time period were used. 

**1985 to 2007 — due to sample sizes, only data from this time period were used. 

***1975 to 2007 — due to sample sizes, only data from this time period were used. 

In summary, since neither 

presettlement nor current numbers of 

sage-grouse are accurately known, the 

actual rate and magnitude of decline 

since presettlement times is uncertain. 

However, three groups of researchers 

using different statistical methods (but 

the same lek count data) concluded that 

rangewide greater sage-grouse have 

experienced long-term population 

declines in the past 43 years, with that 

decline lessening in the past 22 years. 

Many of these declines are the result of 

loss of leks (WAFWA 2008, p. 51), 

indicating either a direct loss of habitat 

or habitat function (Connelly and Braun 

1997, p. 2). A recent increase in the 

annual rate of change for MZ VII may 

simply be an anomaly of small 

population numbers, as other indicators 

suggest this area is suffering habitat 

losses. A delayed response of sagegrouse to changes in carrying capacity 

was identified by Garton et al. (in press, 

p.71). 

Connectivity 

Greater sage-grouse are a landscapescale species, requiring large expanses 

of sagebrush to meet all seasonal habitat 

requirements. The loss of habitat from 

fragmentation and conversion decreases 

the connectivity between seasonal 

habitats potentially resulting in the loss 

of the population (Doherty et al. 2008, 

p. 194). Loss of connectivity also can 

increase population isolation (Knick 

and Hanser in press, p. 4, and references 

therein) and, therefore, the probability 

of loss of genetic diversity and 

extirpation from stochastic events. 

Analyses of connectivity of greater 

sage-grouse across the sagebrush 

landscape were conducted by Knick and 

Hanser (in press, entire). Knick and 

Hanser (in press, p. 29) found that the 

average movement between population 

centers (leks) of sage-grouse rangewide 

was 16.6 km (10.3 mi), with a standard 

deviation of 7.3 km (4.5 mi). Leks 

within 18 km (11.2 mi) of each other 

had common features when compared 

to leks further than this distance (Knick 

and Hanser in press, p. 17). Therefore, 

they used a distance of 18 km (11.2 mi) 

between leks to assess connectivity 

(movement between populations), but 

cautioned that this distance may not 

accurately reflect genetic flow, or lack 

thereof, between populations (Knick 

and Hanser in press, p. 28). Genetic 

evidence suggests that exchange of 

individual birds has not been restricted, 

although there is a gradation of allelic 

frequencies across the species’ range 

(Oyler-McCance and Quinn, in press, p. 

14). This result suggests that widespread 

movements (e.g., across several States) 

are not occurring. 

Population linkages primarily 

occurred within MZs, and connectivity 

between MZs was limited, with the 

exception of MZs I (Great Plains) and II 

(Wyoming Basin). Within MZs, the 

Wyoming Basin (MZ II) had the highest 

levels of connectivity, followed by MZ 

IV (Snake River Plain) and MZ I (Great 

Plains) (Knick and Hanser in press, p. 

18). The MZ VI (Columbia Basin) and 

VII (Colorado Plateau) had the least 

internal connectivity, suggesting there 

was limited dispersal between leks and 

an existing relatively high degree of 

isolation (Knick and Hanser in press, p. 

18). Areas along the edges of the sagegrouse range (e.g., Columbia Basin, BiState area) are currently isolated from 

other sage-grouse populations (Knick 

and Hanser in press, p. 28). 

Connectivity between sage-grouse 

MZs and the populations within them 

declined across all three analysis 

periods examined: 1965–1974, 1980– 

1989, and 1998–2007. The decline in 

connectivity was due to the loss of leks 

and reduced population size (Knick and 

Hanser in press, p. 29). Historic leks 

with low connectivity also were lost 

(Knick and Hanser in press, p. 20), 

suggesting that current isolation of leks 

by distance (including habitat 

fragmentation) will likely result in their 

future loss (Knick and Hanser in press, 

p. 28). Small decreases in lek 

connectivity resulted in large increases 

in probability of lek abandonment 

(Knick and Hanser, in press, p. 29). 

Therefore, maintaining habitat 

connectivity and sage-grouse population 

numbers are essential for sage-grouse 

persistence. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13924 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Sagebrush distribution was the most 

important factor in maintaining 

connectivity (Knick and Hanser in 

press, p. 32). This result suggests that 

any activities that remove or fragment 

sagebrush habitats will contribute to 

loss of connectivity and population 

isolation. This conclusion is consistent 

with research from both Aldridge et al. 

(2008, p. 988) and Wisdom et al. (in 

press, p. 13), which independently 

identified the proximity of sagebrush 

patches and area in sagebrush cover as 

the best predictors for sage-grouse 

presence. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

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

and implementing regulations (50 CFR 

part 424) set forth procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. In making this finding, we 

summarize below information regarding 

the status and threats to the greater sagegrouse in relation to the five factors 

provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Under section (4) of the Act, we may 

determine a species to be endangered or 

threatened on the basis of any of the 

following five factors: (A) Present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. Our evaluation of threats is 

based on information provided in the 

petition, available in our files, and other 

sources considered to be the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, including published and 

unpublished studies and reports. 

Differences in ecological conditions 

within each MZ affect the susceptibility 

of these areas to the various threats 

facing sagebrush ecosystems and its 

potential for restoration. For example, 

Centaurea diffusa (diffuse knapweed), 

an exotic annual weed, is most 

competitive within shrub-grassland 

communities where antelope bitterbrush 

is dominant (MZ VI), and Bromus 

tectorum (cheatgrass) is more dominant 

in areas with minimal summer 

precipitation (MZs III and V) (Miller et 

al., in press, pp. 20-21). Therefore, we 

stratify our analyses by these MZs 

because they represent zones within 

which ecological variation is less than 

what it would be across the range of the 

species. This approach allows us to 

better assess the impact and benefits of 

actions occurring across the species’ 

range and in turn more accurately assess 

the status of the species. 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Habitat or Range 

Several factors are contributing to the 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the greater sage-grouse’s 

habitat or range. Several recent studies 

have demonstrated that sagebrush area 

is one of the best landscape predictors 

of greater sage-grouse persistence 

(Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 987; Doherty et 

al. 2008, p. 191; Wisdom et al., in press, 

p. 17). Sagebrush habitats are becoming 

increasingly degraded and fragmented 

due to the impacts of multiple threats, 

including direct conversion, 

urbanization, infrastructure such as 

roads and powerlines built in support of 

several activities, wildfire and the 

change in wildfire frequency, incursion 

of invasive plants, grazing, and 

nonrenewable and renewable energy 

development. Many of these threat 

factors are exacerbated by the effects of 

climate change, which may influence 

long-term habitat trends. 

Habitat Conversion for Agriculture 

Sagebrush is estimated to have 

covered roughly 120 million ha (296 

million ac; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 365) 

in western North America, but large 

portions of that area have been 

cultivated for the production of 

agricultural crops (e.g., potatoes, wheat; 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16; 2000, p. 

11). Western rangelands were converted 

to agricultural lands on a large scale 

beginning with the series of Homestead 

Acts in the 1800s (Braun 1998, p. 142, 

Hays et al. 1998, p. 26; Knick in press, 

p. 4; Knick et al. in press, p. 11), 

especially where suitable deep soil 

terrain and water were available (Rogers 

1964, p.13, Schroeder and Vander 

Haegen, 2009, in press, p. 3). Connelly 

et al. (2004, p. 5-55) estimated that 24.9 

million ha (61.5 million ac) within the 

sage-grouse conservation area (SGCA) 

used for their assessment area (historic 

range of Gunnison and greater sagegrouse plus a 50-km (31-mi) buffer) for 

sage-grouse is now comprised of 

agricultural lands, although some areas 

within the species’ range are not 

sagebrush habitat, and the SGCA is 

larger than the sage-grouse current 

distribution. An estimated 10 percent of 

sagebrush steppe that existed prior to 

EuroAmerican settlement has been 

converted to agriculture (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 13). The remaining 90 percent 

is largely unsuited for agriculture 

because irrigation is not considered to 

be feasible, topography and soils are 

limiting, or temperatures are too 

extreme for many crops (West 1996 

cited in Knick et al. in press, p. 13). 

Habitat conversion results in loss of 

habitat available for sage-grouse use. 

The actual effect of this loss depends on 

the amount of sagebrush lost, the type 

of seasonal habitat affected, and the 

arrangement of habitat lost (large blocks 

or small patches) (Knick et al. in press, 

p. 15). Direct impacts to sage-grouse 

depend on the timing of conversion 

(e.g., loss of nests, eggs). Indirect effects 

of agricultural activities adjoining 

sagebrush habitats include increased 

predation with a resulting reduced sagegrouse nest success (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-23), increased human 

presence, and habitat fragmentation. 

To estimate the area possibly 

influenced by these indirect effects, 

Knick et al. (in press, p. 13) applied a 

‘‘high effective buffer’’ out to 6.9 km (4.3 

mi) from agricultural lands, based on 

foraging distances of synathropic 

(ecologically associated with humans) 

predators (e.g. red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) 

and ravens (Corvus corax)). Given the 

distribution of agricultural activities 

across the sagebrush range, nearly three 

quarters of all sagebrush within range of 

sage-grouse has been influenced by 

agricultural activities (falls within the 

high effective buffer) (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 13). This influence includes 

foraging distances for synathropic 

predators (Leu et al. 2008, p. 1120; 

Knick et al. in press, p. 13), and 

associated features such as irrigation 

ditches. Extensive conversion of 

sagebrush to agriculture within a 

landscape has decreased abundance of 

sage-grouse in many portions of their 

range (Knick and Hanser in press, p. 30, 

and references therein). 

Soil associations have resulted in 

disproportionate levels of habitat 

conversion across different sagebrush 

communities. For example, Artemisia 

tridentata ssp. vaseyana is found at 

lower elevations, in soils that retain 

moisture 2 to 4 weeks longer than in 

well-drained, but dry and higher 

elevation soils typical of A. t. ssp. 

wyomingensis locations. Therefore, 

sagebrush communities dominated by 

basin big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. tridentata) 

have been converted to agriculture more 

extensively than have communities on 

poorer soil sites (Winward 2004, p. 29) 

(also see discussion below). 

Large losses of sagebrush shrubsteppe habitats due to agricultural 

conversion have occurred in some areas 

within the range of the greater sagegrouse. This loss has been especially 

apparent in the Columbia Basin of the 

Northwest (MZ VI), the Snake River 

Plain of Idaho (MZ IV) (Schroeder et al. 

2004, p. 370), and the Great Plains (MZ 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13925 

I) (Knick et al. in press, p. 13). Hironaka 

et al. (1983, p. 27) estimated that 99 

percent of basin big sagebrush habitat in 

the Snake River Plain has been 

converted to cropland. Between 1975 

and 1992 alone, 29,762 ha (73,543 ac) of 

sagebrush habitat were converted to 

cropland on the Upper Snake River 

Plain, a 74-percent increase in cropland 

(Leonard et al. 2000, p. 268). The loss 

of this primarily winter sage-grouse 

habitat is significantly related to 

subsequent sage-grouse declines 

(Leonard et al. 2000, p. 268). 

Prior to EuroAmerican settlement in 

the 19th century, Washington had an 

estimated 42 million ha (103.8 million 

ac) of shrub-steppe (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-22). Approximately 60 

percent of the original shrub-steppe 

habitat in Washington has been 

converted to primarily agricultural uses 

(Dobler 1994, p. 2). Deep soils 

supporting shrub-steppe communities 

in Washington within sage-grouse range 

continue to be converted to agricultural 

uses (Vander Haegen et al. 2000, p. 

1156), resulting in habitat loss. 

Agriculture is the dominant land cover 

within sagebrush areas of Washington 

(42 percent) and Idaho (19 percent) 

(Miller et al., in press, p. 18). In northcentral Oregon (MZ V), approximately 

2.6 million ha (6.4 million ac) of habitat 

were converted for agricultural 

purposes, essentially eliminating sagegrouse from this area (Willis et al. 1993, 

p. 35). More broadly, across the interior 

Columbia Basin of southern Idaho, 

northern Utah, northern Nevada, eastern 

Oregon (MZ IV), and Washington, 

approximately 6 million ha (14.8 

million ac) of shrub-steppe habitat has 

been converted to agricultural crops 

(Altman and Holmes 2000, p. 10). 

Braun concluded that development of 

irrigation projects to support 

agricultural production in areas where 

soils were sufficient to support 

agriculture, in some cases conjointly 

with hydroelectric dam construction, 

has resulted in additional sage-grouse 

habitat loss (Braun 1998, p. 142). The 

reservoirs formed by these projects 

impacted native shrub-steppe habitat 

adjacent to the rivers in addition to 

supporting the irrigation and direct 

conversion of shrub-steppe lands to 

agriculture. The projects precipitated 

conversion of large expanses of upland 

shrub-steppe habitat in the Columbia 

Basin for irrigated agriculture (65 FR 

51578). The creation of these reservoirs 

also inundated hundreds of kilometers 

of riparian habitats used by sage-grouse 

broods (Braun 1998, p. 144). However, 

other small and isolated reclamation 

projects (4,000 to 8,000 ha (10,000 to 

20,000 ac)) were responsible for threefold localized increases in sage-grouse 

populations (Patterson 1952, pp. 266- 

274) by providing water in a semiarid 

environment, which provided 

additional insect and forb food 

resources (e.g., Eden Reclamation 

Project in Wyoming). Benefits of 

providing water through agricultural 

activities may now be negated due to 

the threat of West Nile virus (WNv) 

(Walker et al. 2004, p. 4). 

Five percent of the areas occupied by 

Great Basin sagebrush have been 

converted to agriculture, urban or 

industrial areas (MZs III and IV) (Miller 

et al. in press, p. 18). Five percent has 

also been converted in the wheatgrassneedlegrass-shrubsteppe (MZ II, 

primarily in north-central Wyoming) 

(Miller et al., in press, p. 18). In 

sagebrush-steppe habitats, 14 percent of 

sagebrush habitats had been converted 

to agriculture, urban or industrial 

activities (MZs II, IV, V, and VI) (Miller 

et al., in press, pp. 17-18). Nineteen 

percent of the Great Plains area (MZ I) 

has been converted to agriculture (Knick 

et al. in press, p. 13). Conversions for 

sagebrush habitat types by State are 

detailed in Table 7. 

TABLE 7—CURRENT SAGEBRUSH-STEPPE HABITAT AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN GREAT BASIN SAGEBRUSH (AS

DERIVED FROM LANDFIRE 2006 VEGETATION COVERAGE) (FROM MILLER et al. IN PRESS, PP. 17-18). 

State Percent Sagebrush Percent 

Agriculture 

Washington 23.7 42.4 

Montana 56.2* 7.5* 

Wyoming 66.0* 3.4* 

Idaho 55.0 18.6 

Oregon 64.5 8.6 

Nevada 58.7 1.3 

Utah 37.6 9.7 

California 49.8 8.0 

Colorado 40.6* 11.8* 

TOTAL 55.4 10.0 

*Analyses did not include sagebrush lands in the eastern portions of Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming. 

Aldridge et al. (2008, pp. 990-991) 

reported that sage-grouse extirpations 

were more likely to occur in areas where 

cultivated crops exceeded 25 percent. 

Their results supported the conclusions 

of others (e.g., Schroeder 1997, p. 934; 

Braun 1998, p. 142; Aldridge and 

Brigham 2003, p. 30) that extensive 

cultivation and fragmentation of native 

habitats have been associated with sagegrouse population declines. Wisdom et 

al. (in press, p. 4) identified 

environmental factors associated with 

the regional extirpation of sage-grouse. 

Areas still occupied by sage-grouse have 

three times less area in agriculture and 

a mean human density 26 times lower 

than extirpated areas (Wisdom et al., in 

press, p. 13). While sage-grouse may 

forage on agricultural crops (see 

discussion below), they avoid 

landscapes dominated by agriculture 

(Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 991). 

Conversions to croplands in southern 

Idaho have resulted in isolation of 

sagebrush-dominated landscapes into 

less productive regions north and south 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13926 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

of the Snake River Plain (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 618). Therefore, formerly 

continuous populations in this area are 

now disconnected (Knick and Hanser in 

press, p. 52). 

Sagebrush habitat continues to be 

converted for both dryland and irrigated 

crop production (Montana Farm 

Services Agency (FSA) in litt, 2009; 

Braun 1998, p. 142; 65 FR 51578, 

August 24, 2000). The increasing value 

of wheat and corn crops has driven new 

conversions in recent years. For 

example, the acres of sagebrush 

converted to tilled agriculture in 

Montana increased annually from 2005 

to 2009, with approximately 10,259 ha 

(25,351 ac) converted, primarily in the 

eastern two-thirds of the State (MZ I) 

(Montana FSA in litt, 2009). In addition, 

in 2008, a single conversion in central 

Montana totaled between 3,345 and 

10,000 ha (10,000 and 30,000 ac) (MZ I) 

(Hanebury 2008a, pers. comm.). Other 

large conversions occurred in the same 

part of Montana in 2008, although these 

were unquantified (Hanebury 2008b, 

pers. comm.). We were unable to gather 

any further information on crop 

conversions of sagebrush habitats as 

there are no systematic efforts to collect 

State or local data on conversion rates 

in the majority of the greater sage-grouse 

range (GAO 2007, p. 16). 

In addition to crop conversion for 

traditional crops, recent interest in the 

development of crops for use as biofuels 

could potentially impact sage-grouse. 

For example, the 2008 Farm Bill 

authorized the Biomass Crop Assistance 

Program (BCAP), which provides 

financial incentives to agricultural 

producers that establish and produce 

eligible crops for conversion to 

bioenergy products (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 2009b, p. 1). 

Further loss of sagebrush habitats due to 

BCAP will negatively impact sagegrouse populations. However, currently 

we have no way of predicting the 

magnitude of BCAP impacts to sagegrouse (see discussion under Factor D, 

below). 

Although conversion of shrub-steppe 

habitat to agricultural crops impacts 

sage-grouse through the loss of 

sagebrush on a broad scale, some 

studies report the use of agricultural 

crops (e.g., alfalfa) by sage-grouse. When 

alfalfa fields and other croplands are 

adjacent to extant sagebrush habitat, 

sage-grouse have been observed feeding 

in these fields, especially during broodrearing (Patterson 1952, p. 203; Rogers 

1964, p. 53; Wallestad 1971, p. 134; 

Connelly et al. 1988, p.120; Fischer et 

al. 1997, p. 89). Connelly et al. (1988, 

p. 120) reported seasonal movements of 

sage-grouse to agricultural crops as 

sagebrush habitats desiccated during the 

summer. However, use of irrigated crops 

may not be beneficial to greater sagegrouse if it increases exposure to 

pesticides (Knick et al. in press, p. 16) 

and WNv (Walker et al. 2004, p. 4). 

Some conversion of cropland to 

sagebrush has occurred in former sagegrouse habitats through the USDA’s 

voluntary Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) which pays landowners 

a rental fee to plant permanent 

vegetation on portions of their lands, 

taking them out of agricultural 

production. In Washington State 

(Columbia Basin, MZ VI), sage-grouse 

have declined precipitously in the 

Columbia Basin largely due to 

conversion of sagebrush habitats to 

cropland (Schroeder and Vander 

Haegen, in press, p. 4). Approximately 

599,314 ha (1,480,937 ac) of converted 

farmland had been enrolled in the CRP, 

almost all of which was historically 

shrub-steppe (Schroeder and Vander 

Haegen in press, p. 5). Schroeder and 

Vander Haegen (in press, p. 20) found 

that CRP lands that have been out of 

production long enough to allow reestablishment of sagebrush and was 

juxtaposed to a relatively intact shrubsteppe landscape was most beneficial to 

sage-grouse. There appears to be some 

correlation with sage-grouse use of CRP 

and a slight increase in population size 

in north-central Washington (Schroeder 

and Vander Haegen in press, p. 21). 

Schroeder and Vander Haegen (in press, 

p. 21) concluded that the loss of CRP 

due to expiration of the program or 

incentives to produce biofuels would 

likely severely impact populations in 

the Columbia Basin. 

Although estimates of the numbers of 

acres enrolled rangewide in CRP (and 

the number of acres soon to expire from 

CRP) are available, the extent of 

cropland conversion to habitats 

beneficial to sage-grouse (i.e., CRP lands 

planted with native grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs) is not known for any other area 

barring the Columbia Basin. Thus, 

outside this area, we cannot judge the 

overall impact of CRP land to sagegrouse persistence. 

Direct habitat loss and conversion 

also occurs via numerous other 

landscape uses, including urbanization, 

livestock forage production, road 

building, and oil pads. These activities 

are described in greater detail below. 

Although we were unable to obtain an 

estimate of the total amount of 

sagebrush habitats that have been lost 

due to these activities, they have 

resulted in habitat fragmentation, as 

well as habitat loss. 

Urbanization 

Low densities of indigenous peoples 

have been present for more than 12,000 

years in the historical range of sagegrouse. By 1900, less than 1 person per 

km2 (1 person per 0.4 mi2) resided in 51 

percent of the 325 counties within the 

SGCA, and densities greater than 10 

persons per km2 (10 persons per 0.4 

mi2) occurred in 4 percent of the 

counties (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-24). 

By 2000, counties with less than 1 

person per km2 (1 person per 0.4 mi2) 

occurred in 31 percent of the 325 

counties and densities greater than 10 

persons per km2 (10 persons per 0.4 

mi2) occurred in 22 percent of the 

counties (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). 

Today, the Columbia Basin (MZ VI) has 

the highest density of humans while the 

Great Plains (MZ I) and Wyoming Basin 

(MZ II) have the lowest (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 19). Growth in the Great Plains 

(MZ I) continues to be slower than other 

areas. For example, population densities 

have increased since 1990 by 7 percent 

in the Great Plains (MZ I), by 19 percent 

in the Wyoming Basin (MZ II), and by 

31 percent in the Colorado Plateau (MZ 

VII) (Knick et al. in press, p. 19). 

The dominant urban areas in the sagegrouse range are located in the Bear 

River Valley of Utah, the portion of 

Bonneville Basin southeast of the Great 

Salt Lake, the Snake River Valley of 

southern Idaho, and the Columbia River 

Valley of Washington (Rand McNally 

Road Atlas 2003; Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 7-25). Overall, approximately 1 

percent of the amount of potential 

sagebrush (estimated historic range) is 

now covered by lands classified as 

urban (Miller et al., in press, p. 18). 

Knick et al (in press, p. 107) examined 

the influence of urbanization on greater 

sage-grouse MZs by adding a 6.9-km 

(4.3-mi) buffer (an estimate of the 

foraging distances of mammalian and 

corvid predators of sage-grouse) to the 

total area of urban land use. Based the 

estimates using this approach, the 

Columbia Basin (MZ VI) was influenced 

the most by urbanization with 48.4 

percent of the sagebrush area affected. 

The Northern Great Basin (MZ V) was 

influenced least with 12.5 percent 

affected. Wyoming Basin (MZ II), which 

has the majority of sage-grouse in the 

range, was at 18.4 percent affected. 

Since 1950, the western U.S. 

population growth rate has exceeded the 

national average (Leu and Hanser in 

press, p. 4). This growth has led to 

increases in urban, suburban, and rural 

development. Rural development has 

increased especially rapidly in recent 

decades. For example, the amount of 

uninhabited area in the Great Basin 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13927 

ecoregion has decreased from 90,000 

km2 (34,749 mi2) in 1990 to less than 

12,000 km2 (4,633 mi2) in 2004 (Knick 

et al. in press, p. 20). Urbanization has 

directly eliminated some sage-grouse 

habitat (Braun 1998, p. 145). Interrelated 

effects from urbanization include 

construction of associated infrastructure 

(e.g., roads, powerlines, and pipelines) 

and predation threats from the 

introduction of domestic pets and 

increases in predators subsidized by 

human activities. In particular, 

municipal solid waste landfills 

(landfills) and roads have been shown to 

contribute to increases in common 

raven (Corvus corax) populations 

(Knight et al. 1993 p. 470; Restani et al. 

2001, p. 403; Webb et al. 2004, p. 523). 

Ravens are known to be an important 

predator on sage-grouse nests and have 

been considered a restraint on sagegrouse population growth in some 

locations (Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 

14; Autenrieth 1981, p. 45; Coates 2007, 

p. 26). Landfills (and roads) are found 

in every State within the greater sagegrouse range and a number of these are 

located within or adjacent to sagegrouse habitat. 

Recent changes in demographic and 

economic trends have resulted in greater 

than 60 percent of the Rocky Mountain 

West’s counties experiencing rural 

sprawl where rural areas are outpacing 

urban areas in growth (Theobald 2003, 

p. 3). In some Colorado counties, up to 

50 percent of sage-grouse habitat is 

under rural subdivision development, 

and an estimated 3 to 5 percent of all 

sage-grouse historical habitat in 

Colorado has already been converted 

into urban areas (Braun 1998, p. 145). 

We are unaware of similar estimates for 

other States within the range of the 

greater sage-grouse and, therefore, 

cannot determine the effects of this 

factor on a rangewide basis. Rural 

development has increasingly taken the 

form of low-density (approximately 6 to 

25 homes per km2 (6 to 25 homes per 

0.4 mi2)) home development or exurban 

growth (Hansen et al. 2005, p. 1894). 

Between 1990 and 2000, 120,000 km2

(46,332 mi2) of land were developed at 

exurban densities nationally (Theobald 

2001, p. 553). However, this value 

includes development nationwide, and 

we are unable to report values 

specifically for sagebrush habitats. 

However, within the Great Basin 

(including California, Idaho, Nevada, 

and Utah), human populations have 

increased 69 percent and uninhabited 

areas declined by 86 percent between 

1990 and 2004 (Leu and Hanser in 

press, p. 19). Similar to higher density 

urbanization, exurban development has 

the potential to negatively affect sagegrouse populations through 

fragmentation or other indirect habitat 

loss, increased infrastructure, and 

increased predation. 

In modeling sage-grouse persistence, 

Aldridge et al. (2008, pp. 991-992) 

found that the density of humans in 

1950 was the best predictor of sagegrouse extirpation among the human 

population metrics considered 

(including increasing human population 

growth). Sage-grouse extirpation was 

more likely in areas having a moderate 

human population density of at least 4 

people per km2 (4 people per 0.4 mi2). 

Increasing human populations were not 

a good predictor of sage-grouse 

persistence, most likely because much 

of the growth occurred in areas that are 

already no longer suitable for sagegrouse. Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 990) 

also reported that, based on their 

models, sage-grouse require a minimum 

of 25 percent sagebrush for persistence 

in an area. A high probability of 

persistence required 65 percent 

sagebrush or more. This result is similar 

to the results by Wisdom et al. (in press, 

p. 18) who reported that human density 

was 26 times greater in extirpated sagegrouse areas than in currently occupied 

range. Therefore, human population 

growth that results in exurban 

development in sagebrush habitats will 

reduce the likelihood of sage-grouse 

persistence in the area. Given the 

current demographic and economic 

trends in the Rocky Mountain West, we 

believe that rates of urbanization will 

continue increasing, resulting in further 

habitat fragmentation and degradation 

and decreasing the probability of longterm sage-grouse persistence. 

Infrastructure in Sagebrush Habitats 

Habitat fragmentation is the 

separation or splitting apart of 

previously contiguous, functional 

habitat components of a species. 

Fragmentation can result from direct 

habitat losses that leave the remaining 

habitat in noncontiguous patches, or 

from alteration of habitat areas that 

render the altered patches unusable to a 

species (i.e., functional habitat loss). 

Functional habitat losses include 

disturbances that change a habitat’s 

successional state or remove one or 

more habitat functions; physical barriers 

that preclude use of otherwise suitable 

areas; and activities that prevent 

animals from using suitable habitat 

patches due to behavioral avoidance. 

Sagebrush communities exhibit a high 

degree of variation in their resistance 

and resilience to change, beyond natural 

variation. Resistance (the ability to 

withstand disturbing forces without 

changing) and resilience (the ability to 

recover once altered) generally increase 

with increasing moisture and decreasing 

temperatures, and also can be linked to 

soil characteristics (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 13-6). However, most extant 

sagebrush habitat has been altered since 

European immigrant settlement of the 

West (Baker et al. 1976, p. 168; Braun 

1998, p. 140; Knick et al. 2003, p. 612; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 13-6), and 

sagebrush habitat continues to be 

fragmented and lost (Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 614) through the factors described 

below. The cumulative effects of habitat 

fragmentation have not been quantified 

over the range of sagebrush and most 

fragmentation cannot be attributed to 

specific land uses (Knick et al. 2003, p. 

616). However, in large-scale analysis of 

the collective effect of anthropogenic 

features (or the ‘‘human footprint’’) in 

the western United States, Leu et al. 

(2008, p. 1130) found that 13 percent of 

the area was affected in some way by 

anthropogenic features (i.e., 

fragmentation). Areas with the lowest 

‘‘human footprint’’ (i.e., no to slight 

development or use) experienced aboveaverage human population growth 

between 1990 and 2000. There is 

significant evidence these areas will 

experience increasing habitat 

fragmentation in the future (Leu et al. 

2008, p. 1133). Although the area 

covered by these estimates includes all 

western states, we believe the general 

points regarding effects of 

anthropogenic features apply to sagegrouse habitat. 

Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats 

has been cited as a primary cause of the 

decline of sage-grouse populations 

because the species requires large 

expanses of contiguous sagebrush 

(Patterson 1952, pp. 192-193; Connelly 

and Braun 1997, p. 4; Braun 1998, p. 

140; Johnson and Braun 1999, p. 78; 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 975; Miller and 

Eddleman 2000, p. 1; Schroeder and 

Baydack 2001, p. 29; Johnsgard 2002, p. 

108; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 25; 

Beck et al. 2003, p. 203; Pedersen et al. 

2003, pp. 23-24; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

4-15; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 368; Leu 

et al. in press, p. 19). The negative 

effects of habitat fragmentation have 

been well documented in numerous 

bird species, including some shrubsteppe obligates (Knick and Rotenberry 

1995, pp. 1068-1069). However, prior to 

2005, detailed data to assess how 

fragmentation influences specific greater 

sage-grouse life-history parameters such 

as productivity, density, and home 

range were not available. More recently, 

several studies have documented 

negative effects of fragmentation as a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13928 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

result of oil and gas development and its 

associated infrastructure (see discussion 

of Energy Development below) on lek 

persistence, lek attendance, winter 

habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual 

survival rate, and female nest site choice 

(Holloran 2005, p. 49; Aldridge and 

Boyce 2007, pp. 517-523; Walker et al. 

2007a, pp. 2651-2652; Doherty et al. 

2008, p. 194). Wisdom et al. (in press, 

p. 18) reported that a variety of human 

developments, including roads, energy 

development, and other factors that 

contribute to habitat fragmentation have 

contributed to or been associated with 

sage-grouse extirpation. Estimating the 

impact of habitat fragmentation on sagegrouse is complicated by time lags in 

response to habitat changes (Garton et 

al., in press, p. 71), particularly since 

these long-lived birds will continue to 

return to altered breeding areas (leks, 

nesting areas, and early brood-rearing 

areas) due to strong site fidelity despite 

nesting or productivity failures (Wiens 

and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). 

Powerlines 

Power grids were first constructed in 

the United States in the late 1800s. The 

public demand for electricity has grown 

as human population and industrial 

activities have expanded (Manville 

2002, p. 5), resulting in more than 

804,500 km (500,000 mi) of 

transmission lines (lines carrying greater 

than 115,000 volts (115 kilovolts (kV)) 

by 2002 within the United States 

(Manville 2002, p. 4). A similar estimate 

is not available for distribution lines 

(lines carrying less than 69,000volts 

(69kV)), and we are not aware of data for 

Canada. Within the SGCA, Knick et al. 

(in press, p. 21) showed that powerlines 

cover a minimum of 1,089km2 (420.5 

mi). 

Due to the potential spread of 

invasive species and predators as a 

result of powerline construction the 

impact from the powerline is greater 

than the actual footprint. Knick et al. (in 

press, p. 111) estimated these impacts 

may influence up to 39 percent of all 

sagebrush in the SGCA. Powerlines can 

directly affect greater sage-grouse by 

posing a collision and electrocution 

hazard (Braun 1998, pp. 145-146; 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974), and can 

have indirect effects by decreasing lek 

recruitment (Braun et al. 2002, p. 10), 

increasing predation (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 13-12), fragmenting habitat 

(Braun 1998, p. 146), and facilitating the 

invasion of exotic annual plants (Knick 

et al. 2003, p. 612; Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 7-25). In 1939, three adult sage-grouse 

died as a result of colliding with a 

telegraph line in Utah (Borell 1939, p. 

85). Both Braun (1998, p. 145) and 

Connelly et al. (2000a, p. 974) report 

that sage-grouse collisions with 

powerlines occur, although no specific 

instances were presented. There was 

also an unpublished observation 

reported by Aldridge and Brigham 

(2003, p. 31). In 2009, two sage-grouse 

died from electrocution after colliding 

with a powerline in the Mono Basin of 

California (Gardner 2009, pers. comm.). 

We were unable to find any other 

documentation of other collisions or 

electrocution of sage-grouse resulting 

from powerlines. 

In areas where the vegetation is low 

and the terrain relatively flat, power 

poles provide an attractive hunting and 

roosting perch, as well as nesting 

stratum for many species of raptors and 

corvids (Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 27; 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Manville 

2002, p. 7; Vander Haegen et al. 2002, 

p. 503). Power poles increase a raptor’s 

range of vision, allow for greater speed 

during attacks on prey, and serve as 

territorial markers (Steenhof et al. 1993, 

p. 275; Manville 2002, p. 7). Raptors 

may actively seek out power poles 

where natural perches are limited. For 

example, within 1 year of construction 

of a 596-km (372.5-mi) transmission line 

in southern Idaho and Oregon, raptors 

and common ravens began nesting on 

the supporting poles (Steenhof et al. 

1993, p. 275). Within 10 years of 

construction, 133 pairs of raptors and 

ravens were nesting along this stretch 

(Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 275). Raven 

counts have increased by approximately 

200 percent along the Falcon-Gondor 

transmission line corridor in Nevada 

within 5 years of construction (Atamian 

et al. 2007, p. 2). The increased 

abundance of raptors and corvids within 

occupied sage-grouse habitats can result 

in increased predation. Ellis (1985, p. 

10) reported that golden eagle (Aquila 

chryrsaetos) predation on sage-grouse 

on leks increased from 26 to 73 percent 

of the total predation after completion of 

a transmission line within 200 meters 

(m) (220 yards (yd)) of an active sagegrouse lek in northeastern Utah. The lek 

was eventually abandoned, and Ellis 

(1985, p. 10) concluded that the 

presence of the powerline resulted in 

changes in sage-grouse dispersal 

patterns and caused fragmentation of 

the habitat. 

Leks within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of new 

powerlines constructed for coalbed 

methane development in the Powder 

River Basin of Wyoming had 

significantly lower growth rates, as 

measured by recruitment of new males 

onto the lek, compared to leks further 

from these lines, which were presumed 

to be the result of increased raptor 

predation (Braun et al. 2002, p. 10). 

Within the SGCA, Connelly et al. (2004, 

p. 7-26) estimated that the area 

potentially influenced by additional 

perches for corvids and raptors 

provided by powerlines, assuming a 5- 

to 6.9-km (3.1- to 4.3-mi) radius buffer 

around the perches based on the average 

foraging distance of these predators, was 

672,644 to 837,390 km2 (259,641 to 

323,317 mi2), or 32 to 40 percent of the 

SGCA. The actual impact on the area 

would depend on corvid and raptor 

densities within the area, the amount of 

cover to reduce predation risk at sagegrouse nests, and other factors (see 

discussion in Factor C, below). 

The presence of a powerline may 

fragment sage-grouse habitats even if 

raptors are not present. Braun (1998, p. 

146) found that use of otherwise 

suitable habitat by sage-grouse near 

powerlines increased as distance from 

the powerline increased for up to 600 m 

(660 yd) and, based on that unpublished 

data, reported that the presence of 

powerlines may limit sage-grouse use 

within 1 km (0.6 mi) in otherwise 

suitable habitat. Similar results were 

recorded for other grouse species. Pruett 

et al. (2009, p. 6) found that lesser and 

greater prairie-chickens (Tympanuchus 

pallidicinctus and T. cupido, 

respectively) avoided otherwise suitable 

habitat near powerlines. Additionally, 

both species also crossed powerlines 

less often than nearby roads, which 

suggests that powerlines are a 

particularly strong barrier to movement 

(Pruett et al. 2009, p. 6). 

Sage-grouse also may avoid 

powerlines as a result of the 

electromagnetic fields (Wisdom et al. in 

press, p. 19). Electromagnetic fields 

have been demonstrated to alter the 

behavior, physiology, endocrine 

systems, and immune function in birds, 

with negative consequences on 

reproduction and development (Fernie 

and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). Birds are 

diverse in their sensitivities to 

electromagnetic field exposures, with 

domestic chickens being very sensitive. 

Many raptor species are less affected 

(Fernie and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). 

Linear corridors through sagebrush 

habitats can facilitate the spread of 

invasive species, such as Bromus 

tectorum (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, pp. 

424-426; Knick et al. 2003, p. 620; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 1-2). However, 

we were unable to find any information 

regarding the amount of invasive 

species incursion as a result of 

powerline construction. 

Powerlines are common to nearly 

every type of anthropogenic habitat use, 

except perhaps some forms of 

agricultural development (e.g., livestock 

grazing) and fire. Although we were 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13929 

unable to find an estimate of all future 

proposed powerlines within currently 

occupied sage-grouse habitats, we 

anticipate that powerlines will continue 

to increase into the foreseeable future, 

particularly given the increasing 

development of energy resources and 

urban areas. For example, up to 8,579 

km (5,311 mi) of new powerlines are 

predicted for the development of the 

Powder River Basin coal-bed methane 

field in northeastern Wyoming (BLM 

2003) in addition to the approximately 

9,656 km (6,000 mi) already constructed 

in that area. In November 2009, nine 

Federal agencies signed a Memorandum 

of Understanding to expedite the 

building of new transmission lines on 

Federal lands. If these lines cross sagegrouse habitats, sage-grouse will likely 

be negatively affected. 

Communication Towers 

Within sage-grouse habitats, 9,510 

new communication towers have been 

constructed within recent years 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 13-7). While 

millions of birds are killed annually in 

the United States through collisions 

with communication towers and their 

associated structures (e.g., guy wires, 

lights) (Shire et al. 2000, p. 5; Manville 

2002, p. 10), most documented 

mortalities are of migratory songbirds. 

We were unable to determine if any 

sage-grouse mortalities occur as a result 

of collision with communication towers 

or their supporting structures, as most 

towers are not monitored and those that 

are lie outside the range of the species 

(Kerlinger 2000, p. 2; Shire et al. 2000 

p. 19). Cellular towers have the 

potential to cause sage-grouse mortality 

via collisions, to influence movements 

through avoidance of a tall structure 

(Wisdom et al. in press, p. 20), or to 

provide perches for corvids and raptors 

(Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 275; Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 13-7). 

In a comparison of sage-grouse 

locations in extirpated areas of their 

range (as determined by museum 

species and historical observations) and 

currently occupied habitats, the 

distance to cellular towers was nearly 

twice as far from grouse locations in 

currently occupied habitats than 

extirpated areas (Wisdom et al. in press, 

p. 13). The results may have been 

influenced by location as many cellular 

towers are close to intensive human 

development. However, such 

associations with other indicators of 

development and cellular towers were 

low (Wisdom et al. in press, p. 20). High 

levels of electromagnetic radiation 

within 500 m (547 yd) of all towers have 

been linked to decreased populations 

and reproductive performance of some 

bird and amphibian species (Wisdom et 

al. in press, p. 19, and references 

therein). We do not know if greater sagegrouse are negatively impacted by 

electromagnetic radiation, or if their 

avoidance of these structures is a 

response to increased predation risk. 

Fences 

Fences are used to delineate property 

boundaries and for livestock 

management (Braun 1998, p. 145; 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974). The 

effects of fencing on sage-grouse include 

direct mortality through collisions, 

creation of predator (raptor) and corvid 

perch sites, the potential creation of 

predator corridors along fences 

(particularly if a road is maintained next 

to the fence), incursion of exotic species 

along the fencing corridor, and habitat 

fragmentation (Call and Maser 1985, p. 

22; Braun 1998, p. 145; Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 974; Beck et al. 2003, p. 211; 

Knick et al. 2003, p. 612; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 1-2). 

More than 1,000 km (625 mi) of fences 

were constructed annually in sagebrush 

habitats from 1996 through 2002, mostly 

in Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Wyoming (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-34). 

Over 51,000 km (31,690 mi) of fences 

were constructed on BLM lands 

supporting sage-grouse populations 

between 1962 and 1997 (Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 974). Sage-grouse frequently 

fly low and fast across sagebrush flats, 

and fences can create a collision hazard 

(Call and Maser 1985, p. 22). Thirty-six 

carcasses of sage-grouse were found 

near Randolph, Utah, along a 3.2-km (2- 

mi) fence within 3 months of its 

construction (Call and Maser 1985, p. 

22). Twenty-one incidents of mortality 

through fence collisions near Pinedale, 

Wyoming, were reported in 2003 to the 

BLM (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 13-12). A 

recent study in Wyoming confirmed 146 

sage-grouse fence strike mortalities over 

a 31–month period along a 7.6-km (4.6- 

mi) stretch of 3-wire BLM range fence 

(Christiansen 2009). 

Not all fences present the same 

mortality risk to sage-grouse. Mortality 

risk appears to be dependent on a 

combination of factors including design 

of fencing, landscape topography, and 

spatial relationship with seasonal 

habitats (Christiansen 2009, 

unpublished data). Although the effects 

of direct strike mortality on populations 

are not understood, fences are 

ubiquitous across the landscape. In 

many parts of the sage-grouse range 

(primarily Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

Wyoming) fences exceed densities of 

more than 2 km/km2 (1.2 mi/0.4 mi2; 

Knick et al. in press, p. 32). Fence 

collisions continue to be identified as a 

source of mortality for sage-grouse, and 

we expect this source of mortality to 

continue into the foreseeable future 

(Braun 1998, p. 145; Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 974; Oyler-McCance et al. 

2001, p. 330; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7- 

3). 

Fence posts create perching places for 

raptors and corvids, which may increase 

their ability to prey on sage-grouse 

(Braun 1998, p. 145; Oyler-McCance et 

al. 2001, p. 330; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

13-12). We anticipate that the effect on 

sage-grouse populations through the 

creation of new raptor perches and 

predator corridors into sagebrush 

habitats is similar to that of powerlines 

discussed previously (Braun 1998, p. 

145; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-3). Fences 

and their associated roads also facilitate 

the spread of invasive plant species that 

replace sagebrush plants upon which 

sage-grouse depend (Braun 1998, p. 145; 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 973; Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, p. 421; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-3). Greater sage-grouse 

avoidance of habitat adjacent to fences, 

presumably to minimize the risk of 

predation, effectively results in habitat 

fragmentation even if the actual habitat 

is not removed (Braun 1998, p. 145). 

Roads 

Interstate highways and major paved 

roads cover approximately 2,500 km2

(965 mi2) or 0.1 percent of the SGCA 

(Knick et al. in press, p. 21). Based on 

applying a 7-km (4.3-mi) buffer to 

estimate the potential impact of 

secondary effects from roads, interstates 

and highways are estimated to influence 

851,044 km2 (328,590 mi2) or 41 percent 

of the SGCA. Additionally, secondary 

paved roads are heavily distributed 

throughout most of the SGCA, existing 

at densities of up to greater than 5 km/ 

km2 (3.1 mi/mi2). Taken together, 95 

percent of all sage-grouse habitats were 

within 2.5 km (1.5 mi) of a mapped 

road, and almost no area of sagebrush 

was greater the 6.9 km (4.3 mi) from a 

mapped road (Knick et al. in press, p. 

21). 

Impacts from roads may include 

direct habitat loss, direct mortality, 

barriers to migration corridors or 

seasonal habitats, facilitation of 

predators and spread of invasive 

vegetative species, and other indirect 

influences such as noise (Forman and 

Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231). Sagegrouse mortality resulting from 

collisions with vehicles does occur 

(Patterson 1952, p. 81), but mortalities 

are typically not monitored or recorded. 

Therefore, we are unable to determine 

the importance of this factor on sagegrouse populations. Data regarding how 

roads affect seasonal habitat availability 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13930 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

for individual sage-grouse populations 

by creating barriers and the ability of 

greater sage-grouse to reach these areas 

were not available. Road development 

within Gunnison sage-grouse (C. 

minimus) habitats impeded movement 

of local populations between the 

resultant patches, with grouse road 

avoidance presumably being a 

behavioral means to limit exposure to 

predation (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 

330). 

Roads can provide corridors for 

predators to move into previously 

unoccupied areas. For some mammalian 

species, dispersal along roads has 

greatly increased their distribution 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 212; 

Forman 2000, p. 33). Corvids also use 

linear features such as primary and 

secondary roads as travel routes, 

expanding their movements into 

previously unused regions (Knight and 

Kawashima 1993, p. 268; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 12-3). In an analysis of 

anthropogenic impacts, at least 58 

percent of the SGCA had a high or 

medium estimated presence of corvids 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 12-6). Corvids 

are important sage-grouse nest predators 

and in a study in Nevada were 

positively identified via video recorder 

as responsible for more than 50 percent 

of nest predations in the study area 

(Coates 2007, pp. 26-30). Bui (2009, p. 

31) documented ravens following roads 

in oil and gas fields during foraging. 

Additionally, highway rest areas 

provide a source of food and perches for 

corvids and raptors, and facilitate their 

movements into surrounding areas 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). 

The presence of roads increases 

human access and resulting disturbance 

effects in remote areas (Forman and 

Alexander 1998, p. 221; Forman 2000, 

p. 35; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-6 to 

7-25). Increases in legal and illegal 

hunting activities resulting from the use 

of roads built into sagebrush habitats 

have been documented (Hornaday 1916, 

p. 183; Patterson 1952, p. vi). However, 

the actual current effect of these 

increased activities on sage-grouse 

populations has not been determined. 

Roads also may facilitate access for 

rangeland habitat treatments, such as 

disking or mowing (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-25), resulting in subsequent 

direct habitat losses. New roads are 

being constructed to support 

development activities within the 

greater sage-grouse extant range. In the 

Powder River Basin of Wyoming, up to 

28,572 km (17,754 mi) of roads to 

support coalbed methane development 

are proposed (BLM 2003). 

The expansion of road networks 

contributes to exotic plant invasions via 

introduced road fill, vehicle transport, 

and road maintenance activities 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; 

Forman 2000, p. 32; Gelbard and Belnap 

2003, p. 426; Knick et al. 2003, p. 619; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). Invasive 

species are not limited to roadsides, but 

also encroach into surrounding habitats 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; 

Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and Belnap 

2003, p. 427). In their study of roads on 

the Colorado Plateau of southern Utah, 

Gelbard and Belnap (2003, p. 426) found 

that improving unpaved four-wheel 

drive roads to paved roads resulted in 

increased cover of exotic plant species 

within the interior of adjacent plant 

communities. This effect was associated 

with road construction and maintenance 

activities and vehicle traffic, and not 

with differences in site characteristics. 

The incursion of exotic plants into 

native sagebrush systems can negatively 

affect greater sage-grouse through 

habitat losses and conversions (see 

further discussion in Invasive Plants, 

below). 

Additional indirect effects of roads 

may result from birds’ behavioral 

avoidance of road areas because of 

noise, visual disturbance, pollutants, 

and predators moving along a road. The 

absence of vegetation in arid and 

semiarid regions that may buffer these 

impacts further exacerbates the problem 

(Suter 1978, p. 6). Male sage-grouse lek 

attendance was shown to decline within 

3 km (1.9 mi) of a methane well or haul 

road with traffic volume exceeding one 

vehicle per day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). 

Male sage-grouse depend on acoustical 

signals to attract females to leks (Gibson 

and Bradbury 1985, p. 82; Gratson 1993, 

p. 692). If noise interferes with mating 

displays, and thereby female 

attendance, younger males will not be 

drawn to the lek and eventually leks 

will become inactive (Amstrup and 

Phillips 1977, p. 26; Braun 1986, pp. 

229-230). 

Dust from roads and exposed 

roadsides can damage vegetation 

through interference with 

photosynthetic activities. The actual 

amount of potential damage depends on 

winds, wind direction, the type of 

surrounding vegetation and topography 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 217). 

Chemicals used for road maintenance, 

particularly in areas with snowy or icy 

precipitation, can affect the composition 

of roadside vegetation (Forman and 

Alexander 1998, p. 219). We were 

unable to find any data relating these 

potential effects directly to impacts on 

sage-grouse population parameters. 

In a study on the Pinedale Anticline 

in Wyoming, sage-grouse hens that bred 

on leks within 3 km (1.9 mi) of roads 

associated with oil and gas development 

traveled twice as far to nest as did hens 

bred on leks greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) 

from roads. Nest initiation rates for hens 

bred on leks close to roads also were 

lower (65 versus 89 percent) affecting 

population recruitment (33 versus 44 

percent) (Lyon 2000, p. 33; Lyon and 

Anderson 2003, pp. 489-490). Lyon and 

Anderson (2003, p. 490) suggested that 

roads may be the primary impact of oil 

and gas development to sage-grouse, 

due to their persistence and continued 

use even after drilling and production 

have ceased. Braun et al. (2002, p. 5) 

suggested that daily vehicular traffic 

along road networks for oil wells can 

impact sage-grouse breeding activities 

based on lek abandonment patterns. 

In a study of 804 leks within 100 km 

(62.5 mi) of Interstate 80 in southern 

Wyoming and northeastern Utah, 

Connelly et al. (2004, p. 13-12) found 

that there were no leks within 2 km 

(1.25 mi) of the interstate and only 9 

leks were found between 2 and 4 km 

(1.25 and 2.5 mi) along this same 

highway. The number of active leks 

increased with increasing distance from 

the interstate. Lek persistence and 

activity relative to distance from the 

interstate also were measured. The 

distance of a lek from the interstate was 

a significant predictor of lek activity, 

with leks further from the interstate 

more likely to be active. An analysis of 

long-term changes in populations 

between 1970 and 2003 showed that 

leks closest (within 7.5 km (4.7 mi)) to 

the interstate declined at a greater rate 

than those further away (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 13-13). Extirpated sage-grouse 

range was 60 percent closer to highways 

(Wisdom et al. in press, p. 18). What is 

not clear from these studies is what 

specific factor relative to roads (e.g., 

noise, changes in vegetation, etc.) sagegrouse are responding to. Connelly et al. 

(2004, p. 13-13) caution that they have 

not included other potential sources of 

indirect disturbance (e.g., powerlines) in 

their analyses. 

Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) did not 

find road density to be an important 

factor affecting sage-grouse persistence 

or rangewide patterns in sage-grouse 

extirpation. However, the authors did 

not consider the intensity of human use 

of roads in their modeling efforts. They 

also indicated that their analyses may 

have been influenced by inaccuracies in 

spatial road data sets, particularly for 

secondary roads (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 

992). However, Wisdom et al. (in press, 

p. 18) found that extirpated range has a 

25 percent higher density of roads than 

occupied range. Wisdom et al.’s (in 

press) rangewide analysis supports the 

findings of numerous local studies 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13931 

showing that roads can have both direct 

and indirect impacts on sage-grouse 

distribution and individual fitness (e.g., 

Lyon and Anderson 2003, Aldridge and 

Boyce 2007). 

Railroads 

Railroads presumably have the same 

potential impacts to sage-grouse as do 

roads because they create linear 

corridors within sagebrush habitats. 

Railways and the cattle they transport 

were primarily responsible for the 

initial spread of Bromus tectorum in the 

intermountain region (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-25). B. tectorum, an exotic 

species that is unsuitable as sage-grouse 

habitat, readily invaded the disturbed 

soils adjacent to railroads. Fires created 

by trains facilitated the spread of B. 

tectorum into adjacent areas. Knick et 

al. (in press, p. 109) found that railroads 

cover 487 km2 (188 mi2) or less than 0.1 

percent of the SGCA, but they estimated 

railroads could influence 10 percent of 

the SGCA based adding a 3-km (1.9-mi) 

buffer to estimate potential impacts 

from the exotic plants they can spread. 

Avian collisions with trains occur, 

although no estimates of mortality rates 

are documented in the literature 

(Erickson et al. 2001, p. 8). 

Summary: Habitat Conversion for 

Agriculture; Urbanization; Infrastructure 

Large losses of sagebrush shrubsteppe habitats due to agricultural 

conversion have occurred range wide, 

but have been especially significant in 

the Columbia Basin of Washington (MZ 

VI), the Snake River Plain of Idaho (MZ 

IV), and the Great Plains (MZ I). 

Conversion of sage brush habitats to 

cropland continues to occur, although 

quantitative data is available only for 

Montana. We do not know the current 

rate of conversion, but most areas 

suitable for agricultural production were 

converted many years ago. The current 

rate of conversion is likely to increase 

in the future if incentives for crop 

production for use as biofuels continue 

to be offered. Urban and exurban 

development also have direct and 

indirect negative effects on sage-grouse, 

including direct and indirect habitat 

losses, disturbance, and introduction of 

new predators and invasive plant 

species. Given current trends in the 

Rocky Mountain west, we expect urban 

and exurban development to continue. 

Infrastructure such as powerlines, roads, 

communication towers, and fences 

continue to fragment sage-grouse 

habitat. Past and current trends lead us 

to believe this source of fragmentation 

will increase into the future. 

Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats 

through a variety of mechanisms 

including those listed above has been 

cited as a primary cause of the decline 

of sage-grouse populations (Patterson 

1952, pp. 192-193; Connelly and Braun 

1997, p. 4; Braun 1998, p. 140; Johnson 

and Braun 1999, p. 78; Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 975; Miller and Eddleman 

2000, p. 1; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, 

p. 29; Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Aldridge 

and Brigham 2003, p. 25; Beck et al. 

2003, p. 203; Pedersen et al. 2003, pp. 

23-24; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-15; 

Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 368; Leu et al. 

in press, p. 19). The negative effects of 

habitat fragmentation on sage-grouse are 

diverse and include reduced lek 

persistence, lek attendance, winter 

habitat use, recruitment, yearling annual 

survival, and female nest site choice 

(Holloran 2005, p. 49; Aldridge and 

Boyce 2007, pp. 517-523; Walker et al. 

2007a, pp. 2651-2652; Doherty et al. 

2008, p. 194). Since fragmentation is 

associated with most anthropogenic 

activities, the effects are ubiquitous 

across the species range (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 24). We agree with the 

assessment that habitat fragmentation is 

a primary cause of sage-grouse decline 

and in some areas has already led to 

population extirpation. We also 

conclude that habitat fragmentation will 

continue into the foreseeable future and 

will continue to threaten the persistence 

of greater sage-grouse. 

Fire 

Many of the native vegetative species 

of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem are 

killed by wildfires, and recovery 

requires many years. As a result of this 

loss of habitat, fire has been identified 

as a primary factor associated with 

greater sage-grouse population declines 

(Hulet 1983, in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

973; Crowley and Connelly 1996, in 

Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 94; Connelly 

and Braun 1997, p. 232; Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 973; Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 

93; Miller and Eddlemen 2000, p. 24; 

Johnson et al., in press, p. 12; Knick and 

Hanser, in press, pp. 29-30). In nesting 

and wintering sites, fire causes direct 

loss of habitat due to reduced cover and 

forage (Call and Maser 1985, p. 17). For 

example, prescribed fires in mountain 

big sagebrush at Hart Mountain National 

Antelope Refuge caused a short-term 

increase in certain forbs, but reduced 

sagebrush cover, making habitat less 

suitable for nesting (Rowland and 

Wisdom 2002, p. 28). Similarly, Nelle et 

al. (2000, p. 586) and Beck et al. (2009, 

p. 400) reported nesting habitat loss 

from fire, creating a long-term negative 

impact that will require 25 to 150 years 

of sagebrush regrowth before sufficient 

canopy cover becomes available for 

nesting birds. 

In southeastern Idaho, sage-grouse 

populations were generally declining 

across the entire study area, but declines 

were more severe in post-fire years 

(Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 93). Further, 

Fischer et al. (1997, p. 89) concluded 

that habitat fragmentation caused by fire 

may influence distribution or migratory 

patterns in sage-grouse. Hulet (1983, in 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 973) 

documented the loss of leks from fire. 

Fire within 54 km (33.6 mi) of a lek 

is one of two primary factors in 

predicting lek extirpation (Knick and 

Hanser in press, p. 26). Small increases 

in the amount of burned habitat 

surrounding a lek had a large influence 

on the probability of lek abandonment 

(Knick and Hanser, in press, pp. 29-30). 

Additionally, fire had a negative effect 

on lek trends in the Snake River Plain 

(MZ IV) and Southern Great Basin (MZ 

III) (Johnson et al. in press, p.12). 

Several recent studies have 

demonstrated that sagebrush area is one 

of the best landscape predictors of 

greater sage-grouse persistence 

(Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 987; Doherty et 

al. 2008, p. 191; Wisdom et al., in press, 

p. 17). While there may be limited 

instances where burned habitat is 

beneficial, these gains are lost if 

sagebrush habitat is not readily 

available (Woodward 2006, p. 65). 

Herbaceous understory vegetation 

plays a critical role throughout the 

breeding season as a source of forage 

and cover for sage-grouse females and 

chicks. The response of herbaceous 

understory vegetation to fire varies with 

differences in species composition, preburn site condition, fire intensity, and 

pre- and post-fire patterns of 

precipitation. In general, when not 

considering the synergistic effects of 

invasive species, any short-term flush of 

understory grasses and forbs is lost after 

only a few years and little difference is 

apparent between burned and unburned 

sites (Cook et al. 1994, p. 298; Fischer 

et al. 1996, p. 196; Crawford 1999, p. 7; 

Wrobleski 1999, p. 31; Nelle et al. 2000, 

p. 588; Paysen et al. 2000, p. 154; 

Wambolt et al. 2001, p. 250). 

Independent of the response of 

perennial grasses and forbs to fire, the 

most important and widespread 

sagebrush species for greater sage-grouse 

(i.e., big sagebrush) are killed by fire and 

require decades to recover. Prior to 

recovery, these sites are of limited to no 

use to sage-grouse (Fischer et al. 1996, 

p. 196; Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 90; 

Nelle et al. 2000, p. 588; Beck et al. 

2009, p. 400). Therefore, fire results in 

direct, long-term habitat loss. 

In addition to altering plant 

community structure, fires can 

influence invertebrate food sources 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13932 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). Ants 

(Hymenoptera), grasshoppers 

(Orthoptera), and beetles (Coleoptera) 

are an essential component of juvenile 

greater sage-grouse diets, especially in 

the first 3 weeks of life (Johnson and 

Boyce 1991, p. 90). Crawford and Davis 

(2002, p. 56) reported that the 

abundance of arthropods did not 

decline following wildfire. Pyle (1992, 

p. 14) reported no apparent effect of 

prescribed burning to beetles. However, 

Fischer et al. (1996, p. 197) found that 

the abundance of insects was 

significantly lower 2–3 years post-burn. 

Additionally, grasshopper abundance 

declined 60 percent in burned plots 

versus unburned plots 1 year post-burn, 

but this difference disappeared the 

second year (Bock and Bock 1991, p. 

165). Conversely, Nelle et al. (2000, p. 

589) reported the abundance of beetles 

and ants was significantly greater in 1– 

year-old burns, but returned to pre-burn 

levels by years 3 to 5. The effect of fire 

on insect populations likely varies due 

to a host of environmental factors. 

Because few studies have been 

conducted and the results of those 

available vary, the specific magnitude 

and duration of the effects of fire on 

insect communities is still uncertain, as 

is the effect any changes may have on 

greater sage-grouse populations. 

The few studies that have suggested 

fire may be beneficial for greater sagegrouse were primarily conducted in 

mesic areas used for brood-rearing 

(Klebenow 1970, p. 399; Pyle and 

Crawford 1996, p. 323; Gates 1983, in 

Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 90; Sime 1991, 

in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 972). In this 

habitat, small fires may maintain a 

suitable habitat mosaic by reducing 

shrub encroachment and encouraging 

understory growth. However, without 

available nearby sagebrush cover, the 

utility of these sites is questionable. For 

example, Slater (2003, p. 63) reported 

that sage-grouse using burned areas 

were rarely found more than 60 m (200 

ft) from the edge of the burn and may 

preferentially use the burned and 

unburned edge habitat. However, Byrne 

(2002, p. 27) reported avoidance of 

burned habitat by nesting, broodrearing, and broodless females. Both 

Connelly et al. (2000c, p. 90) and 

Fischer et al. (1996, p. 196) found that 

prescribed burns did not improve 

brood-rearing habitat in Wyoming big 

sagebrush, as forbs did not increase and 

insect populations declined. Hence, 

fires in these locations may negatively 

affect brood-rearing habitat rather than 

improve it (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 

11). 

The nature of historical fire patterns 

in sagebrush communities, particularly 

in Artemisia tridentata var. 

wyomingensis, is not well understood 

and a high degree of variability likely 

occurred (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 

16; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 154; Baker in 

press, p. 16). However, as inferred by 

several lines of reasoning, fire in 

sagebrush systems was historically 

infrequent (Baker in press, pp. 15-16). 

This conclusion is evidenced by the fact 

that most sagebrush species have not 

developed evolutionary adaptations 

such as re-sprouting and heatstimulated seed germination found in 

other shrub-dominated systems, like 

chaparral, exposed to relatively frequent 

fire events. Baker (in press, p. 17) 

suggests natural fire regimes and 

landscapes were typically shaped by a 

few infrequent large fire events that 

occurred at intervals approaching the 

historical fire rotation (50 to 350 years 

– see discussion below). The researcher 

concludes that the historical sagebrush 

systems likely consisted of extensive 

sagebrush habitat dotted by small areas 

of grassland and that this condition was 

maintained by long interludes of 

numerous small fires, accounting for 

little burned area, punctuated by large 

fire events that consumed large 

expanses. In general, fire extensively 

reduces sagebrush within burned areas, 

and big sagebrush varieties, the most 

widespread species of sagebrush, can 

take up to 150 years to reestablish an 

area (Braun 1998, p. 147; Cooper et al. 

2007, p. 13; Lesica et al. 2007, p. 264; 

Baker, in press, pp. 15-16). 

Fire rotation, or the average amount of 

time it takes to burn once through a 

particular landscape, is difficult to 

quantify in large sagebrush expanses. 

Because sagebrush is killed by fire, it 

does not record evidence of prior burns 

(i.e., fire scars) as do forested systems. 

As a result, a clear picture of the 

complex spatial and temporal pattern of 

historical fire regimes in most sagebrush 

communities is not available. Widely 

variable estimates of historical fire 

rotation have been described in the 

literature. Depending on the species of 

sagebrush and other site-specific 

characteristics, fire return intervals from 

10 to well over 300 years have been 

reported (McArthur 1994, p. 347; Peters 

and Bunting 1994, p. 33; Miller and 

Rose 1999, p. 556; Kilpatrick 2000, p. 1; 

Frost 1998, in Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

7-4; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 154; Baker in 

press, pp. 15-16). In general, mean fire 

return intervals in low-lying, xeric, big 

sagebrush communities range from over 

100 to 350 years, and return intervals 

decrease from 50 to over 200 years in 

more mesic areas, at higher elevations, 

during wetter climatic periods, and in 

locations associated with grasslands 

(Baker 2006, p. 181; Mensing et al. 2006, 

p. 75; Baker, in press, pp. 15-16; Miller 

et al., in press, p. 35). 

The invasion of exotic annual grasses, 

such as Bromus tectorum and 

Taeniatherum asperum (medusahead), 

has been shown to increase fire 

frequency within the sagebrush 

ecosystem (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; 

Miller et al. in press, p. 39). B. tectorum 

readily invades sagebrush communities, 

especially disturbed sites, and changes 

historical fire patterns by providing an 

abundant and easily ignitable fuel 

source that facilitates fire spread. While 

sagebrush is killed by fire and is slow 

to reestablish, B. tectorum recovers 

within 1 to 2 years of a fire event 

(Young and Evans 1978, p. 285). This 

annual recovery leads to a readily 

burnable fuel source and ultimately a 

reoccurring fire cycle that prevents 

sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et 

al. 2009, p. 1324). In the Snake River 

Plain (MZ IV), for example, Whisenant 

(1990, p. 4) suggests fire rotation due to 

B. tectorum establishment is now as low 

as 3–5 years. It is difficult and usually 

ineffective to restore an area to 

sagebrush after annual grasses become 

established (Paysen et al. 2000, p. 154; 

Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-44 to 7-50; 

Pyke, in press, p. 25). Habitat loss from 

fire and the subsequent invasion by 

nonnative annual grasses have 

negatively affected sage-grouse 

populations in some locations (Connelly 

et al. 2000c, p. 93). 

Evidence exists of a significant 

relationship between an increase in fire 

occurrence caused by Bromus tectorum 

invasion in the Snake River Plain and 

Northern Great Basin since the 1960s 

(Miller et al., in press, p. 39) and in 

northern Nevada and eastern Oregon 

since 1980 (MZs IV and V). The 

extensive distribution and highly 

invasive nature of B. tectorum poses 

substantial increased risk of fire and 

permanent loss of sagebrush habitat, as 

areas disturbed by fire are highly 

susceptible to further invasion and 

ultimately habitat conversion to an 

altered community state. For example, 

Link et al. (2006, p. 116) show that risk 

of fire increases from approximately 46 

to 100 percent when ground cover of B. 

tectorum increases from 12 to 45 

percent or more. In the Great Basin 

Ecoregion (defined as east-central 

California, most of Nevada, and western 

Utah, MZs IV and V), approximately 58 

percent of sagebrush habitats are at 

moderate to high risk of B. tectorum 

invasion during the next 30 years 

(Suring et al. 2005, p. 138). The BLM 

estimated that approximately 11.9 

million ha (29 million ac) of public 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13933 

lands in the western distribution of the 

greater sage-grouse (Washington, 

Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah) were 

infested with weeds as of 2000 (BLM 

2007a, p. 3-28). The most dominant 

invasive plants consist of grasses in the 

Bromus genus, which represent nearly 

70 percent of the total infested area 

(BLM 2007a, p. 3-28). 

Conifer woodlands have expanded 

into sagebrush ecosystems over the last 

century (Miller et al. in press, p. 34). 

Woodlands can encroach into sagebrush 

communities when the interval between 

fires becomes long enough for seedlings 

to establish and trees to mature and 

dominate a site (Miller et al. in press, p. 

36). However, historical fire rotation 

appears to have been sufficiently long to 

allow woodland invasion, and yet 

extensive stands of mature sagebrush 

were evident during settlement times 

(Vale 1975, p. 33; Baker, in press, pp. 

15-16). This suggests that causes other 

than active fire suppression must largely 

explain recent tree invasions into 

sagebrush habitats (Baker in press, p. 21, 

24). Baker (in press, p. 24) and Miller et 

al. (in press, p. 37) offer a suite of 

causes, acting in concert with fire 

exclusion that may better explain the 

dramatic expansion of conifer 

woodlands over the last century. These 

causes include alterations due to 

domestic livestock grazing (such as 

reduced competition from native grasses 

and forbs and facilitation of tree 

regeneration by increased shrub cover 

and enhanced seed dispersal), climatic 

fluctuations favorable to tree 

regeneration, enhanced tree growth due 

to increased water use efficiency 

associated with carbon dioxide 

fertilization, and recovery from past 

disturbance (both natural and 

anthropogenic). Regardless of the cause 

of conifer woodland encroachment, the 

rate of expansion is increasing and is 

resulting in the loss and fragmentation 

of sagebrush habitats (see discussion in 

Pinyon-juniper section below). 

Between 1980 and 2007, the number 

of fires and total area burned increased 

in all MZs across the greater sagegrouse’s range except the Snake River 

Plain (MZ IV) (Miller et al., in press, p. 

39). Additionally, average fire size 

increased in the Southern Great Basin 

(MZ III) during this same period. 

However, predicting the amount of 

habitat that will burn during an ‘‘average 

fire’’ year is difficult due to the highly 

variable nature of fire seasons. For 

example, the approximate area burned 

on or adjacent to BLM-managed lands 

varied from 140,000 ha (346,000 ac) in 

1998 to a 6-fold increase in 1999 

(814,200 ha; 2 million ac) returning back 

down to approximately the 1998 level in 

2002 (157,700 ha; 384,743 ac) before 

rising again 10-fold in 2006 (1.4 million 

ha; 3.5 million ac) (Miller et al., in 

press, pp. 39-40). 

From 1980 to 2007, wildfires have 

burned approximately 8.7 million ha 

(21.5 million ac) of sagebrush, or 

approximately 18 percent of the 

estimated 47.5 million ha (117.4 million 

ac) of sagebrush habitat occurring 

within the delineated MZs (Baker, in 

press, p. 43). Additionally, the trend in 

total acreage burned since 1980 has 

primarily increased (Miller et al., in 

press, p. 39). Although fire alters 

sagebrush habitats throughout the 

greater sage-grouse’s range, fire 

disproportionately affects the Great 

Basin (Baker et al. in press, p. 20) (i.e., 

Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and eastern 

Oregon; MZ III, IV, and V) and will 

likely influence the persistence of 

greater sage-grouse populations in the 

area. In these three MZs combined, 

nearly 27 percent of sagebrush habitat 

has burned since 1980 (Baker, in press, 

p. 43). A primary reason for this 

disproportionate influence in this region 

is due to the presence of burned sites 

and their subsequent susceptibility to 

invasion by exotic annual grasses. 

According to one review, range fires 

destroyed 30 to 40 percent of sagegrouse habitat in southern Idaho (MZ 

IV) in a 5–year period (1997–2001) 

(Signe Sather-Blair, BLM, in Healy 

2001). This amount included about 

202,000 ha (500,000 ac), which burned 

between 1999 and 2001, significantly 

altering the largest remaining 

contiguous patch of sagebrush in the 

State (Signe Sather-Blair, BLM, in Healy 

2001). Between 2003 and 2007, Idaho 

lost an additional 267,000 ha (660,000 

ac) of sage-grouse habitat, or 

approximately 7 percent of the total 

estimated remaining habitat in the State. 

Over nine fire seasons in Nevada (1999– 

2007), about 1 million ha (2.5 million 

ac) of sagebrush were burned, 

representing approximately 12 percent 

of the State’s extant sagebrush habitat 

(Espinosa and Phenix 2008, p. 3). Most 

of these fires occurred in northeast 

Nevada (MZ IV) within quality habitat 

that has traditionally supported high 

densities of sage-grouse, which also is 

highly susceptible to Bromus tectorum 

invasion. 

Baker (in press, p. 20) calculated 

recent fire rotation by MZ and compared 

these to estimates of historical fire 

rotations. Based on this analysis, the 

researcher suggests that increased fire 

rotations since 1980 are presumably 

outside the historic range of variability 

and far shorter in floristic regions where 

Wyoming big sagebrush is common 

(Baker in press, p. 20). This analysis 

included MZs III, IV, V, and VI, all of 

which have extensive Bromus tectorum 

invasions. 

In addition to wildfire, land managers 

are using prescribed fire as well as 

mechanical and chemical treatments to 

obtain desired management objectives 

for a variety of wildlife species and 

domestic ungulates in sagebrush 

habitats throughout the range of the 

greater sage-grouse. While the efficacy 

of treatments in sagebrush habitats to 

enhance sage-grouse populations is 

questionable (Peterson 1970, p. 154; 

Swensen et al. 1987, p. 128; Connelly et 

al. 2000c, p. 94; Nelle et al. 2000, p. 590; 

WAFWA 2009, p. 12; Connelly et al. in 

press c, p. 8), as with wildland fire, an 

immediate and potentially long-term 

result is the loss of habitat (Beck et al. 

2009, p. 400). 

Knick et al. (in press, p. 33) report 

that more than 370,000 ha (914,000 ac) 

of public lands were treated with 

prescribed fire to address management 

objectives for many different species 

between 1997 and 2006, mostly in 

Oregon and Idaho, and an additional 

124,200 ha (306,900 ac) were treated 

with mechanical means over this same 

time period, primarily in Utah and 

Nevada. However, these acreages 

represent all habitat types and thus 

overestimate negative impacts to greater 

sage-grouse. Quantifying the amount of 

sagebrush-specific habitat treatments is 

difficult due to the fact that centralized 

reporting is not typically categorized by 

habitat. However, agencies under the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) report 

species of special interest, including 

greater sage-grouse, which may occur in 

proximity to a prescribed treatment. 

Between 2003 and 2008, approximately 

133,500 ha (330,000 ac) of greater sagegrouse habitat have been burned by land 

managers within the DOI or 

approximately 22,000 ha (55,000 ac) 

annually. This acreage does not reflect 

lands burned by agencies under the 

USDA (e.g., USFS). Although much of 

the land under USFS jurisdiction lies 

outside greater sage-grouse range, this 

agency manages approximately 8 

percent of sagebrush habitats. 

Ultimately, the amount of sagebrush 

habitat treated by land managers 

appears to represent a relatively minor 

loss when compared to loss incurred by 

wildfire. However, in light of the 

significant habitat loss due to wildfire, 

and the preponderance of evidence that 

suggests these treatments are not 

beneficial to sage-grouse, the rationale 

for using such treatments to improve 

sage-grouse habitat deserves further 

scrutiny. 

Sagebrush recovery rates are highly 

variable, and precise estimates are often 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13934 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

hampered by limited data from older 

burns. Factors contributing to the rate of 

shrub recovery include the amount of 

and distance from unburned habitat, 

abundance and viability of seed in soil 

seed bank (depending on species, 

sagebrush seeds are typically viable for 

one to three seasons), rate of seed 

dispersal, and pre- and post-fire 

weather, which influences seedling 

germination and establishment (Young 

and Evans 1989, p. 204; Maier et al. 

2001, p. 701; Ziegenhagen and Miller 

2009, p. 201). Based on a review of 

existing literature, Baker (in press, pp. 

14-15) reports that full recovery to preburn conditions in Artemisia tridentata 

ssp. vaseyana communities ranges 

between 25 and 100 years and in A. t. 

ssp. wyomingensis communities 

between 50 and 120 years. However, the 

researcher cautions that data pertaining 

to the latter community is sparse. What 

is known is that by 25 years post-fire, A. 

t. ssp. wyomingensis typically has less 

than 5 percent pre-fire canopy cover 

(Baker in press, p. 15). 

A variety of techniques have been 

employed to restore sagebrush 

communities following a fire event 

(Cadwell et al. 1996, p. 143; Quinney et 

al. 1996, p. 157; Livingston 1998, p. 41). 

The extent and efficacy of restoration 

efforts is variable and complicated by 

limitations in capacity (personnel, 

equipment, funding, seed availability, 

and limited seeding window), 

incomplete knowledge of appropriate 

methods, invasive plant species, and 

abiotic factors, such as weather, that are 

largely outside the control of land 

managers (Hemstrom et al. 2002, pp. 

1250-1251; Pyke, in press, p. 29). While 

post-fire rehabilitation efforts have 

benefited from additional resources in 

recent years, resulting in an increase of 

treated acres from 28,100 ha (69,436 ac) 

in 1997 to 1.6 million ha (3.9 million ac) 

in 2002 (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-35), 

acreage treated annually remains far 

outpaced by acreage disturbed. For 

example, of the more than 1 million ha 

(2.5 million ac) of sage-grouse habitat 

burned during the 2006 and 2007 fire 

seasons on BLM-managed lands, about 

40 percent or 384,000 ha (950,000 ac) 

had some form of active post-fire 

restoration such as reseeding. More 

specifically, Eiswerth et al. (2009, p. 

1321) report that over the past 20 years 

within the BLM’s Winnemucca District 

in Nevada, approximately 12 percent of 

burned areas have been actively 

reseeded. 

The main purpose of the Burned Area 

Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation program (BLM 2007b, pp. 

1-2), designed to rehabilitate areas 

following fire, is to stabilize soils and 

maintain site productivity rather than to 

regain site suitability for wildlife (Pyke, 

in press, p. 24). Consequently, in areas 

that experience active post-fire 

restoration efforts, an emphasis is often 

placed on introduced grasses that 

establish quickly. Only recently has a 

modest increase in the use of native 

species for burned area rehabilitation 

been reported (Richards et al. 1998, p. 

630; Pyke, in press, p. 24). Further 

complicating our understanding of the 

effectiveness of these treatments is that 

most managers do not keep track of 

monitoring data in a routine or 

systematic fashion (GAO 2003, p. 5). 

Assuming complete success of 

restoration efforts on targeted areas, 

however unlikely, the return of a shrubdominated community will still require 

several decades, and landscape 

restoration may require centuries or 

longer (Knick 1999, p. 55; Hemstrom et 

al. 2002, p. 1252). Even longer periods 

may be required for greater sage-grouse 

to use recovered or restored landscapes 

(Knick et al., in press, p. 65). 

The loss of habitat due to wildland 

fire is anticipated to increase due to the 

intensifying synergistic interactions 

among fire, people, invasive species, 

and climate change (Miller et al., in 

press, p. 50). The recent past- and 

present-day fire regimes across the 

greater sage-grouse distribution have 

changed with a demonstrated increase 

in the more arid Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities and a decrease across 

many mountain big sagebrush 

communities. Both scenarios of altered 

fire regimes have caused significant 

losses to greater sage-grouse habitat 

through facilitating conifer expansion at 

high-elevation interfaces and exotic 

weed encroachment at lower elevations 

(Miller et al., in press, p. 47). In the face 

of climate change, both of these 

scenarios are anticipated to worsen 

(Baker, in press, p. 24; Miller et al., in 

press, p. 48). Predicted changes in 

temperature, precipitation, and carbon 

dioxide are all anticipated to influence 

vegetation dynamics and alter fire 

patterns resulting in the increasing loss 

and conversion of sagebrush habitats 

(Neilson et al. 2005, p. 157). Further, 

many climate scientists suggest that in 

addition to the predicted change in 

climate toward a warmer and generally 

wetter Great Basin, variability of 

interannual and interdecadal wet-dry 

cycles will increase and likely act in 

concert with fire, disease, and invasive 

species to further stress the sagebrush 

ecosystem (Neilson et al. 2005, p. 152). 

The anticipated increase in suitable 

conditions for wildland fire will likely 

further interact with people and 

infrastructure. Human-caused fires have 

reportedly increased and been shown to 

be correlated with road presence (Miller 

et al., in press. p. 40). Given the 

popularity of off-highway vehicles 

(OHV) and the ready access to lands in 

the Great Basin, the increasing trend in 

both fire ignitions by people and loss of 

habitat will likely continue. 

While multiple factors can influence 

sagebrush persistence, fire is the 

primary cause of recent large-scale 

losses of habitat within the Great Basin, 

and this stressor is anticipated to 

intensify. In addition to loss of habitat 

and its influence on greater sage-grouse 

population persistence, fragmentation 

and isolation of populations presents a 

higher probability of extirpation in 

disjunct areas (Knick and Hanser, in 

press, p. 20; Wisdom et al., in press, p. 

22). Knick and Hanser (in press, p. 31) 

suggest extinction is currently more 

probable than colonization for many 

great sage-grouse populations because of 

their low abundance and isolation 

coupled with fire and human influence. 

As areas become isolated through 

disturbances such as fire, populations 

are exposed to additional stressors and 

persistence may be hampered by the 

limited ability of individuals to disperse 

into areas that are otherwise not selfsustaining. Thus, while direct loss of 

habitat due to fire has been shown to be 

a significant factor associated with 

population persistence, the indirect 

effect posed by loss of connectivity 

among populations may greatly expand 

the influence of this threat beyond the 

physical fire perimeter. 

Summary: Fire 

Fire is one of the primary factors 

linked to population declines of greater 

sage-grouse because of long-term loss of 

sagebrush and conversion to 

monocultures of exotic grasses 

(Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7; Johnson 

et al., in press, p. 12; Knick and Hanser, 

in press, pp. 29-30). Loss of sagebrush 

habitat to wildfire has been increasing 

in western areas of the greater sagegrouse range for the past three decades. 

The change in fire frequency has been 

strongly influenced by the presence of 

exotic annual grasses and significantly 

deviates from extrapolated historical 

regimes. Restoration of these 

communities is challenging, requires 

many years, and may, in fact, never be 

achieved in the presence of invasive 

grass species. Greater sage-grouse are 

slow to recolonize burned areas even if 

structural features of the shrub 

community may have recovered (Knick 

et al., in press, p. 46). While it is not 

currently possible to predict the extent 

or location of future fire events, the best 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13935 

scientific and commercial information 

available indicates that fire frequency is 

likely to increase in the foreseeable 

future due to increases in cover of 

Bromus tectorum and the projected 

effects of climate change (see Invasive 

plants (annual grasses and other 

noxious weeds), below, and also 

Climate Change, below). 

An analysis of previously extirpated 

sage-grouse habitats has shown that the 

extent and abundance of sagebrush 

habitats, proximity to burned habitat, 

and degree of connectivity among sagegrouse groups strongly affects 

persistence (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 987; 

Knick and Hanser, in press, pp. 29-30; 

Wisdom et al., in press, p. 17). The loss 

of habitat caused by fire and the 

functional barrier burned habitat can 

pose to movement and dispersal 

compounds the influence this stressor 

can have on populations and population 

dynamics. Barring alterations to the 

current fire pattern, as well as the 

difficulties associated with restoration, 

the concerns presented by this threat 

will continue and likely strongly 

influence persistence of the greater sagegrouse, especially in the western half of 

its range within the foreseeable future. 

Invasive Plants (Annual Grasses and 

Other Noxious Weeds) 

For the purposes of our analysis in 

this section, we consider invasive plants 

(invasives) to be any nonnative plant 

that negatively impacts sage-grouse 

habitat, including annual grasses and 

other noxious weeds. However, in the 

literature that we reviewed, the terms 

noxious weeds and invasives were not 

consistently defined or applied. 

Consequently, both terms are used in 

our discussion to reflect the original use 

in the sources we cite. In the source 

material, it was often unclear whether 

discussions about noxious weeds 

included invasive annual grasses (e.g., 

Bromus tectorum), referred solely to 

invasive forbs and invasive perennial 

grasses, or only referenced species that 

are listed on State and Federal noxious 

weed lists (many of which do not 

consider B. tectorum a noxious weed). 

Nonetheless, all of these can be 

categorized as nonnative plants that 

have a negative impact on sage-grouse 

habitat and thus meet our definition of 

invasive plants. 

Invasives alter plant community 

structure and composition, productivity, 

nutrient cycling, and hydrology 

(Vitousek 1990, p. 7) and may cause 

declines in native plant populations 

through competitive exclusion and 

niche displacement, among other 

mechanisms (Mooney and Cleland 2001, 

p. 5446). Invasive plants reduce and, in 

cases where monocultures occur, 

eliminate vegetation that sage-grouse 

use for food and cover. Invasives do not 

provide quality sage-grouse habitat. 

Sage-grouse depend on a variety of 

native forbs and the insects associated 

with them for chick survival, and 

sagebrush, which is used exclusively 

throughout the winter for food and 

cover. Invasives impact the entire range 

of sage-grouse, although not all given 

species are distributed across the entire 

range. Leu et al. (2008, pp. 1119-1139) 

modeled the risk of invasion by exotic 

plant species for the entire range of 

sage-grouse. Areas at high risk for 

invasion were distributed throughout 

the range, but were especially 

concentrated in eastern Washington 

(MZ VI), southern Idaho (MZ IV), 

central Utah (MZ III), and northeast 

Montana (MZ I). 

Along with replacing or removing 

vegetation essential to sage-grouse, 

invasives fragment existing sage-grouse 

habitat. They can create long-term 

changes in ecosystem processes, such as 

fire-cycles (see discussion under Fire 

above) and other disturbance regimes 

that persist even after an invasive plant 

is removed (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 33). 

A variety of nonnative annuals and 

perennials are invasive to sagebrush 

ecosystems (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7- 

107 and 7-108; Zouhar et al. 2008, p 

144). Bromus tectorum is considered 

most invasive in Artemisia tridentata 

ssp. wyomingensis communities, while 

Taeniatherum asperum fills a similar 

niche in more mesic communities with 

heavier clay soils (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 5-9). Some other problematic 

rangeland weeds include Euphorbia 

esula (leafy spurge), Centaurea 

solstitialis (yellow starthistle), 

Centaurea maculosa (spotted 

knapweed), Centaurea diffusa (diffuse 

knapweed), and a number of other 

Centaurea species (DiTomaso 2000, p. 

255; Davies and Svejcar 2008, pp. 623- 

629). 

Nonnative annual grasses (e.g., 

Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherum 

asperum) have caused extensive 

sagebrush habitat loss in the 

Intermountain West and Great Basin 

(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 1-2 and 4-16). 

They impact sagebrush ecosystems by 

shortening fire intervals to as low as 3 

to 5 years, perpetuating their own 

persistence and intensifying the role of 

fire (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Connelly et 

al. (2004, p. 7-5) suggested that fire 

intervals are shortened to less than 10 

years. Although nonnative annual 

grasses occur throughout the sagegrouse’s range, they are more 

problematic in western States (MZs III, 

IV, V, and VI) than Rocky Mountain 

States (MZs I and II) (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 5-9). 

Quantifying the total amount of sagegrouse habitat impacted by invasives is 

problematic due to differing sampling 

methodologies, incomplete sampling, 

inconsistencies in species sampled, and 

varying interpretations of what 

constitutes an infestation (Miller et al., 

in press, p. 19). Widely variable 

estimates of the total acreage of weed 

infestations have been reported. BLM 

(1996, p. 6) estimated invasives (which 

may or may not have included Bromus 

tectorum in their estimate) covered at 

least 3.2 million ha (8 million ac) of 

BLM lands as of 1994, and predicted 7.7 

million ha (19 million ac) would be 

infested by 2000. However, a qualitative 

1991 BLM survey covering 40 million 

ha (98.8 million ac) of all BLM-managed 

land in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, 

Nevada, and Utah (MZs III, IV, V, and 

VI) reported that introduced annual 

grasses were a dominant or significant 

presence on 7 million ha (17.2 million 

ac) of sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 5-10). An additional 25.1 

million ha (62 million ac) had less than 

10 percent B. tectorum in the 

understory, but were considered to be at 

risk of B. tectorum invasion (Zouhar 

2003, p. 3, in reference to the same 

survey). More recently, BLM reported 

that as of 2000, noxious weeds and 

annual grasses occupied 11.9 million ha 

(29.4 million ac) of BLM lands in 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, 

and Utah (BLM 2007a, p. 3-28). 

However, when considering all States 

within the current range of sage-grouse, 

this number increases to 14.8 million ha 

(36.5 million ac). Although estimates of 

the total area infested by B. tectorum 

vary widely, it is clear that B. tectorum 

is a significant presence in western 

rangelands. 

The Landscape Fire and Resource 

Management Planning Tools Project 

(LANDFIRE) has a rangewide dataset 

documenting annual grass distribution. 

Based on 1999–2002 imagery, at least 

885,990 ha (2.2 million ac) of annual 

grasses occur within the current range of 

sage-grouse (LANDFIRE 2007). Satellite 

data only map annual grass 

monocultures, and not areas where they 

occur in lower densities or even 

dominate the sagebrush understory 

(which is mapped as sagebrush). 

Therefore, the LANDFIRE dataset is a 

gross underestimate of the total acres of 

infestation. However, this dataset 

provides a rangewide comparison of 

annual grass monocultures and 

identifies the large extent of these 

monocultures in both the western and 

eastern part of the sage-grouse’s range. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13936 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Approximately 80 percent of land in 

the Great Basin Ecoregion (MZs III, IV, 

and V) is susceptible to displacement by 

Bromus tectorum (including over 58 

percent of sagebrush that is moderately 

or highly susceptible) within 30 years 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-17, Suring et 

al. 2005, p. 138). Due to the 

disproportionate abundance of B. 

tectorum in the Great Basin, suggesting 

an increased susceptibility to B. 

tectorum invasion than other parts of 

the sage-grouse’s range, Connelly et al. 

(2004, p. 7-8) cautioned that a formal 

analysis of the risk of B. tectorum 

invasion in other areas was needed 

before such inferences are made. Also, 

while nonnative annual grasses are 

usually associated with lower elevations 

and drier climates (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 5-5), the ecological range of B. 

tectorum continues to expand at low 

and high elevations (Ramakrishnan et 

al. 2006, pp. 61-62), both southward and 

eastward (Miller et al., in press, p. 21). 

Local infestations of B. tectorum and 

other annual grasses occur in Montana, 

Wyoming, and Colorado (MZs I and II) 

(Miller et al., in press, p. 21), and there 

is evidence that B. tectorum is 

impacting fire intervals in Wyoming. 

For example, 40,469 ha (100,000 ac) of 

sagebrush that burned in a wildfire 

southeast of Worland, Wyoming (MZ II), 

became infested with B. tectorum, 

accelerating the fire interval in this area 

(Wyoming Big Horn Basin Sage-grouse 

Local Working Group 2007, pp. 39-40). 

Noxious weeds spread about 931 ha 

(2,300 ac) per day on BLM land and 

1,862 ha (4,600 ac) per day on all public 

land in the West (BLM 1996, p. 1), or 

increase about 8 to 20 percent annually 

(Federal Interagency Committee for the 

Management of Noxious and Exotic 

Weeds 1997, p. v). Invasions are often 

associated with ground disturbances 

caused by wildfire, grazing, 

infrastructure, and other anthropogenic 

activity (Rice and Mack 1990, p. 84; 

Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 420; 

Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 23), but 

disturbance is not required for invasives 

to spread (Young and Allen 1997, p. 

531; Roundy et al. 2007, p. 614). 

Invasions also may occur sequentially, 

where initial invaders (e.g., Bromus 

tectorum) are replaced by new exotics 

(Crawford et al. 2004, p 9; Miller et al., 

in press, p. 20). 

Based on data collected in the western 

half of the range, Bradley et al. (2009, 

pp. 1511-1521; Bradley 2009, pp. 196- 

208) predicted favorable conditions for 

Bromus tectorum across much of the 

sage-grouse’s range under current and 

future (2100) climate conditions. A 

strong indicator for future B. tectorum 

locations is the proximity to current 

locations (Bradley and Mustard 2006, p. 

1146) as well as summer, annual, and 

spring precipitation, and winter 

temperature (Bradley 2009, p. 196). 

Bradley et al. (2009, p. 1517) predicted 

that in the future some areas will 

become unfavorable for B. tectorum 

while others will become favorable. 

Specifically, Bradley et al. (2009, p. 

1515) predicted that climatically 

suitable B. tectorum habitat will shift 

northwards, leading to expanded risk in 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, but 

reduced risk in southern Nevada and 

Utah. Despite the potential for future 

retreat in Nevada and Utah, there will 

still be climatically suitable B. tectorum 

habitat in these States, well within the 

range of sage-grouse (see Figure 4b in 

Bradley et al. 2009, p. 1517). Bradley et 

al. (2009, p. 1511) noted that changes in 

climatic suitability may create 

restoration opportunities in areas that 

are currently dominated by invasives. 

We anticipate that B. tectorum will 

eventually disappear from areas that 

become climatically unsuitable for this 

species, but this transition is unlikely to 

occur suddenly. Also, Bradley et al. 

(2009, p. 1519) cautioned that areas that 

become unfavorable to B. tectorum may 

become favorable to other invasives, 

such as B. rubens (red brome) in the 

southern Great Basin, which is more 

tolerant of higher temperatures. 

Therefore, areas that become unsuitable 

for B. tectorum will not necessarily be 

returned to pre-invaded habitat 

conditions without significant effort. 

Bradley et al. (2009, p. 1519) suggested 

that modeling and experimental work is 

needed to assess whether native species 

could occupy these sites if invasives are 

reduced or eliminated by climate 

change. 

LANDFIRE also has a rangewide 

dataset documenting other exotic 

grasses and forbs, including perennial 

grasses and annual, perennial, and 

biennial forbs. Like annual grasses, 

other invasive plants are grossly 

underestimated in the LANDFIRE 

dataset because the dataset only 

includes monocultures of these species. 

Based on 1999–2002 imagery, at least 

1.3 million ha (3.3 million ac) of other 

exotic plants occur within the current 

range of sage-grouse (LANDFIRE 2007). 

Aside from LANDFIRE, the only other 

information documenting the specific 

distribution of invasives within the 

sage-grouse’s range is at a presence– 

absence scale at the county level. 

DiTomaso (2000, p. 257) estimated that 

western rangelands are infested with 

2,900,000 ha (7,166,027 ac) of C. 

maculosa, 1,300,000 ha (3,212,357 ac) of 

C. diffusa, 8,000,000 ha (19,768,352 ac) 

of C. solstitialis, and 1,100,000 ha 

(2,718,148 ac) of Euphorbia esula, but 

this estimate did not describe the 

distribution of invasives across the 

landscape. These estimates, combined 

with estimates of acres infested by 

Bromus tectorum, and the fact that 

LANDFIRE detected more acres of other 

noxious weeds than annual grasses, 

illustrate the severity of the invasives 

problem. 

Invasives that are not annual grasses 

impact the entire range of sage-grouse, 

although not all given species are 

distributed across the entire range. Leu 

et al. (2008, pp. 1119-1139) modeled the 

risk of invasion by exotic plant species 

(which also would include annual 

grasses), for the entire range of sagegrouse. Areas at high risk for invasion 

were distributed throughout the range, 

but were especially concentrated in 

eastern Washington (MZ VI), southern 

Idaho (MZ IV), central Utah (MZ III), 

and northeastern Montana (MZ I). Like 

Bromus tectorum, the distribution of 

other invasives will likely shift with 

climate change. Bradley et al. (2009, p. 

1518) predicts that the range of C. 

maculosa will expand in some areas, 

mainly in parts of Oregon, Idaho, 

western Wyoming, and Colorado, and 

will contract in other areas (e.g., eastern 

Montana). She also predicts that the 

range of C. solstitialis will expand 

eastward (Bradley et al. 2009, p. 1514) 

and that the invasion risk of Euphorbia 

esula will likely decrease in several 

States, including parts of Colorado, 

Oregon, and Idaho (Bradley et al. 2009, 

pp. 1516-1518). 

Many efforts are ongoing to restore or 

rehabilitate sage-grouse habitat affected 

by invasive species. Common 

rehabilitation techniques include first 

reducing the density of invasives using 

herbicides, defoliation via grazing, 

pathogenic bacteria and other forms of 

biocontrol, or prescribed fire (Tu et al. 

2001; Larson et al. 2008, p. 250; Pyke, 

in press, pp. 25-26). Sites are then 

typically reseeded with grass and forb 

mixes, and sometimes planted with 

sagebrush plugs. Despite ongoing efforts 

to transform lands dominated by 

invasive annual grasses into quality 

sage-grouse habitat, restoration and 

rehabilitation techniques are considered 

to be mostly unproven and experimental 

(Pyke, in press, pp. 25-28, and see 

discussion on fire above). 

Several components of the restoration 

process are being investigated with 

varying success (Pyke, in press, p. 25). 

Some techniques show promise, such as 

use of the herbicide Imazapic to control 

Bromus tectorum. However, further 

analyses of the benefit of this method 

still need to be conducted (Pyke, in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13937 

press, p. 27). Also, it will take time for 

sagebrush to establish and mature in 

areas currently dominated by annual 

grasses. Rehabilitation and restoration 

efforts also are hindered by cost and the 

ability to procure the equipment and 

seed needed for projects (Pyke, in press, 

pp. 29-30). Furthermore, while 

restoration projects for other species 

may depend on a single site or 

landowner, restoration of sage-grouse 

habitat requires partnerships across 

multiple ownerships in order to restore 

and maintain a connective network of 

intact vegetation (Pyke, in press, pp. 33- 

34). 

Treatment success also depends on 

factors which are not controllable, such 

as precipitation received at the 

treatment site (Pyke, in press, p. 30). For 

example, only 3.3 to 33.6 percent of 

recent vegetation treatments conducted 

by the BLM in annual grassland 

monocultures were reported as 

successful (Carlson 2008b, pers. comm.). 

Areas with established annual grasses 

that receive less than 22.9 cm (9 in.) of 

annual precipitation are less likely to 

benefit from restoration (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-17, Carlson 2008b, pers. 

comm.). Consequently, BLM focuses 

most (98 percent) of their restoration 

efforts in areas receiving more than 22.9 

cm (9 in.) of annual precipitation where 

there is greater chance of success. Of the 

BLM treatments in annual grasslands, 

only 10 percent of acres treated in areas 

receiving less than 22.9 cm (9 in.) of 

annual precipitation were considered to 

be effectively treated. In areas receiving 

between 22.9 cm (9 in.) and 30.5 cm (12 

in.) of annual precipitation, 33.6 percent 

of the acres were treated effectively, and 

3.3 percent of the acres were treated 

effectively in areas receiving greater 

than 30.5 cm (12 in.) of annual 

precipitation (Carlson 2008b, pers. 

comm.). Since the BLM treatments in 

annual grassland monocultures 

included both the reestablishment of 

native shrub and grass species and 

greenstripping efforts to reduce the 

frequency of fires in annual grassland 

monocultures, it is unclear how many of 

these successfully treated acres are 

attributed to restoration versus 

prevention. 

A variety of regulatory mechanisms 

and nonregulatory measures to control 

invasive plants exist. However, the 

extent to which these mechanisms 

effectively ameliorate the current rate of 

invasive expansion is unclear. If 

noxious weeds are spreading at a rate of 

931 ha (2,300 ac) per day on BLM lands 

(BLM 1996, p. 1), this amounts to 

339,815 ha (839,500 ac) per year, which 

includes both suitable and nonsuitable 

habitat for sage-grouse. It is unclear 

whether this estimate is limited to 

noxious weeds or if it includes other 

invasives (e.g., Bromus tectorum). Still, 

we can compare this estimate to the area 

of all invasives (excluding conifers) 

treated by the BLM between October 

2005 and September 2007, which 

totaled 259,897 ha (642,216 ac), i.e., 

approximately 86,632 ha (214,072 ac) 

treated annually. 

The number of acres treated annually 

(86,632 ha; 214,072 ac) is not keeping 

pace with the rate of spread (339,815 ha; 

839,500 ac) especially when considering 

the inability to treat the problem. We 

acknowledge that the rate of spread on 

BLM lands also includes areas that are 

not sage-grouse habitat. However, the 

rate of spread may not have included B. 

tectorum and only part of the invasive 

treatments completed by BLM (23.6 

percent of treatments in annual 

grassland monocultures and 7.5 percent 

of treatments in sagebrush with annual 

grassland understories) were considered 

to be effective by the BLM (Carlson 

2008b, pers. comm.). Also, treatments 

are typically considered to be successful 

based on whether native vegetation was 

reestablished, maintained, or enhanced, 

and not based on a positive population 

response of sage-grouse to the treatment. 

Therefore, the effectiveness of 

treatments for sage-grouse is likely 

much less than reported for vegetation. 

The National Invasive Species 

Council (2008, p. 8) acknowledges that 

there has been a significant increase in 

activity and awareness, but that much 

remains to be done to prevent and 

mitigate the problems caused by 

invasive species. As an example, the 

State of Montana has made much 

progress through partnerships in 

reducing noxious weeds in the State 

from 3.2 million ha (8 million ac) in 

2000 to 3.1 million ha (7.6 million ac) 

in 2008 (Montana Weed Control 

Association 2008). However, the 

Montana Noxious Weed Summit 

Advisory Council Weed Management 

Task Force (2008, p. III) estimates that 

to slow weed spread and reduce current 

infestations by 5 percent annually, they 

require 2.6 times the current level of 

funding from a variety of private, local, 

State, and Federal sources (or $55.8 

million versus $21.2 million). In 

addition to funding, other factors that 

potentially limit ability to control 

invasives include the amount of 

available native seed sources, the time 

it takes to restore sagebrush to an area 

once it is removed from a site, and the 

existence of treatments that are known 

to be effective in the long-term. 

Monitoring is limited in many cases 

and, where it occurs, monitoring 

typically does not document the 

population response of sage-grouse to 

these treatments. 

Invasives are a serious rangewide 

threat, and one of the highest risk 

factors for sage-grouse based on the 

plants’ ability to out-compete sagebrush, 

the inability to effectively control them 

once they become established, and the 

synergistic interaction between them 

and other risk factors on the landscape 

(e.g., wildfire, infrastructure 

construction). Invasives reduce and 

eliminate vegetation that is essential for 

sage-grouse to use as food and cover. 

Their presence on the landscape has 

removed and fragmented sage-grouse 

habitat. Because invasives are 

widespread, have the ability to spread 

rapidly, occur near areas susceptible to 

invasion, and are difficult to control, we 

anticipate that invasives will continue 

to replace and reduce the quality of 

sage-grouse habitat across the range in 

the foreseeable future. There have been 

many studies addressing effective 

invasive control methods, as well as 

conservation actions to control 

invasives, with varied success. While 

some efforts appear successful at 

smaller scales, prevention (e.g., early 

detection and fire prevention) appears 

to be the only known effective tool to 

preclude or minimize large-scale habitat 

loss from invasive species in the future. 

Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment 

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are a 

native habitat type dominated by 

pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and various 

juniper species (Juniperus spp.) that can 

encroach upon, infill, and eventually 

replace sagebrush habitat. These two 

woodland types are often referred to 

collectively as pinyon-juniper; however, 

some portions of the sage-grouse’s range 

are only impacted by juniper 

encroachment. Commons et al. (1999, p. 

238) found that the number of male 

Gunnison sage-grouse (C. minimus) on 

leks in southwestern Colorado doubled 

after pinyon-juniper removal and 

mechanical treatment of mountain 

sagebrush and deciduous brush. Hence, 

we infer that some greater sage-grouse 

populations have been negatively 

affected by pinyon-juniper 

encroachment and that some 

populations will decline in the future 

due to projected increases in the 

pinyon-juniper type, especially in areas 

where pinyon-juniper encroachment is a 

large-scale threat (parts of MZs III, IV, 

and V). Doherty et al. (2008, p. 187) 

reported a strong avoidance of conifers 

by female greater sage-grouse in the 

winter, further supporting our previous 

inference. Also, Freese’s (2009, pp. 84- 

85, 89-90) 2–year telemetry study in 

central Oregon found that sage-grouse 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13938 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

used areas with less than 5 percent 

juniper cover more often in the breeding 

and summer seasons than similar 

habitat that had greater than 5 percent 

juniper cover. Therefore, pinyon-juniper 

encroachment into occupied sage-grouse 

habitat reduces, and likely eventually 

eliminates, sage-grouse occupancy in 

these areas. 

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are often 

associated with sagebrush communities 

and currently occupy at least 18 million 

ha (44.6 million ac) of the 

Intermountain West within the sagegrouse’s range (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 

8; Miller et al. 2008, p. 1). Pinyonjuniper extent has increased 10-fold in 

the Intermountain West since European 

settlement causing the loss of many 

bunchgrass and sagebrush-bunchgrass 

communities (Miller and Tausch 2001, 

pp. 15-16). This expansion has been 

attributed to the reduced role of fire, the 

introduction of livestock grazing, 

increases in global carbon dioxide 

concentrations, climate change, and 

natural recovery from past disturbance 

(Miller and Rose 1999, pp. 555-556; 

Miller and Tausch 2001, p. 15; Baker, in 

press, p. 24; see also discussion under 

Fire above). 

Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-8 to 7-14) 

estimated that approximately 60 percent 

of sagebrush in the Great Basin was at 

low risk of displacement by pinyonjuniper in 30 years, 6 percent at 

moderate risk, and 35 percent at high 

risk. Mountain big sagebrush appears to 

be most at risk of pinyon-juniper 

displacement (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 

7-13). When juniper increases in 

mountain big sagebrush communities, 

shrub cover declines and the season of 

available succulent forbs is shortened 

due to soil moisture depletion 

(Crawford et al. 2004, p. 8). As with 

Bromus tectorum, the Great Basin 

appears more susceptible to pinyonjuniper invasion than other areas of the 

sage-grouse’s range; however, Connelly 

et al. (2004, pp. 7-8) cautioned that a 

formal analysis of the risks posed in 

other locations was needed before such 

inferences could be made. 

Annual encroachment rates that were 

reported in five studies ranged from 0.3 

to 31 trees per hectare (0.7 to 77 trees 

per acre) (Sankey and Germino 2008, p. 

413). For the three studies that 

measured the percent increase in 

juniper cover per year, cover increased 

between 0.4 and 4.5 percent annually 

(Sankey and Germino 2008, p. 413). 

Sankey and Germino (2008, p. 413) 

compared juniper encroachment rates 

from previous research to their study. 

Their estimate that juniper cover 

increased 0.7 to 1.5 percent annually 

was based on a 22 to 30 percent increase 

in cover between 1985 and 2005 at their 

southeastern Idaho study site (Sankey 

and Germino 2008, pp. 412-413). 

Pinyon-juniper expansion into 

sagebrush habitats, with subsequent 

replacement of sagebrush communities, 

has been well documented (Miller et al. 

2000, p. 575; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7- 

5; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 2; Miller et 

al. 2008, p. 1). However, few studies 

have documented woodland dynamics 

at the landscape level across different 

ecological provinces, creating some 

uncertainty regarding the total amount 

of expansion that has occurred in 

sagebrush communities (Miller et al. 

2008, p. 1). Regardless, we know that up 

to 90 percent of existing woodlands in 

the sagebrush-steppe and Great Basin 

sagebrush vegetation types were 

previously dominated by sagebrush 

vegetation prior to the late 1800s (Miller 

et al., in press, pp. 23-24). Based on past 

trends and the current distribution of 

pinyon-juniper relative to sagebrush 

habitat, we anticipate that expansion 

will continue at varying rates across the 

landscape and cause further loss of 

sagebrush habitat within the western 

part of the sage-grouse’s range, 

especially in parts of MZs III, IV, and V. 

While pinyon-juniper expansion 

appears less problematic in the eastern 

portion of the range (MZs I, II and VII) 

and silver sagebrush areas (primarily 

MZ I), woodland encroachment is a 

threat mentioned in Wyoming, 

Montana, and Colorado State sagegrouse conservation plans, indicating 

that this is of some concern in these 

States as well (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 2- 

23). Colorado’s State plan mapped areas 

threatened by pinyon-juniper 

encroachment in northwestern 

Colorado, and specifically attributed 

some sage-grouse habitat loss in 

Colorado to pinyon-juniper expansion 

(Colorado Greater Sage-grouse Steering 

Committee 2008, pp. 179, 182). 

Furthermore, LANDFIRE (2007) data 

illustrates extensive coverage of pinyonjuniper woodlands in parts of 

northwestern Colorado within the range 

of sage-grouse. These data also show 

limited pinyon-juniper coverage in 

Montana and Wyoming; however, 

LANDFIRE data could be a major 

underestimate of juniper because it is 

difficult to classify pinyon-juniper 

woodlands with satellite imagery when 

the trees occur at low densities (Hagen 

2005, p. 142). 

Recently, many conservation actions 

have addressed this threat using a 

variety of techniques (e.g., mechanical, 

herbicide, cutting, burning) to remove 

conifers in sage-grouse habitat. The 

effectiveness of these treatments varies 

with the technique used and proximity 

of the site to invasive plant infestations, 

among other factors. We are not aware 

of any study documenting a direct 

correlation between these treatments 

and increased greater sage-grouse 

productivity; however, we infer some 

level of positive response based on 

Commons et al.’s (1999) Gunnison sagegrouse study and the documented 

avoidance, or reduced use, by sagegrouse of areas where pinyon-juniper 

has encroached upon sagebrush 

communities (Doherty et al. 2008, p. 

187; Freese 2009, pp. 84-85, 89-90). 

However, since the effectiveness of 

treatments for sage-grouse is usually 

based on a short-term, anecdotal 

evaluation of whether pinyon-juniper 

was successfully removed from a site, it 

is unclear whether pinyon-juniper 

removal has a positive long-term 

population-level impact for sage-grouse. 

In most cases it is still too early to 

measure a population response to these 

treatments (Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife (ODFW) 2008, p. 3). 

Consequently, we do not know if these 

efforts are effectively ameliorating the 

threat of pinyon-juniper expansion at 

the site-level. 

Furthermore, while many acres have 

been treated since 2004, treatments are 

not likely keeping pace with the current 

rate of pinyon-juniper encroachment, at 

least in parts of the range. For example, 

while Oregon has treated approximately 

8,094 ha (20,000 ac) of juniper to restore 

native sagebrush habitat between 2003 

and early 2008 (about 1,619 ha or 4,000 

ac per year; ODFW 2008, p. 3), 

LANDFIRE data show at least 106,882 

ha (264,110 ac) of juniper occur within 

4.8 km (3 mi) of Oregon leks. This 

distance (4.8 km; 3 mi) reflects the 

upper estimate of a typical pinyon seed 

dispersal event, although seeds may be 

dispersed shorter distances and up to at 

least 10 km (6.2 mi) (Chambers et al. 

1999, p. 12). At this rate, it would take 

approximately 60 years to remove the 

threat of juniper encroachment within 3 

miles of sage-grouse leks in Oregon, 

assuming expansion does not continue. 

Again, LANDFIRE data provides a 

gross underestimate of pinyon-juniper 

since it misses single, large trees. This 

underestimate suggests that it will take 

longer than 60 years to fully address the 

threat of juniper encroachment in 

Oregon, if conservation actions continue 

to occur at the current rate. 

Furthermore, not all treatments are 

effective. Of the 38,780 ha (95,826 ac) 

treated by BLM in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 

and FY 2007, only 21,598 ha (53,369 

ac), or 55.7 percent were considered to 

be effective by the BLM (Carlson 2008b, 

pers. comm.). Again, the measure of 

effectiveness typically refers to whether 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13939 

vegetation was treated successfully, and 

not whether sage-grouse use an area that 

has been treated. 

Summary: Invasive Plants and PinyonJuniper Encroachment 

Invasives plants negatively impact 

sage-grouse primarily by reducing or 

eliminating native vegetation that sagegrouse require for food and cover, 

resulting in habitat loss and 

fragmentation. A variety of nonnative 

annuals and perennials (e.g., Bromus 

tectorum, Euphorbia esula) and native 

conifers (e.g., pinyon pine, juniper 

species) are invasive to sagebrush 

ecosystems. Nonnative invasives, 

including annual grasses and other 

noxious weeds, continue to expand 

their range, facilitated by ground 

disturbances such as wildfire, grazing, 

and infrastructure. Pinyon and juniper 

and some other native conifers are 

expanding and infilling their current 

range mainly due to decreased fire 

return intervals, livestock grazing, and 

increases in global carbon dioxide 

concentrations associated with climate 

change, among other factors. 

Collectively, invasives plants impact 

the entire range of sage-grouse, although 

they are most problematic in the 

Intermountain West and Great Basin 

(MZs III, IV, V, and VI). A large portion 

of the Great Basin is at risk of B. 

tectorum invasion or pinyon-juniper 

encroachment within the next 30 years. 

Approximately 80 percent of land in the 

Great Basin Ecoregion (MZs III, IV, and 

V) is susceptible to displacement by B. 

tectorum within 30 years (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 7-17, Suring et al. 2005, p. 

138). Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-8 to 7- 

14) estimated that approximately 35 

percent of sagebrush in the Great Basin 

was at high risk of displacement by 

pinyon-juniper in 30 years. Bromus 

tectorum is widespread at lower 

elevations and pinyon-juniper 

woodlands tend to expand into higher 

elevation sagebrush habitats, creating an 

elevational squeeze from both low and 

high elevations. Climate change will 

likely alter the range of individual 

invasive species, increasing 

fragmentation and habitat loss of 

sagebrush communities. Despite the 

potential shifting of individual species, 

invasive plants will persist and 

continue to spread rangewide in the 

foreseeable future. 

A variety of restoration and 

rehabilitation techniques are used to 

treat invasive plants, but they can be 

costly and are mostly unproven and 

experimental. The success of treatments, 

particularly for annual grassland 

restoration, depends on uncontrollable 

factors (e.g., precipitation). While some 

efforts appear successful at smaller 

scales, prevention appears to be the only 

known effective tool to preclude largescale habitat loss from invasive annuals 

and perennials in the future. Pinyonjuniper treatments, particularly when 

done in the early stages of 

encroachment when sagebrush and forb 

understory is still intact, have the 

potential to provide an immediate 

benefit to sage-grouse. However, studies 

have not yet documented a correlation 

between pinyon-juniper treatments and 

increased greater sage-grouse 

productivity. 

Grazing 

Native herbivores, such as pronghorn 

antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule 

deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bison 

(Bison bison), and other ungulates were 

present in low numbers on the 

sagebrush-steppe region prior to 

European settlement of western States 

(Osborne 1953, p. 267; Miller et al. 

1994, p. 111), and sage-grouse coevolved with these animals. However, 

mass extinction of the majority of large 

herbivores occurred 10,000 to 12,000 

years ago (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616; 

Knick et al., in press, p. 40). From that 

period up until European settlement, 

many areas of sagebrush-steppe still did 

not support herds of large ungulates and 

grazing pressure was likely sporadic and 

localized (Miller et al. 1994, p. 113; 

Plew and Sundell 2000, p. 132; Grayson 

2006, p. 921). Additionally, plants of the 

sagebrush-steppe lack traits that reflect 

a history of large ungulate grazing 

pressure (Mack and Thompson 1982, 

pp. 757). Therefore, native vegetation 

communities within the sagebrush 

ecosystem evolved in the absence of 

significant grazing presence (Mack and 

Thompson 1982, p. 768). With European 

settlement of western States (1860 to the 

early 1900s), unregulated numbers of 

cattle, sheep, and horses rapidly 

increased, peaking at the turn of the 

century (Oliphant 1968, p. vii; Young et 

al. 1976, pp. 194-195, Carpenter 1981, p. 

106; Donahue 1999, p. 15) with an 

estimated 19.6 million cattle and 25 

million sheep in the West (BLM 2009a, 

p. 1). 

Excessive grazing by domestic 

livestock during the late 1800s and early 

1900s, along with severe drought, 

significantly impacted sagebrush 

ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616). 

Long-term effects from this overgrazing, 

including changes in plant communities 

and soils, persist today (Knick et al. 

2003, p.116). Currently, livestock 

grazing is the most widespread type of 

land use across the sagebrush biome 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-29); almost all 

sagebrush areas are managed for 

livestock grazing (Knick et al. 2003, p. 

616; Knick et al., in press, p. 27). 

Although little direct experimental 

evidence links grazing practices to 

population levels of greater sage-grouse 

(Braun 1987, p. 137; Connelly and 

Braun 1997, p. 231), the impacts of 

livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitat 

and on some aspects of the life cycle of 

the species have been studied. Sagegrouse need significant grass and shrub 

cover for protection from predators, 

particularly during nesting season, and 

females will preferentially choose 

nesting sites based on these qualities 

(Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). The reduction 

of grass heights due to livestock grazing 

in sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing 

areas has been shown to negatively 

affect nesting success when cover is 

reduced below the 18 cm (7 in.) needed 

for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. 

1994, p. 165). Based on measurements 

of cattle foraging rates on bunchgrasses 

both between and under sagebrush 

canopies, the probability of foraging on 

under-canopy bunchgrasses depends on 

sagebrush morphology, and 

consequently, the effects of grazing on 

nesting habitats might be site specific 

(France et al. 2008, pp. 392-393). 

Several authors have noted that 

grazing by livestock could reduce the 

suitability of breeding and brood-rearing 

habitat, negatively affecting sage-grouse 

populations (Braun 1987, p. 137; Dobkin 

1995, p. 18; Connelly and Braun 1997, 

p. 231; Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998- 

1000). Exclosure studies have 

demonstrated that domestic livestock 

grazing reduces water infiltration rates 

and cover of herbaceous plants and 

litter, as well as compacting soils and 

increasing soil erosion (Braun 1998, p. 

147; Dobkin et al. 1998, p. 213). These 

impacts result in a change in the 

proportion of shrub, grass, and forb 

components in the affected area, and an 

increased invasion of exotic plant 

species that do not provide suitable 

habitat for sage-grouse (Mack and 

Thompson 1982, p. 761; Miller and 

Eddleman 2000, p. 19; Knick et al., in 

press, p. 41). 

Livestock also may compete directly 

with sage-grouse for rangeland 

resources. Cattle are grazers, feeding 

mostly on grasses, but they will make 

seasonal use of forbs and shrub species 

like sagebrush (Vallentine 1990, p. 226). 

Domestic sheep are intermediate feeders 

making high use of forbs, but also using 

a large volume of grass and shrub 

species like sagebrush (Vallentine 1990, 

pp. 240-241). Sheep consume rangeland 

forbs in occupied sage-grouse habitat 

(Pederson et al. 2003, p. 43) and, in 

general, forb consumption may reduce 

food availability for sage-grouse. This 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13940 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

impact is particularly important for prelaying hens, as forbs provide essential 

calcium, phosphorus, and protein 

(Barnett and Crawford 1994, p. 117). A 

hen’s nutritional condition affects nest 

initiation rate, clutch size, and 

subsequent reproductive success 

(Barnett and Crawford 1994, p.117; 

Coggins 1998, p. 30). 

Other effects of direct competition 

between livestock and sage-grouse 

depend on condition of the habitat and 

the grazing practices. Thus, the effects 

vary across the range of the greater sagegrouse. For example, Aldridge and 

Brigham (2003, p. 30) suggest that poor 

livestock management in mesic sites, 

which are considered limited habitats 

for sage-grouse in Alberta (Aldridge and 

Brigham 2002, p. 441), results in a 

reduction of forbs and grasses available 

to sage-grouse chicks, thereby affecting 

chick survival. 

Other consequences of grazing 

include several related to livestock 

trampling of grouse and habitat. 

Although the effect of trampling at a 

population level is unknown, outright 

nest destruction has been documented 

and the presence of livestock can cause 

sage-grouse to abandon their nests 

(Rasmussen and Griner 1938, p. 863; 

Patterson 1952, p. 111; Call and Maser 

1985, p. 17; Holloran and Anderson 

2003, p. 309; Coates 2007, p.28). Coates 

(2007, p. 28) documented nest 

abandonment following partial nest 

depredation by a cow. In general all 

recorded encounters between livestock 

and grouse nests resulted in hens 

flushing from nests, which could expose 

the eggs to predation; there is strong 

evidence that visual predators like 

ravens use hen movements to locate 

sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007, p.33). 

Livestock also may trample sagebrush 

seedlings, thereby removing a source of 

future sage-grouse food and cover 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-31). 

Trampling of soil by livestock can 

reduce or eliminate biological soil crusts 

making these areas susceptible to 

Bromus tectorum invasion (Mack 1981 

as cited in Miller and Eddleman 2000, 

p. 21; Young and Allen 1997, p. 531). 

Some livestock grazing effects may 

have positive consequences for sagegrouse. Evans (1986, p. 67) found that 

sage-grouse used grazed meadows 

significantly more during late summer 

than ungrazed meadows because grazing 

had stimulated the regrowth of forbs. 

Klebenow (1981, p. 121) noted that sagegrouse sought out and used openings in 

meadows created by cattle grazing in 

northern Nevada. Also, both sheep and 

goats have been used to control invasive 

weeds (Mosley 1996 as cited in 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-49; Merritt et 

al. 2001, p. 4; Olsen and Wallander 

2001, p. 30) and woody plant 

encroachment (Riggs and Urness 1989, 

p. 358) in sage-grouse habitat. 

Sagebrush plant communities are not 

adapted to domestic grazing 

disturbance. Grazing changed the 

functioning of systems into less 

resilient, and in some cases, altered 

communities (Knick et al., in press, p. 

39). The ability to restore or rehabilitate 

areas depends on the condition of the 

area relative to its site potential (Knick 

et al., in press, p. 39). For example, if 

an area has a balanced mix of shrubs 

and native understory vegetation, a 

change in grazing management can 

restore the habitat to its potential vigor 

(Pyke, in press, p. 11). Wambolt and 

Payne (1986, p. 318) found that rest 

from grazing had a better perennial grass 

response than other treatments. Active 

restoration would be required where 

native understory vegetation is much 

reduced (Pyke, in press, p. 15). But, if 

an area has soil loss and/or invasive 

species, returning the site to the native 

historical plant community may be 

impossible (Daubenmire 1970, p. 82; 

Knick et al., in press, p. 39; Pyke, in 

press, p. 17). Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 

990) did not find any relationship 

between sage-grouse persistence and 

livestock densities. However, the 

authors noted that livestock numbers do 

not necessarily correlate with range 

condition. They concluded that the 

intensity, duration, and distribution of 

livestock grazing are more influential on 

rangeland condition than the livestock 

density values used in their modeling 

efforts (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990). 

Extensive rangeland treatment has 

been conducted by federal agencies and 

private landowners to improve 

conditions for livestock in the 

sagebrush-steppe region (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7- 28; Knick et al., in press, p. 

28). By the 1970s, over 2 million ha (5 

million ac) of sagebrush are estimated to 

have been mechanically treated, sprayed 

with herbicide, or burned in an effort to 

remove sagebrush and increase 

herbaceous forage and grasses (Crawford 

et al. 2004, p. 12). The BLM treated over 

1,800,000 ha (4,447,897 ac) from 1940 to 

1994, with 62 percent of the treatment 

occurring during the 1960s (Miller and 

Eddleman 2000, p. 20). Braun (1998, p. 

146) concluded that, since European 

settlement of western North America, all 

sagebrush habitats used by greater sagegrouse have been treated in some way 

to reduce shrub cover. The use of 

chemicals to control sagebrush was 

initiated in the 1940s and intensified in 

the 1960s and early 1970s (Braun 1987, 

p. 138). Crawford et al. (2004, p. 12) 

hypothesized that reductions in sagegrouse habitat quality (and possibly 

sage-grouse numbers) in the 1970s may 

have been associated with extensive 

rangeland treatments to increase forage 

for domestic livestock. 

Greater sage-grouse response to 

herbicide treatments depends on the 

extent to which forbs and sagebrush are 

killed. Chemical control of sagebrush 

has resulted in declines of sage-grouse 

breeding populations through the loss of 

live sagebrush cover (Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 972). Herbicide treatment also 

can result in sage-grouse emigration 

from affected areas (Connelly et al. 

2000a, p. 973), and has been 

documented to have a negative effect on 

nesting, brood carrying capacity 

(Klebenow 1970, p. 399), and winter 

shrub cover essential for food and 

thermal cover (Pyrah 1972 and Higby 

1969 as cited in Connelly et al. 2000a, 

p. 973). Conversely, small treatments 

interspersed with nontreated sagebrush 

habitats did not affect sage-grouse use, 

presumably due to minimal effects on 

food or cover (Braun 1998, p. 147). Also, 

application of herbicides in early spring 

to reduce sagebrush cover may enhance 

some brood-rearing habitats by 

increasing the coverage of herbaceous 

plant foods (Autenrieth 1981, p. 65). 

Mechanical treatments are designed to 

either remove the aboveground portion 

of the sagebrush plant (mowing, roller 

chopping, and roto-beating), or to 

uproot the plant from the soil (grubbing, 

bulldozing, anchor chaining, cabling, 

railing, raking, and plowing; Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. l7-47). These treatments 

were begun in the 1930s and continued 

at relatively low levels to the late 1990s 

(Braun 1998, p. 147). Mechanical 

treatments, if carefully designed and 

executed, can be beneficial to sagegrouse by improving herbaceous cover, 

forb production, and sagebrush 

resprouting (Braun 1998, p. 147). 

However, adverse effects also have been 

documented (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

973). For example, in Montana, the 

number of breeding males declined by 

73 percent after 16 percent of the 202- 

km2 (78- mi2) study area was plowed 

(Swenson et al. 1987, p. 128). 

Mechanical treatments in blocks greater 

than 100 ha (247 ac), or of any size 

seeded with exotic grasses, degrade 

sage-grouse habitat by altering the 

structure and composition of the 

vegetative community (Braun 1998, p. 

147). 

The current extent to which 

mechanical, chemical, and prescribed 

fire methods are used to remove or 

control sagebrush is not known, 

particularly with regard to private lands. 

However, BLM has stated that with rare 

exceptions, they no longer are involved 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13941 

in actions that convert sagebrush to 

other habitat types, and that mechanical 

or chemical treatments in sagebrush 

habitat on BLM lands currently focus on 

improving the diversity of the native 

plant community, reducing conifer 

encroachment, or reducing the risk of a 

large wildfire (see discussion of Fire 

above; BLM 2004, p. 15). 

Historically, the elimination of 

sagebrush followed with rangeland 

seedings was encouraged to improve 

forage for livestock grazing operations 

(Blaisdell 1949, p. 519). Large expanses 

of sagebrush removed via chemical and 

mechanical methods have been 

reseeded with nonnative grasses, such 

as crested wheatgrass (Agropyron 

cristatum), to increase forage production 

on public lands (Pechanec et al. 1965 as 

cited in Connelly et al. 2004, p.7-28). 

These treatments reduced or eliminated 

many native grasses and forbs present 

prior to the seedings (Hull 1974, p. 217). 

Sage-grouse are affected indirectly 

through the loss of native forbs that 

serve as food and loss of native grasses 

that provide concealment or hiding 

cover (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). 

Water developments for the benefit of 

livestock and wild ungulates on public 

lands are common (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 7-35). Development of springs and 

other water sources to support livestock 

in upland shrub-steppe habitats can 

artificially concentrate domestic and 

wild ungulates in important sage-grouse 

habitats, thereby exacerbating grazing 

impacts in those areas such as heavy 

grazing and vegetation trampling (Braun 

1998, p. 147; Knick et al., in press, p. 

42). Diverting the water sources has the 

secondary effect of changing the habitat 

present at the water source before 

diversion. This impact could result in 

the loss of either riparian or wet 

meadow habitat important to sagegrouse as sources of forbs or insects. 

Water developments for livestock and 

wild ungulates also could be used as 

mosquito breeding habitat, and thus 

have the potential to facilitate the 

spread of West Nile virus (see 

discussion under Factor C: Disease and 

Predation). 

Another indirect negative impact to 

sage-grouse from livestock grazing 

occurs due to the placement of 

thousands of miles of fences for 

livestock management purposes (see 

discussion above under Infrastructure). 

Fences cause direct mortality through 

collision and indirect mortality through 

the creation of predator perch sites, the 

potential creation of predator corridors 

along fences (particularly if a road is 

maintained next to the fence), incursion 

of exotic species along the fencing 

corridor, and habitat fragmentation (Call 

and Maser 1985, p. 22; Braun 1998, p. 

145; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Beck 

et al. 2003, p. 211; Knick et al. 2003, p. 

612; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 1-2). 

The impacts of livestock operations 

on sage-grouse depend upon stocking 

levels, season of use, and utilization 

levels. Cattle and sheep Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs) (the amount of forage 

required to feed one cow with calf, one 

horse, five sheep, or five goats for 1 

month) on all Federal land have 

declined since the early 1900s (Laycock 

et al. 1996, p. 3). By the 1940s, AUMs 

on all Federal lands (not just areas 

occupied by sage-grouse) were 

estimated to be 14.6 million, increasing 

to 16.5 million in the 1950s, and 

gradually declining to 10.2 million by 

the 1990s (Miller and Eddleman 2000, 

p. 19). Although AUMs have decreased 

over time, we cannot assume that the 

net impact of grazing has decreased 

because the productivity of those lands 

has decreased (Knick et al., in press, p. 

42). As of 2007, the number of permitted 

AUMs for BLM lands in States where 

sage-grouse occur totaled 7,118,989 

(Beever and Aldridge, in press, p. 19- 

20). We estimate that those permitted 

AUMs occur in approximately 18,783 

BLM grazing allotments in sage-grouse 

habitat (Stoner 2008). Since 2005, 644 

(3.4 percent) of those allotments have 

decreased the permitted AUMs (Service 

2008a). However, BLM tracks the 

number of AUMs permitted rather than 

the number of AUMs actually used. The 

number permitted typically is higher 

than what is used, thus we do not know 

how the decrease on paper corresponds 

to the actual number of AUMs for the 

last four years. 

Wild Horse and Burro Grazing 

Free-roaming horses and burros have 

been a component of sagebrush and 

other arid communities since they were 

brought to North America at the end of 

the 16th century (Wagner 1983, p. 116; 

Beever 2003, p. 887). About 31,000 wild 

horses occur in 10 western States 

(including 2 states outside the range of 

the greater sage-grouse), with herd sizes 

being largest in Nevada, Wyoming, and 

Oregon, which are the States with the 

most extensive sagebrush cover 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-37). Of about 

5,000 burros occur in five western States 

approximately 700 occur within the 

SGCA (Connelly et al. 2004, p.7-37). 

Beever and Aldridge (2009, in press, p. 

7) estimate that about 12 percent (78, 

389 km2, 30,266 mi2) of sage-grouse 

habitat is managed for free-roaming 

horses and burros. However, the extent 

to which the equids use land outside of 

designated management areas is 

difficult to quantify but may be 

considerable. 

We are unaware of any studies that 

directly address the impact of wild 

horses or burros on sagebrush and sagegrouse. However, some authors have 

suggested that wild horses could 

negatively impact important meadow 

and spring brood-rearing habitats used 

by sage-grouse (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 

11; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-37). Horses 

are generalists, but seasonally their diets 

can be almost wholly comprised of 

grasses (Wagner 1983, pp. 119-120). A 

comparison of areas with and without 

horse grazing showed 1.9 to 2.9 times 

more grass cover and higher grass 

density in areas without horse grazing 

(Beever et al. 2008 as cited Beever and 

Aldridge in press, p. 11). Additionally, 

sites with horse grazing had less shrub 

cover and more fragmented shrub 

canopies (Beever and Aldridge in press, 

p. 12). As noted above, sage-grouse need 

significant grass and shrub cover for 

protection from predators particularly 

during nesting season, and females will 

preferentially choose nesting sites based 

on these qualities (Hagen et al. 2007, p. 

46). Sites with grazing also generally 

showed less plant diversity, altered soil 

characteristics, and 1.6 to 2.6 times 

greater abundance of nonnative Bromus 

tectorum (Beever et al. 2008 as cited in 

Beever and Aldridge 2009, in press, p. 

13). These impacts combined indicate 

that horse grazing has the potential to 

result in an overall decrease in the 

quality and quantity of sage-grouse 

habitat in areas where such grazing 

occurs. 

Currently, free-roaming equids 

consume an estimated 315,000 to 

433,000 AUMs as compared to over 7 

million AUMs for domestic livestock 

within the range of greater sage-grouse 

(Beever and Aldridge, in press, p. 21). 

Cattle typically outnumber horses by a 

large degree in areas where both occur; 

however, locally ratios of 2:1 

(horse:cow) have been reported (Wagner 

1983, p.126). The local effects of 

ungulate grazing depend on a host of 

abiotic and biotic factors (e.g., elevation, 

season, soil composition, plant 

productivity, and composition). 

Additional significant biological and 

behavioral differences influence the 

impact of horses as compared to cattle 

grazing on habitat (Beever 2003, pp. 

888-890). For example, due to 

physiological differences, a horse must 

forage longer and consumes 20 to 65 

percent more forage than would a cow 

of equivalent body mass (Wagner 1983, 

p. 121; Menard et al. 2002, p.127). 

Unlike cattle and other ungulates, 

horses can crop vegetation close to the 

ground, potentially limiting or delaying 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13942 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

recovery of plants (Menard et al. 2002, 

p.127). In addition, horses seasonally 

move to higher elevations, spend less 

time at water, and range farther from 

water sources than cattle (Beever and 

Aldridge in press, pp. 20, 21). Given 

these differences, along with the 

confounding factor of past range use, it 

is difficult to assess the overall 

magnitude of the impact of horses on 

the landscape in general, or on sagegrouse habitat in particular. In areas 

grazed by both horses and cattle, 

whether the impacts are synergistic or 

additive is currently unknown (Beever 

and Aldridge, in press, p. 21). 

Wild Ungulate Herbivory 

Native herbivores, such as elk (Cervus 

elaphus), mule deer, and pronghorn 

antelope coexist with sage-grouse in 

sagebrush ecosystems (Miller et al. 

1994, p. 111). These ungulates are 

present in sagebrush ecosystems during 

various seasons based on dietary needs 

and forage availability (Kufeld 1973, p. 

106-107; Kufeld et al. 1973 as cited in 

Wallmo and Regelin 1981, p. 387-396; 

Allen et al. 1984, p. 1). Elk primarily 

consume grasses but are highly versatile 

in consumption of forbs and shrubs 

when grasses are not available (Kufeld 

1973, pp. 106-107; Vallentine 1990, p. 

235). In the winter, heavy snow forces 

elk to lower-elevation sagebrush areas 

where they forage heavily on sagebrush 

(Wambolt and Sherwood 1999, p. 225). 

Mule deer utilize forbs, shrubs, and 

grasses throughout the year dependent 

upon availability and preference (Kufeld 

et al. 1973 as cited in Wallmo and 

Regelin 1981, pp. 389-396). Pronghorn 

antelope, most commonly associated 

with grasslands and sagebrush, consume 

a wide variety of available shrubs and 

forbs and consume new spring grass 

growth (Allen et al. 1984, p. 1; 

Vallentine 1990, p. 236). 

We are unaware of studies evaluating 

the effects of native ungulate herbivory 

on sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. 

However, concentrated native ungulate 

herbivory may impact vegetation in 

sage-grouse habitat on a localized scale. 

Native ungulate winter browsing can 

have substantial, localized impacts on 

sagebrush vigor, resulting in decreased 

shrub cover or sagebrush mortality 

(Wambolt 1996, p. 502; Wambolt and 

Hoffman 2004, p. 195). Additionally, 

despite decreased habitat availability, 

elk and mule deer populations are 

currently higher than pre-European 

estimates (Wasley 2004, p. 3; Young and 

Sparks 1985, pp. 67-68). As a result, 

some States started small-scale 

supplemental feeding programs for deer 

and elk. In those localized areas, 

vegetation is heavily utilized from the 

concentration of animals (Doman and 

Rasmussen 1944, p. 319; Smith 2001, 

pp. 179-181). Unlike domestic 

ungulates, wild ungulates are not 

confined to the same area, at the same 

time each year. Therefore, the impacts 

from wild ungulates are spread more 

diffusely across the landscape, resulting 

in minimal long-term impacts to the 

vegetation community. 

Summary: Grazing 

Livestock management and domestic 

grazing can seriously degrade sagegrouse habitat. Grazing can adversely 

impact nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat by decreasing vegetation 

concealment from predators. Grazing 

also has been shown to compact soils, 

decrease herbaceous abundance, 

increase erosion, and increase the 

probability of invasion of exotic plant 

species. Once plant communities have 

an invasive annual grass understory 

dominance, successful restoration or 

rehabilitation techniques are largely 

unproven and experimental (Pyke, in 

press, p. 25). Massive systems of fencing 

constructed to manage domestic 

livestock cause direct mortality to sagegrouse in addition to degrading and 

fragmenting habitats. Livestock 

management also can involve water 

developments that can degrade 

important brood-rearing habitat and or 

facilitate the spread of WNv. 

Additionally, some research suggests 

there may be direct competition 

between sage-grouse and livestock for 

plant resources. However, although 

there are obvious negative impacts, 

some research suggests that under very 

specific conditions grazing can benefit 

sage-grouse. 

Similar to domestic grazing, wild 

horses and burros have the potential to 

negatively affect sage-grouse habitats in 

areas where they occur by decreasing 

grass cover, fragmenting shrub canopies, 

altering soil characteristics, decreasing 

plant diversity, and increasing the 

abundance of invasive Bromus 

tectorum. 

Native ungulates have coexisted with 

sage-grouse in sagebrush ecosystems. 

Elk and mule deer browse sagebrush 

during the winter and can cause 

mortality to small patches of sagebrush 

from heavy winter use. Pronghorn 

antelope, largely overlapping with sagegrouse habitat year around, consume 

grasses and forbs during the summer 

and browse on sagebrush in the winter. 

We are not aware of research analyzing 

impacts from these native ungulates on 

sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat. 

Currently there is little direct 

evidence linking grazing practices to 

population levels of greater sage-grouse. 

However, testing for impacts of grazing 

at landscape scales important to sagegrouse is confounded by the fact that 

almost all sage-grouse habitat has at one 

time been grazed and thus no nongrazed, baseline areas currently exist 

with which to compare (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 43). Although we cannot 

examine grazing at large spatial scales, 

we do know that grazing can have 

negative impacts to sagebrush and 

consequently to sage-grouse at local 

scales. However, how these impacts 

operate at large spatial scales and thus 

on population levels is currently 

unknown. Given the widespread nature 

of grazing, the potential for populationlevel impacts cannot be ignored. 

Energy Development 

Greater sage-grouse populations are 

negatively affected by energy 

development activities (primarily oil, 

gas, and coal-bed methane), especially 

those that degrade important sagebrush 

habitat, even when mitigative measures 

are implemented (Braun 1998, p. 144; 

Lyon 2000, pp. 25-28; Holloran 2005, 

pp. 56-57; Naugle et al. 2006, pp. 8-9; 

Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2651; Doherty et 

al. 2008, p. 192; Harju et al. in press, p. 

22). Impacts can result from direct 

habitat loss, fragmentation of important 

habitats by roads, pipelines, and 

powerlines (Kaiser 2006, p. 3; Holloran 

et al. 2007, p. 16), noise (Holloran 2005, 

p. 56), and direct human disturbance 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489). The 

negative effects of energy development 

often add to the impacts from other 

human development and activities and 

result in sage-grouse population 

declines (Harju et al. in press, p. 22; 

Naugle et al., in press, p. 1). For 

example, 12 years of coal-bed methane 

gas development in the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming has coincided with 

79 percent decline in the sage-grouse 

population (Emmerich 2009, pers. 

comm.). Population declines associated 

with energy development result from 

the abandonment of leks (Braun et al. 

2002, p. 5; Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2649; 

Clark et al. 2008, pp. 14, 16), decreased 

attendance at the leks that persist 

(Holloran 2005, pp. 38-39, 50; Kaiser 

2006, p. 23; Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2648; 

Harju et al. in press, p. 22), lower nest 

initiation (Lyon 2000, p. 109; Lyon and 

Anderson 2003, p. 5), poor nest success 

and chick survival (Aldridge and Boyce 

2007, p. 517), decreased yearling 

survival (Holloran et al., in press, p. 6), 

and avoidance of energy infrastructure 

in important wintering habitat (Doherty 

et al. 2008, pp. 192-193). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13943 

Nonrenewable Energy Sources 

Nonrenewable fossil fuel energy 

development (e.g., petroleum products, 

coal) has been occurring in sage-grouse 

habitats since the late 1800s (Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 7-28). Interest in 

developing oil and gas resources in 

North America has been cyclic based on 

demand and market conditions (Braun 

et al. 2002, p. 2). Between 2004 and 

2008, the exploration and development 

of fossil fuels in sagebrush habitats 

increased rapidly as prices and demand 

were spurred by geopolitical 

uncertainties and legislative mandates 

(National Petroleum Council 2007, pp. 

5-7). Legislative mandates that were 

used to effect an increase in energy 

development include those of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) of 1975 (42 United States Code 

(U.S.C.) 6201 et seq.) to secure energy 

supplies and increase the availability of 

fossil fuels. Reauthorization and 

amendments to the EPCA have occurred 

through subsequent legislation 

including the Energy Policy Act of 2000 

(Public Law (P.L.) 106-469) that 

mandates the inventory of Federal 

nonrenewable resources (42 U.S.C. 

6217). The 2005 Energy Policy Act 

requires identification and resolution of 

impediments to timely granting of 

Federal leases and post-leasing 

development (42 U.S.C. 15851). In 

addition, the 2005 Energy Policy Act 

mandated the designation of corridors 

on Federal lands for energy transport 

(42 U.S.C. 15926), ordered the 

identification of renewable energy 

sources (e.g., wind, geothermal), and 

provided incentives for development of 

renewable energy sources (42 U.S.C. 

15851). 

Global recession starting in 2008 

resulted in decreased energy demand 

and subsequently slowed rate of energy 

development (Energy Information 

Administration (EIA) 2009b, p. 2). 

However, the production of fossil fuels 

is predicted to regain and surpass the 

early 2008 levels starting in 2010 (EIA 

2009b, p. 109). Forecasts to the year 

2030 predict fossil fuels to continue to 

provide for the United States’ energy 

needs while not necessarily in 

conventional forms or from present 

extraction techniques (EIA 2009b, pp. 2- 

4, 109). Recent concerns about curbing 

greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with fossil fuel use are being addressed 

through government policy, legislation, 

and advanced technologies and are 

likely to effect a transition in fuel form 

(EIA 2009b, pp. 2-3, 78). 

The decline in use of conventional 

fossil fuels for power generation in the 

future is expected to be supplemented 

with biomass, unconventional oil and 

gas, and renewable sources—all of 

which are existing or potentially 

available in current sage-grouse habitats 

(U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 2006, 

p. 3; National Petroleum Council 2007, 

p. 6; BLM 2005a, p. 2-4; National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

2008a, entire; Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory 2003, entire; EIA 2009b, pp. 

2-4). For example, oil shale and tar 

sands are unconventional fossil fuel 

liquids predicted for increased 

development in the sage-grouse range. 

Shale sources providing 2 million 

barrels per day in 2007 are expected to 

contribute 5.6–6.1 million barrels by 

2030 (EIA 2009b, p. 30). Extraction of 

this resource involves removal of habitat 

and disturbance similar to oil and gas 

development (see discussion below). 

National reserves of oil shale lie 

primarily in the Uinta–Piceance area of 

Colorado and Utah (MZs II, III, and VII), 

and the Green River and Washakie areas 

of southwestern Wyoming (MZ II). 

These 1.4 million ha (3.5 million ac) of 

Federal lands contain an estimated 1.23 

trillion barrels of oil—more than 50 

times the United States’ proven 

conventional oil reserves (BLM 2008a, 

p. 2). 

Available EPCA inventories detail 

energy resources in 11 geological basins 

(DOI et al. 2008, entire) in the greater 

sage-grouse conservation assessment 

area identified in the 2006 Conservation 

Strategy (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-11). 

Extensive oil and gas reserves are 

identified in the Williston Basin of 

western North Dakota, northwestern 

South Dakota, and eastern Montana; 

Montana Thrust Belt in west-central 

Montana; Powder River Basin of 

northeastern Wyoming and southeastern 

Montana; Wyoming Thrust Belt of 

extreme southwestern Wyoming, 

northern Utah, and southeastern Idaho; 

Southwest Wyoming Basin including 

portions of southwestern and central 

Wyoming, northeastern Utah, and 

northwestern Colorado; Uinta–Piceance 

Basin of west-central Colorado and eastcentral Utah; Eastern Great Basin in 

eastern Nevada, western Utah, and 

southern Idaho; and Paradox Basin in 

south-central and southeastern Utah. 

Although all these geological basins 

have some component of sage habitats, 

the Southwestern Wyoming Basin as 

defined by EPCA (DOI et al. 2008, p. 3- 

11) is highest in sagebrush-dominated 

landscapes (Knick et al. 2003, pp. 613, 

615) and is located in MZ II as described 

in Stiver et al. 2006 (pp. 1-11). 

Oil and gas development has occurred 

in the past, with historical well 

locations concentrated in MZs I, II, III, 

and VII of Wyoming, eastern Montana, 

western Colorado, and eastern Utah 

(IHS Incorporated 2006). Currently, oil, 

conventional gas, or coal-bed methane 

development occur across the eastern 

component of the SGCA. Four 

geological basins are most affected by a 

concentration of development—Powder 

River (MZ I), Williston (MZ I), 

Southwestern Wyoming (MZ II), and the 

Uinta–Piceance (MZs II, III, VII) 

coinciding with the highest proportion 

of high-density areas of sage-grouse, the 

greatest number of leks, and the highest 

male sage-grouse attendance at leks 

compared with any other area in the 

eastern part of the range (Doherty et al. 

in press, p. 11). The Powder River Basin 

in northeastern Wyoming and 

southeastern Montana is home to an 

important regional population of the 

larger Wyoming Basin populations, 

which represents 25 percent of the sagegrouse in the species’ range (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. A4-37). The Powder River 

Basin serves as a link to peripheral 

populations in eastern Wyoming and 

western South Dakota and between the 

Wyoming Basin and central Montana. 

The Pinedale Anticline Project is in the 

Greater Green River area of the 

Southwest Wyoming Basin where the 

subpopulation in southwestern 

Wyoming and northwestern Colorado 

has been a stronghold for sage-grouse 

with some of the highest estimated 

densities of males per square kilometer 

anywhere in the remaining range of the 

species (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-62, 

A5-23). The southwestern Wyomingnorthwestern Colorado subpopulation 

has historically supported more than 

800 leks (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-62). 

The preservation of large contiguous 

blocks or interconnected patches of 

habitats that exist in southwestern 

Wyoming is considered a conservation 

priority for sage-grouse (Knick and 

Hanser in press, p. 31). 

Extensive development and 

operations are occurring in sage-grouse 

habitats where the number of producing 

wells has tripled in the past 30 years 

(Naugle et al., in press, p. 17). More than 

8 percent of the distribution of 

sagebrush habitats is directly or 

indirectly affected by oil and gas 

development and associated pipelines 

(Knick et al. in press, p. 48). Forty-four 

percent of the 16-million-ha (39-millionac) Federal mineral estate in MZs I and 

II is leased and authorized for 

exploration and development (Naugle et 

al. in press, pp. 17-18). Wyoming 

contains the highest percentage of the 

Federal mineral estate with 10.6 million 

ha (26.2 million ac); 52 percent of it is 

authorized for development (Naugle et 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13944 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

al., in press, pp. 17-18). Other Federal 

mineral estates in the eastern portion of 

the sage-grouse conservation assessment 

area that are authorized for development 

include at least 27 percent of Montana’s 

3.7 million ha (9.1 million ac), 50 

percent of 915,000 ha (2.3 million ac) in 

Colorado, 25 percent of 405,000 ha (1.0 

million ac) in Utah, and 14 percent of 

North and South Dakota’s combined 

365,000 ha (902,000 ac) (Naugle et al. in 

press, p. 38). 

The Great Plains MZ (MZ I) contains 

all or portions of the 20.9-million-ha 

(51.7-million-ac) Powder River and 

Williston geological basins identified as 

significant oil and gas resources. The 

resource areas include 7.2 million ha 

(18.2 million ac) of sagebrush habitats. 

Oil and gas infrastructure and planned 

development occupies less than 1 

percent of the land area in MZ I; 

however, the ecological effect is greater 

than 20 percent of the sagebrush habitat, 

based on applying a buffer zone to 

estimate the potential the distance of 

sage-grouse response to infrastructure 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489; Knick 

et al., in press, p. 133). Energy 

development is concentrated in the 

Powder River geologic basin in 

northeastern Wyoming and southeastern 

Montana. Coal-bed natural gas 

extraction is the most recent 

development in the Powder River Basin, 

which also is the largest actively 

producing coal basin in the United 

States (Wyoming Mining Association 

2008, p. 2). 

In 2002, the BLM in Wyoming 

proposed development of 39,367 coalbed methane wells and 3,200 

conventional oil or gas wells in the 

Powder River Basin in addition to an 

existing 12,024 coal-bed methane wells 

drilled or permitted (BLM 2002, pp. 2- 

3). Wells would be developed over a 10– 

year period with production lasting 

until 2019 (BLM 2002, p. 3). The BLM 

estimated 82,073 ha (202,808 ac) of 

surface disturbance from all activities 

such as well pads, pipelines, roads, 

compressor stations, and water handling 

facilities over a 3.2-million-ha (8- 

million-ac) project area (BLM 2002, p. 

2). Roads and water handling facilities 

were expected to be long-term 

disturbances encompassing 

approximately 38,501 ha (95,140 ac) 

(BLM 2002, p. 3). Reclamation of well 

sites was expected to be complete by 

2022 (BLM 2002, p. 3). It is not clear if 

this 2022 date takes into consideration 

the length of time necessary to achieve 

suitable habitat conditions for sagegrouse or if restoration of sage-grouse 

habitat is possible. 

Between 1997 and 2007, 

approximately 35,000 producing wells 

were in place on Federal, State, and 

private holdings in the Powder River 

Basin area (Naugle et al., in press, p. 7). 

In 2008, the BLM in Montana completed 

a supplement to the 2003 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and Record of Decision (ROD) to allow 

for 5,800–16,500 new coal bed methane 

wells in the Montana portion of the 

Powder River Basin over the pursuant 

20 years (BLM 2008b, pp. 4.2, 4.4-4.5). 

The BLM estimated a direct impact of 

0.8–1.3 ha (2–3.4 ac) per well site (BLM 

2008b, p. 4.11). In addition to the well 

footprint, each additional group of 2–10 

wells has been shown to increase the 

number of new roads, power lines, and 

other infrastructure (Naugle et al. in 

press, p. 7). Ranching, tillage 

agriculture, and energy development are 

the primary land uses in the Powder 

River Basin. The presence of human 

features and road densities are high in 

areas where all three activities coincide 

to the level that every 0.8 ha (0.5 mi) 

could be bounded by a road and 

bisected by a power line (Naugle et al. 

in press, p. 9). 

The Powder River Basin serves as a 

link to peripheral sage-grouse 

populations in eastern Wyoming and 

western South Dakota and between the 

Wyoming basin and central Montana. 

This connectivity is expected to be lost 

in the near future because of the 

intensity of development in the region. 

Sage-grouse populations have declined 

in the Powder River Basin by 79 percent 

since the development of coal-bed 

methane resources (Emmerich 2009, 

pers. comm.). In the Powder River Basin 

between 2001 and 2005, sage-grouse lekcount indices declined by 82 percent 

inside gas fields compared to 12 percent 

outside development (Walker et al. 

2007a, p. 2648). By 2004–2005, fewer 

leks remained active (38 percent) inside 

gas fields compared to leks outside 

fields (84 percent) (Walker et al. 2007a, 

p. 2648). Sage-grouse are less likely to 

use suitable wintering habitat with 

abundant sagebrush when coal-bed 

methane development is present 

(Doherty et al. 2008, p. 192). At current 

maximum permitted well density (12 

wells per 359 ha (888 ac)), planned fullfield development will impact the 

remaining wintering habitat in the basin 

(Doherty et al. 2008, pp. 192, 194) and 

lead to extirpation. 

Energy development in the Powder 

River Basin is predicted to continue to 

actively reduce sage-grouse populations 

and sagebrush habitats over the next 20 

years based on the length of 

development and production projects 

described in existing project and 

management plans. The BLM concluded 

that sage-grouse habitats would not be 

restored to pre-disturbance conditions 

for an extended time (BLM 2003, p. 4- 

268). Sagebrush restoration after 

development is difficult to achieve, and 

successful restoration is not assured as 

described above (Habitat Description 

and Characteristics). 

The 9.6-million-ha (23.9-million-ac) 

Williston Basin underlies the 

northeastern corner of the current sagegrouse range in Montana, North and 

South Dakota. It is another energy 

resource area experiencing concentrated 

oil and gas development in MZ I. Oil 

production has occurred in the 

Williston Basin for at least 80 years with 

oil production peaking in the 1980s 

(Advanced Resources International 

2006, p. 3-3). Advances in technology 

including directional drilling and coalbed methane technology have boosted 

development of oil and gas in the basin 

(Advanced Resources International 

2006, p. 3.2; Zander 2008, p. 1). Large, 

developed fields are concentrated in the 

Bowdoin Dome area of north-central 

Montana and the 193-km (120-mi) long 

Cedar Creek Anticline area of 

southeastern Montana, southwestern 

North Dakota, and northwestern South 

Dakota. Extensive energy development 

in the Cedar Creek Anticline area could 

be isolating the very small North Dakota 

population from sage-grouse 

populations in central Montana and the 

northern Powder River Basin. 

One hundred and thirty-six wells 

were put into production in 2008–2009 

in major oil and gas fields of the 

Williston Basin north of the Missouri 

River in the range of the Northern 

Montana sage-grouse population 

(Montana Department of Natural 

Resources 2009, entire) including the 

Bowdoin Dome area. The Bowdoin 

Dome area is populated by more than 

1,500 gas wells with associated 

infrastructure, and an additional 1,200 

new or replacement wells were 

approved in the remaining occupied 

active sage-grouse habitat (BLM 2008c, 

pp. 1, 3-127 to 3-129). Active drilling 

operations are expected to occur over 

10–15 years, and gas production is 

expected to extend the project life 30– 

50 additional years (BLM 2008c, p. 1). 

The BLM’s project description does not 

take into consideration the time period 

necessary to restore native sagebrush 

communities to suitability for sagegrouse. Energy extraction, ranching, and 

tillage agriculture coincide in this area 

of the State described by Leu and 

Hanser (in press, p. 44) as experiencing 

high-intensity human activity that is 

consistent with lek loss and population 

decline (Wisdom et al., in press, p. 23). 

Energy development in Montana has 

contributed to post-settlement sageVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:54 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13945 

grouse range contraction and possibly 

the geographic separation of the existing 

subpopulations in northern Montana 

and Canada. Foreseeable development is 

expected to further reduce the 

remaining sage-grouse habitat within 

developed oil and gas fields, and 

contribute to future range and 

population reductions (Copeland et al. 

2009, p. 5). 

Southwestern and central Wyoming 

and northwestern Colorado in MZ II has 

been considered a stronghold for sagegrouse with some of the highest 

estimated densities of males anywhere 

in the remaining range of the species 

(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-62, A5-23). 

Wisdom et al. (in press, p. 23) identified 

this high-density sagebrush area as one 

of the highest priorities for conservation 

consideration as it comprises one of two 

remaining areas of contiguous range 

essential for the long-term persistence of 

the species. The Southwestern 

Wyoming geological basin also is 

experiencing significant growth in 

energy development which, based on 

the conclusions of recent investigations 

on the effects of oil and gas 

development, is expected over time to 

reduce sage-grouse habitat, increase 

fragmentation, and decrease and isolate 

sage-grouse populations leading to 

extirpations. 

Oil, gas, and coal-bed methane 

development is occurring across MZ II, 

and development is concentrated in 

some areas. Intensive development and 

production is occurring in the Greater 

Green River area in southwestern 

Wyoming and northern Colorado and 

northeastern Utah. The BLM published 

a ROD in 2000 for the Pinedale 

Anticline Project Area in southwestern 

Wyoming (BLM 2000, entire). The 

project description included up to 900 

drill pads, including dry holes, over a 

10- to 15–year development period 

(BLM 2008d, p. 4-4). By the end of 2005, 

approximately 457 wells on 322 well 

pads were under production (BLM 

2008d, p. 6). In 2008, the BLM amended 

the project to accommodate an 

accelerated rate of development 

exceeding that in the 2002 project 

description (BLM 2008d, p. 4). 

Approximately 250 new well pads are 

proposed in addition to pipelines and 

other facilities (BLM 2008d, p. 36). Total 

initial direct disturbance acres for the 

entire Pinedale project are 

approximately 10,400 ha (25,800 ac) 

with more than 7,200 ha (18,000 ac) in 

sagebrush land cover type (BLM 2008d, 

p. 4-52). 

The Jonah Gas Infill Project also is 

underway in the Pinedale Anticline area 

of the Southwest Wyoming Basin that 

expands on the Jonah Project started in 

2000. In 2006, the BLM issued a ROD 

and EIS to extend the existing project to 

an additional 3,100 wells and up to 

6,556 ha (16,200 ac) of new surface 

disturbance (BLM 2006, p. 2-4). In 

addition, at least 64 well pads would be 

situated per 259 ha (640 ac), and up to 

761 km (473 mi) of pipeline and roads, 

56 ha (140 ac) of additional disturbance 

for ancillary facilities (p. 2-5) also 

would occur. The project life of 76 years 

includes 13 years of development and 

63 years of production (BLM 2006, p. 2- 

15). The project description requires 

reclamation of disturbed sites and 

establishment of stabilizing vegetation 

by 1 year post-reclamation (BLM 2006, 

p. 2-24) and standard lease stipulations 

to protect sage-grouse. This project is 

located in high-density sage-grouse 

habitat, but it is not clear from the 

project description if suitable sagegrouse habitat is the reclamation goal. 

Therefore, sagebrush habitats, and the 

associated sage-grouse are likely to be 

lost. 

Knick et al. (in press, pp. 49, 128) 

reviewed BLM documents for the 

Greater Green River Basin area, which 

includes the Pinedale and Jonah 

projects, and reported that 6,185 wells 

have been drilled, and there are agency 

plans for more than 9,300 wells and 

associated infrastructure. Existing and 

planned energy development influences 

over 20 percent of the sagebrush area in 

the Wyoming Basin (MZ II) (Knick et al., 

in press, p. 133). Drilling, gas 

production, and traffic on main haul 

roads have all been shown to affect lek 

attendance and lek persistence when it 

coincides with breeding habitat within 

3.2 km (2 mi) (Holloran 2005, p. 40; 

Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2651). Using 

2006 well point data and, therefore, a 

conservative estimate as oil exploration 

and development experienced 

significant growth between 2006 and 

2008, we calculated that 21 to 35 

percent of active breeding habitat for 

subpopulations in the Southwest 

Wyoming geological basin may be 

negatively impacted by the proximity of 

energy development (Service 2008b). 

In the Greater Green River Basin area, 

yearling male sage-grouse reared near 

gas field infrastructure had lower 

survival rates and were less likely to 

establish breeding territories than males 

with less exposure to energy 

development; yearling female sagegrouse avoided nesting within 950 m 

(0.6 mi) of natural gas infrastructure 

(Holloran et al., in press, p. 6). The 

fidelity of sage-grouse to natal sites may 

result in birds staying in areas with 

development but they do not breed 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 49; Walker 

et al. 2007a, p. 2651; Holloran et al., in 

press, p. 6). The effect of energy 

development on sage-grouse population 

numbers may then take 4 to 5 years to 

appear (Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2651). 

Copeland et al. (2009, p. 5) depicted an 

extensive development scenario for 

southwest Wyoming, northern Colorado, 

and northeastern Utah based on known 

reserves and existing project plans that 

indicates an intersection between future 

oil and gas development and highdensity sage-grouse core areas that 

could result in 6.3 to 24.1 percent 

decrease in sage-grouse numbers over 

the next 20 years in MZ II (Copeland 

2010, pers. comm.). 

The Greater Green River area of 

southwest Wyoming and the Uintah– 

Piceance basin (discussed below) also 

are, in addition to oil and gas, important 

reserves of oil shale and tar sands that 

are expected to supply more of the 

nation’s resource needs in the future 

(EIA 2009b, p. 30). The Uintah–Piceance 

geologic basin includes the Colorado 

Plateau (MZ VII) and overlaps into the 

southern edge of the Wyoming Basin 

(MZ II). Sage-grouse in this part of the 

range are reduced to four small, isolated 

populations, a likely consequence of 

urban and agricultural development 

(Knick et al., in press, pp. 106-107; Leu 

and Hanser, in press, p. 15). All four 

populations are threatened by 

environmental, demographic, and 

genetic stochasticity due to their small 

population sizes as well as housing and 

energy development, predation, disease, 

and conifer invasion (Garton et al., in 

press, p. 7; Petch 2009, pers. comm.; 

Maxfield 2009, pers. comm.) although 

population data are limited for most of 

this area (Garton et al., in press, p. 63). 

Based on applying a 3 km (1.9 mi) 

buffer to construction areas, Knick et al. 

(in press, p. 133) estimate existing 

energy development affects over 30 

percent of sagebrush habitats in this 

area. In the past 4 years, the number of 

oil and gas wells increased in sagegrouse habitats of northwestern 

Colorado and northeastern Utah by 325 

and 870 wells, respectively (Service 

2008c). More than 1,370 wells were 

completed in Uintah (location of the 

two Utah populations) and Duchesne 

Counties of northeast Utah between July 

2008 and August 2009 (Utah Oil and 

Gas Program 2009, entire), and 

approximately 7,700 wells are active in 

the counties (Utah DNRC 2009, entire). 

We expect that the development of 

energy resources will continue based on 

available reserves and recent 

development history (Copeland et al. 

2009, p. 5), and development will 

further stress the persistence of these 

small populations at the southern edge 

of the sage-grouse range. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Using GIS analysis, we calculated that 

70 percent of the sage-grouse breeding 

habitat is potentially impacted by oil 

and gas development in the Powder 

River Basin (Service 2008b). The 70 

percent figure was derived from well 

point data supplied by the BLM, 

buffered by 3.2 km (2 mi), and 

intersecting these areas with known lek 

locations buffered to 6.4 km (4 mi). The 

70 percent figure is conservative 

because the most comprehensive well 

point data set available was 2 years old 

and did not reflect the rapid 

development that occurred in 2008. 

Breeding habitat is defined as a 6.4-km 

(4-mi) radius around known lek points 

and includes the range of the average 

distances between nests and nearest lek 

(Autenrieth 1981, p. 18; Wakkinen et al. 

1992, p. 2). 

The effects of oil and gas 

development, as described in detail later 

in this section, are likely to continue for 

decades even with the current 

protective or mitigative measures in 

place. Based on a review of project EISs, 

Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-41) 

concluded that the economic life of a 

coal-bed methane well averages 12–18 

years and 20–100 years for deep oil and 

gas wells. A recent review of energy 

projects in development, primarily gas 

and coal-bed methane, supports these 

timeframes (BLM 2008b, p. 4-2; 2008c, 

p. 2; 2009b, p. 2). In addition, many 

energy projects are tiered to the 20–year 

land use plans developed by individual 

BLM field offices or districts to guide 

development and other activities. 

The BLM is the primary Federal 

agency managing the United States’ 

energy resources and has the legal 

authority to regulate and condition oil 

and gas leases and permits. Although 

the restrictive stipulations that BLM 

applies to permits and leases are 

variable, a 0.4-km (0.25-mi) radius 

around sage-grouse leks is generally 

restricted to no surface occupancy 

(NSO) during the breeding season, and 

noise and development activities are 

often limited during the breeding season 

within a 0.8- to 3.2-km (0.5 to 2-mi) 

radius of sage-grouse leks. As stated 

above, the BLM’s NSO buffer stipulation 

is ineffective in protecting sage-grouse 

(Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2651), and it is 

not applied or applicable to all 

development sites (see discussion under 

Factor D). We estimated the sage-grouse 

breeding habitat impacted within 0.4 

km (0.25 mi) of a producing well or 

drilling site with an approved BLM 

permit using 2006 well-site locations 

(the most comprehensive data available 

to us). Figures derived from the 2006 

data are conservative because the rapid 

pace of development in 2007 and 2008 

is not reflected. Within 16.2 million ha 

(38 million ac) of sage-grouse breeding 

habitat in MZs I and II (where 65 

percent of all sage-grouse reside), 

approximately 1.7 million ha (4.2 

million ac) or 10 percent are within 0.4 

km (0.25 mi) of a producing well, 

drilling operation or site (Service 

2008d). Walker et al. (2007a, p. 2651) 

reported negative impacts on lek 

attendance of coal-bed methane 

development within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) and 

3.2 km (2 mi) of a lek, and Holloran 

(2005, pp. 57-60) observed that the 

influence of producing well sites and 

mail haul roads on lek attendance 

extended to at least 3 km (2 mi). 

Expanding our analysis area from 0.4 

km (0.25 mi) to include breeding habitat 

within 3 km (2 mi) of producing well or 

drilling sites with an approved BLM 

permit, we determined that 40 percent 

of the sage-grouse breeding habitat in 

MZs I and II is potentially affected by 

oil or gas development (Service 2008b). 

In some cases, localized areas are 

experiencing higher levels of effects. 

Seventy percent of the sage-grouse 

breeding habitat is within 3 km (2 mi) 

of development in the Powder River 

Basin of northeastern Wyoming and 

southeastern Montana (Service 2008b), 

where Walker et al. (2007, p. 2651) 

concluded that full-field development 

would reduce the probability of lek 

persistence from 87 to 5 percent. Our 

analyses show that subpopulations of 

sage-grouse in MZ II have up to 35 

percent of breeding habitat within 3.2 

km (2 mi) of development, and where 

data are available for populations in the 

Uintah–Piceance Basin of Colorado and 

Utah, 100 percent of the breeding 

habitat is affected by oil and gas 

development (Service 2008b). 

Additionally these calculations do not 

take into account the added effects of 

loss of habitat or habitat effectiveness 

resulting from the increasing level of 

renewable energy development or other 

anthropogenic factors occurring in 

concert with oil and gas development, 

such as agricultural tillage, urban 

expansion, or predation, fire, and 

invasives (see discussions under those 

headings). 

Energy development impacts sagegrouse and sagebrush habitats through 

direct habitat loss from well pad, access 

construction, seismic surveys, roads, 

powerlines, and pipeline corridors; 

indirectly from noise, gaseous 

emissions, changes in water availability 

and quality, and human presence; and 

the interaction and intensity of effects 

could cumulatively or individually lead 

to fragmentation (Suter 1978, pp. 6-13; 

Aldridge 1998, p. 12; Braun 1998, pp. 

144-148; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 

31; Knick et al. 2003, pp. 612, 619; Lyon 

and Anderson 2003, pp. 489-490; 

Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-40 to 7-41; 

Holloran 2005, pp. 56-57; Holloran 

2007, pp. 18-19; Aldridge and Boyce 

2007, pp. 521-522; Walker et al. 2007a, 

pp. 2652-2653; Zou et al. 2006, pp. 

1039-1040; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 193; 

Leu and Hanser, in press, p. 28). 

The development of oil and gas 

resources requires surveys for 

economically recoverable reserves, 

construction of well pads and access 

roads, subsequent drilling and 

extraction, and transport of oil and gas, 

typically through pipelines. Ancillary 

facilities can include compressor 

stations, pumping stations, electrical 

generators, and powerlines (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 7-39; BLM 2007c, p. 2-110). 

Surveys for recoverable resources occur 

primarily through seismic activities, 

using vibroesis buggies (thumpers) or 

shothole explosives. Well pads vary in 

size from 0.10 ha (0.25 ac) for coal-bed 

natural gas wells in areas of level 

topography to greater than 7 ha (17.3 ac) 

for deep gas wells and multiwell pads 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39; BLM 

2007c, p. 2-123). Pads for compressor 

stations require 5–7 ha (12.4–17.3 ac) 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39). 

Well densities and spacing are 

typically designed to maximize recovery 

of the resource and are administered by 

State oil and gas agencies and the BLM, 

the Federal agency charged with 

administering the nation’s Federal 

mineral estate (Connelly et al. 2004 pp. 

7-39 to 7-40). Well density on BLMadministered lands is incorporated in 

land use plans and often based on the 

spacing decision of individual State oil 

and gas boards. Each geologic basin has 

a standard spacing, but exemptions are 

granted. Density of wells for current 

major developments in the sage-grouse 

range vary from 1 well per 2 ha (5ac) to 

1 well per 64 ha (158 ac) (Knick et al., 

in press, pp. 128). Greater sage-grouse 

respond to the density and distribution 

of infrastructure on the landscape. 

Holloran (2005, pp. 38-39, 50) reported 

that male sage-grouse attendance at leks 

decreased over 23 percent in gas fields 

where well density was 5 or more 

within 3 km (1.9 mi). Sage-grouse are 

less likely to occupy areas with wells at 

a 32 ha (80 ac) spacing than a 400 ha 

(988 ac) spacing (Doherty et al. 2008, p. 

193). 

Direct habitat loss from the human 

footprint contributes to decreased 

population numbers and distribution of 

the greater sage-grouse (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 1; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-40; 

Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 983; Copeland 

et al. 2009, p. 6; Knick et al., in press, 

p. 60; Leu and Hanser, in press, p. 5). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13947 

The footprint of energy development 

contributes to direct habitat loss from 

construction of well pads, roads, 

pipelines, powerlines, and through the 

crushing of vegetation during seismic 

surveys. The amount of direct habitat 

loss within an area is ultimately 

determined by well densities and the 

associated loss from ancillary facilities. 

The ecological footprint is the 

extended effect of the infrastructure or 

activity beyond its physical footprint 

and determined by a physical or 

behavioral response of the sage-grouse. 

The physical footprint of oil and gas 

infrastructure including pipelines is 

estimated to be 5 million ha (1.2 million 

ac) and less than 1 percent of the SGCA 

(Knick et al., in press, p. 133). However, 

the estimated ecological footprint is 

more than 13.8 million ha (34.2 million 

ac) or 6.7 percent of the SGCA (Knick 

et al., in press, p. 133) based on 

applying a buffer zone to estimate 

potential avoidance, increased mortality 

risk, and lowered fecundity in the 

vicinity of development (Lyon and 

Anderson 2003, p. 459; Walker et al. 

2007a, p. 2651; Holloran et al. in press, 

p. 6). Based on their method, Knick et 

al. (in press, p. 133) estimated more 

than 8 percent of sagebrush habitats 

within the SGCA are affected by energy 

development. The MZs with 

concentrations of oil and gas 

development have a higher estimated 

percentage of sagebrush habitats 

affected: 20 percent of the Great Plains 

(MZ I), 20 percent of the Wyoming 

Basin (MZ II), and 29 percent of the 

Colorado Plateau (MZ VII) (Knick et al, 

in press, p. 133). Copeland et al. (2009, 

p. 6) predict a scenario with a minimum 

of 2.3 million additional ha (5.7 million 

ac) directly impacted by oil and gas 

development by the year 2030. The 

corresponding ecological footprint is 

likely much larger. The projected 

increase in oil and gas energy 

development within the sage-grouse 

range could reduce the population by 7 

to 19 percent from today’s numbers 

(Copeland et al. 2009, p. 6). This 

projection does not reflect the effects of 

the increased development of renewable 

energy sources. 

Roads associated with oil and gas 

development were suggested to be the 

primary impact to greater sage-grouse 

due to their persistence and continued 

use even after drilling and production 

ceased (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 

489). Declines in male lek attendance 

were reported within 3 km (1.9 mi) of 

a well or haul road with a traffic volume 

exceeding one vehicle per day (Holloran 

2005, p. 40; Walker et al. 2008a, p. 

2651). Sage-grouse also may be at 

increased risk for collision with vehicles 

simply due to the increased traffic 

associated with oil and gas activities 

(Aldridge 1998, p. 14; BLM 2003, p. 4- 

222). 

Habitat fragmentation resulting from 

oil and gas development infrastructure, 

including access roads, may have effects 

on sage-grouse greater than the 

associated direct habitat losses. The 

Powder River Basin infrastructure 

footprint is relatively small (typically 6- 

8 ha per 2.6 km2 (15-20 ac per section)). 

Considering the mostly contiguous 

nature of the project area, the density of 

facilities could affect sage-grouse 

habitats on over 2.4 million ha (5.9 

million ac). Energy development and 

associated infrastructure works 

cumulatively with other human activity 

or development to decrease available 

habitat and increase fragmentation. 

Walker et al. (2007, p. 2652) determined 

that leks had the lowest probability of 

persisting (40–50 percent) in a 

landscape with less than 30 percent 

sagebrush within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the 

lek. These probabilities were even less 

in landscapes where energy 

development also was a factor. 

Noise can drive away wildlife, cause 

physiological stress, and interfere with 

auditory cues and intraspecific 

communication. Aldridge and Brigham 

(2003, p. 32) reported that, in the 

absence of stipulations to minimize the 

effects of noise, mechanical activities at 

well sites may disrupt sage-grouse 

breeding and nesting activities. Hens 

bred on leks within 3 km (1.9 mi) of oil 

and gas development in the upper Green 

River Basin of Wyoming selected nest 

sites with higher total shrub canopy 

cover and average live sagebrush height 

than hens nesting away from 

disturbance (Lyon 2000, p. 109). The 

author hypothesized that exposure to 

road noise associated with oil and gas 

drilling may have been one cause for the 

difference in habitat selection. However, 

noise could not be separated from the 

potential effects of increased predation 

resulting from the presence of a new 

road. In the Pinedale Anticline area of 

southwest Wyoming, lek attendance 

declined most noticeably downwind 

from a drilling rig indicating that noise 

likely affected male presence (Holloran 

2005, p. 49). 

Above-ground noise is typically not 

regulated to mitigate effects to sagegrouse or other wildlife (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-40). Ground shock from 

seismic activities may affect sage-grouse 

if it occurs during the lekking or nesting 

seasons (Moore and Mills 1977, p. 137). 

We are unaware of any research on the 

impact of ground shock to sage-grouse. 

Water quality and quantity may be 

affected by oil and gas development. In 

many large field developments, the 

contamination threat is minimized by 

storing water produced by the gas 

dehydration process in tanks. Water also 

may be depleted from natural sources 

for drilling or dust suppression 

purposes. Concentrating wildlife and 

domestic livestock may increase habitat 

degradation at remaining water sources. 

Negative effects of changes in water 

quality, availability, and distribution are 

a reduction in habitat quality (e.g., 

trampling of vegetation, changes in 

water filtration rates), and habitat 

degradation (e.g., poor vegetation 

growth), which could result in brood 

habitat loss. However, we have no data 

to suggest that this, by itself, is a 

limiting factor to sage-grouse. 

Water produced by coal-bed methane 

drilling may benefit sage-grouse through 

expansion of existing riparian areas and 

creation of new areas (BLM 2003, p. 4- 

223). These habitats could provide 

additional brood rearing and summering 

habitats for sage-grouse. However, the 

increased surface-water on the 

landscape may negatively impact sagegrouse populations by providing an 

environment for disease vectors (Walker 

and Naugle in press, p. 13). Based on 

the 2002 discovery of WNv in the 

Powder River Basin, and the resulting 

mortalities of sage-grouse (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 705), there is concern that 

produced water could have a negative 

impact if it creates suitable breeding 

reservoirs for the mosquito vector of this 

disease (see also discussion in Factor C, 

Disease and Predation). Produced water 

also could result in direct habitat loss 

through prolonged flooding of sagebrush 

areas, or if the discharged water is of 

poor quality because of high salt or 

other mineral content, either of which 

could result in the loss of sagebrush or 

grasses and forbs necessary for foraging 

broods (BLM 2003, p. 4-223). 

Air quality could be affected where 

combustion engine emissions, fugitive 

dust from road use and wind erosion, 

natural gas-flaring, fugitive emissions 

from production site equipment, and 

other activities (BLM 2008d, p. 4-74) 

occur in sage-grouse habitats. 

Presumably, as with surface mining, 

these emissions are quickly dispersed in 

the windy, open conditions of sagebrush 

habitats (Moore and Mills 1977, p. 109), 

minimizing the potential effects on sagegrouse. However, high-density 

development could produce airborne 

pollutants that reach or exceed quality 

standards in localized areas for short 

periods of time (BLM 2008d, pp. 4-82 to 

4-88). Walker (2008, entire) 

characterized emissions from well 

flaring in the Pinedale Anticline area of 

Sublette County, Wyoming. The 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

investigator suggested a comprehensive 

study be conducted by regulatory 

agencies of the potential health effects 

of alkali elements in combusted wellplume material (Walker 2008, entire). 

No information is available regarding 

the effects to sage-grouse of gaseous 

emissions produced by oil and gas 

development. 

Increased human presence resulting 

from oil and gas development can 

impact sage-grouse either through 

avoidance of suitable habitat, disruption 

of breeding activities, or increased 

hunting and poaching pressure (Braun 

et al. 2002, pp. 4-5; Aldridge and 

Brigham 2003, pp. 30-31; Aldridge and 

Boyce 2007, p. 518; Doherty et al. 2008, 

p. 194). Sage-grouse also may be at 

increased risk for collision with vehicles 

simply due to the increased traffic 

associated with oil and gas activities 

(BLM 2003, p. 4-216). 

Negative effects of direct habitat 

disturbance can be offset by successful 

reclamation. Reclamation of areas 

disturbed by oil and gas development 

can be concurrent with field 

development or conducted after the 

shut-in or abandonment of the well or 

field. Sage-grouse may repopulate the 

area as disturbed areas are reclaimed. 

However, there is no evidence that 

populations will attain their previous 

size, and reestablishment may take 20 to 

30 years (Braun 1998, p. 144). For most 

developments, return to pre-disturbance 

population levels is not expected due to 

a net loss and fragmentation of habitat 

(Braun et al. 2002, p. 150). After 20 

years, sage-grouse have not recovered to 

pre-development numbers in Alberta, 

even though well pads in these areas 

have been reclaimed (Braun et al. 2002, 

pp. 4-5). In some reclaimed areas, sagegrouse have not returned (Aldridge and 

Brigham 2003, p. 31). 

Mining 

Mining began in the range of the sagegrouse before 1900 (State of Wyoming, 

1898; U.S. Census 1913, p. 187) and 

continues today. Currently, surface and 

subsurface mining activities for 

numerous resources are conducted in all 

11 States across the sage-grouse range. 

We do not have comprehensive 

information on the number or surface 

extent of mines across the range, but the 

development of mineral resources is 

occurring in sage-grouse habitats and is 

important to the economies of a few of 

the States. Nevada (MZs III, IV, and V) 

is ranked second in the United States in 

terms of value of overall nonfuel 

mineral production in 2006 (USGS 

2006, p. 10). Wyoming (MZs I and II) is 

the largest coal producer in the United 

States, and the top ten producing mines 

in the country are located in Wyoming’s 

Powder River Basin (MZ I) (Wyoming 

Mining Association 2008, p. 2). A 

preliminary estimate of at least 9.9 km2

(3.8 mi2) of occupied sage-grouse habitat 

will be directly impacted by new or 

expanded mining operations, currently 

in the planning phase, for coal in 

Montana (MZ I) and Utah (MZ III), for 

phosphate in Idaho (MZ IV), and 

uranium in Nevada (MZ IV) and 

Wyoming (MZs I and II) (Service 2008b). 

Uranium mining and milling has 

occurred in Wyoming, Utah, and 

Colorado, and Nevada within the greater 

sage-grouse conservation area; however, 

recent production has been very limited 

with only one operation in production 

in Wyoming (EIA 2009c, entire). Tax 

credits indicated in the 2005 Energy 

Policy Act and concerns for green-house 

gas emissions associated with fossil-fuel 

electricity generation are expected to 

increase nuclear power generation (EIA 

2009b, p. 73) and stimulate the demand 

for uranium. Electricity supplied by 

nuclear plants is expected to increase 2– 

55 percent by 2030; the increase is 

dependent on variables such as 

construction costs and regulatory 

mandates (EIA 2009b, p. 52), which are 

difficult to predict. In 2009, industry 

announced the intent to pursue 

development (Peninsula Minerals 2009, 

entire), and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission announced the review of 

numerous new uranium facilities in 

Wyoming (74 FR 41174, Uaugust 14, 

2009; 74 FR 45656, September 3, 2009). 

Areas in central Wyoming and 

Wyoming’s Powder River Basin are 

considered major reserves of uranium 

coinciding with areas of high sagegrouse population densities (Finch 

1996, pp. 19-20; Wyoming State 

Governor’s Sage-grouse Implementation 

Team 2008, entire). 

Bentonite mining has been conducted 

on over 85 km2 (33 mi2) in the Bighorn 

Basin of north-central Wyoming 

(EDAW, Inc. and BLM 2008, p. 1). 

Bentonite is a primary component of oil 

and gas drilling muds. The loss of 

sagebrush associated with bentonite 

mining has been intensive on a 

localized level and has contributed to 

altering 12 percent of the sagebrush 

habitats in the 2,173 km2 (839 mi2) 

Bighorn Basin (EDAW Inc., and BLM 

2008, p. 2). Restoration efforts at mine 

sites have been mostly unsuccessful 

(EDAW, Inc. and BLM 2008, p. 1). The 

BLM foresees up to 89 additional km2

(34 mi2) to be disturbed by bentonite 

mining in the area through 2024, in 

addition to possible oil and gas and 

energy transmission disturbances 

(EDAW, Inc. and BLM 2008, p. 2; BLM 

2009c, p. 5). 

Between 2006 and 2007, surface coal 

production decreased 9 percent in 

Colorado while increasing by 1.6 and 

4.4 percent in Wyoming (MZ I) and 

Montana (MZ I), respectively (EIA 

2008a, entire). The number of Wyoming 

coal mines increased from 19 in 2005 to 

23 in 2008 (Wyoming Mining 

Association 2005, p. 5). All of 

Wyoming’s 23 coal mines are in 

sagebrush and in the SGCA. Sixteen of 

these mines are located in the Powder 

River Basin (MZ I) where oil and gas 

development is extensive (Wyoming 

Mining Association 2008, p. 2). 

Coal mining in Montana is focused in 

the Powder River Basin just north of the 

Wyoming border, in sagebrush habitat. 

In Wyoming and Montana, an estimated 

558 km2 (215 mi2) of sagebrush habitats 

have been disturbed by coal mines and 

associated facilities; disturbance 

increased approximately 170 km2 (66 

mi2) between 2005 and 2007 (Service 

2005, p. 75; Service 2008c; Wyoming 

Mining Association 2008, p. 7). 

Wyoming estimates that 275 km2 ha 

(106 mi2) of mine-disturbed land has 

been reclaimed (Wyoming Mining 

Association 2008, p. 7), but we have no 

knowledge of the effectiveness of these 

reclamation projects in providing 

functional sage-grouse habitat. 

While western coal production has 

grown steadily since 1970, growth is 

predicted to increase through 2030, but 

at a much slower rate than in the past 

(EIA 2009b, p. 83). Coal production is 

projected to increase with the 

development of technology to reduce 

sulfur emissions and most of the future 

output of coal is expected from lowsulfur coal mines in Wyoming, 

Montana, and North Dakota (EIA 2009b, 

p. 83). We do not have information to 

quantify the footprint of future coal 

production; however, additional losses 

and deterioration of sage-grouse habitats 

are expected where mining activity 

occurs (described later in this section). 

The use of coal may be reduced if 

limitations on green-house gas 

emissions are enacted in the future. A 

transition would require development of 

lower emission sources, such as wind, 

solar, or nuclear, that may have their 

own impacts on sage-grouse 

environments. 

Surface and subsurface mining for 

mineral resources (coal, uranium, 

copper, phosphate, aggregate, and 

others) results in direct loss of habitat if 

occurring in sagebrush habitats. The 

direct impact from surface mining is 

usually greater than it is from 

subsurface activity. Habitat loss from 

both types of mining can be exacerbated 

by the storage of overburden (soil 

removed to reach subsurface resource) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13949 

in otherwise undisturbed habitat. If the 

construction of mining infrastructure is 

necessary, additional direct loss of 

habitat could result from structures, 

staging areas, roads, railroad tracks, and 

powerlines. Sage-grouse and nests could 

be directly affected by trampling or 

vehicle collision. Sage-grouse also will 

likely be impacted indirectly from an 

increase in human presence, land use 

practices, ground shock, noise, dust, 

reduced air quality, degradation of 

water quality and quantity, and changes 

in vegetation and topography (Moore 

and Mills 1977, entire; Brown and 

Clayton 2004, p. 2). 

An increase in human presence 

increases collision risk with vehicles 

and potentially exposes sage-grouse and 

other wildlife to pathogens introduced 

from septic systems and waste disposal 

(Moore and Mills 1977, pp. 114-116, 

135). Water contamination also could 

occur from leaching of waste rock and 

overburden and nutrients from blasting 

chemicals and fertilizer (Moore and 

Mills 1977, pp. 115, 133). Altering of 

water regimes could lead to decreased 

surface water and eventual habitat 

degradation from wildlife or livestock 

concentrating at remaining sources. 

Sage-grouse do not require water other 

than what they obtain from plant 

resources (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 6); 

therefore, local water quality 

deterioration or dewatering is not 

expected to have population-level 

impacts. Degradation of riparian areas 

could result in a loss of brood habitat. 

Mining and associated activities 

creates an opportunity for invasion of 

exotic and noxious weed species that 

alter suitability for sage-grouse (Moore 

and Mills 1977, pp. 125, 129). 

Reclamation is required by State and 

Federal laws, but laws generally allow 

for a change in post-mining land use. 

Restoration of sagebrush is difficult to 

achieve and disturbed sites may never 

return to suitability for sage-grouse 

(refer to Habitat Description and 

Characteristics section). 

Heavy equipment operations and use 

of unpaved roads produces dust that can 

interfere with plant photosynthesis and 

insect populations. Most large surface 

mines are required to control dust. 

Gaseous emissions generated from 

heavy equipment operation are quickly 

dispersed in open, windy areas typical 

of sagebrush (Moore and Mills 1977, 

p.109). Blasting, to remove overburden 

or the target mineral, produces noise 

and ground shock. The full effect of 

ground shock on wildlife is unknown. 

Repeated use of explosives during 

lekking activity could potentially result 

in lek or nest abandonment (Moore and 

Mills 1977, p. 137). Noise from mining 

activity could mask vocalizations 

resulting in reduced female attendance 

and yearling recruitment as seen in 

sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes 

phasianellus) (Amstrup and Phillips 

1977, pp. 23, 25-27). In this study, the 

authors found that the mining noise in 

the study area was continuous across 

days and seasons and did not diminish 

as it traveled from its source. The 

mechanism of how noise affects sagegrouse is not known, but it is known 

that sage-grouse depend on acoustical 

signals to attract females to leks (Gibson 

and Bradbury 1985, pp. 81-82; Gratson 

1993, pp. 693-694). Noise associated 

with oil and gas development may have 

played a factor in habitat selection and 

a decrease in lek attendance by sagegrouse (Holloran 2005, pp. 49, 56). 

A few scientific studies specifically 

examine the effects of coal mining on 

greater sage-grouse. In a study in North 

Park, Colorado, overall sage-grouse 

population numbers were not reduced, 

but there was a reduction in the number 

of males attending leks within 2 km (0.8 

mi) of three coal mines, and existing 

leks failed to recruit yearling males 

(Braun 1986, pp. 229-230; Remington 

and Braun 1991, pp. 131-132). New leks 

formed farther from mining disturbance 

(Remington and Braun 1991, p. 131). 

Additionally, some leks that were 

abandoned adjacent to mine areas were 

reestablished when mining activities 

ceased, suggesting disturbance rather 

than habitat loss was the limiting factor 

(Remington and Braun 1991, p.132). 

Hen survival did not decline in a 

population of sage-grouse near large 

surface coal mines in northeast 

Wyoming, and nest success appeared 

not to be affected by adjacent mining 

activity (Brown and Clayton 2004, p. 1). 

However, the authors concluded that 

continued mining would result in 

fragmentation and eventually impact 

sage-grouse persistence if adequate 

reclamation was not employed (Brown 

and Clayton 2004, p.16). 

Surface coal mining and associated 

activities have negative short-term 

impacts on sage-grouse numbers and 

habitats near mines (Braun 1998, p. 

143). Sage-grouse will reestablish on 

mined areas once mining has ceased, 

but there is no evidence that population 

levels will reach their previous size, and 

any population reestablishment could 

take 20 to 30 years based on 

observations of disturbance in oil and 

gas fields (Braun 1998, p. 144). Local 

sage-grouse populations could decline if 

several leks are affected by coal mining, 

but the loss of one or two leks in a 

regional area was likely not limiting to 

local populations in the Caballo Rojo 

Mine in northeastern Wyoming based 

on the presence of viable habitat 

elsewhere in the region (Hayden-Wing 

Associates 1983, p. 81). 

As described above, mining directly 

removes habitat, may interfere with 

auditory clues important to mate 

selection, and results in a decrease of 

males and inhibits yearling recruitment 

at leks in proximity to mining activity. 

Sage-grouse habitat reestablishment and 

recovery of population numbers in an 

area post-disturbance is uncertain. 

Similar avoidance of disturbance has 

been noted in recent investigations of 

oil and gas development in Wyoming 

and discussed in detail in the 

Nonrenewable Energy section. The 

studies recounted here were conducted 

on a local scale that provides limited 

insight into impacts at a larger 

landscape perspective. In Wyoming 

specifically, the cumulative impacts of 

surface coal mine disturbance, 

concurrent increases in oil and gas 

development, increased development of 

renewable energy resources (discussed 

in the following section), and 

transmission infrastructure 

development could have significant 

impacts on sage-grouse in the Powder 

River Basin. The Powder River Basin is 

home to an important regional 

population of the larger Wyoming Basin 

populations covering most of Wyoming, 

northwestern Colorado, and 

northeastern Utah (Connelly et al. 2004, 

pp. 6-62 to 6-63). 

Renewable Energy Sources 

The demand for electricity from 

renewable energy sources is increasing. 

Electricity production from renewable 

sources increased from 6.4 quadrillion 

British thermal units (Btu) in 2005 to 6.9 

quadrillion Btu in 2006. Production was 

down slightly in 2007, but energy 

production by renewables reached 7.3 

quadrillion Btu by the end of 2008 (EIA 

2009d, entire). Wind, geothermal, solar 

and biomass are renewable energy 

sources developable in sage-grouse 

habitats. Large-scale hydropower 

generation occurs in the sage-grouse 

range in parts of Washington State. 

Conventional hydropower electrical 

generation has actually decreased over 

the past 10 years (EIA 2009d, entire). In 

general, growth of the renewable energy 

industry is predictable based on 

legislated mandates to achieve target 

levels of renewable-produced electricity 

in many States within the sage-grouse 

range. 

Wind 

Areas of commercially viable wind 

generation have been identified by the 

NREL (2008b, entire) and BLM (2005, p. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2.4) in all 11 States in the greater sagegrouse range. 

MZs III through VII each have 

approximately 1 to 14 percent of 

sagebrush habitats that are 

commercially developable for wind 

energy (Service 2008e, entire). Wind 

harvesting potentials are more 

concentrated and geographically 

extensive in sage-grouse MZs I and II 

that include parts of Montana, 

Wyoming, North Dakota, and South 

Dakota; areas of highest commercial 

potential include 59 percent of the 

available sagebrush habitats in these 

four States. Over 30 percent of the 

sagebrush lands in the sage-grouse range 

have high potential for wind power 

(Table 8). 

TABLE 8—AREA OF SAGEBRUSH HABITAT WITH WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL, BY MANAGEMENT ZONE. (DATA

FROM SERVICE 2008E) 

SAGE-GROUSE MZ 

Area of Sagebrush with Developable Wind Potential 

km2 mi2 Percent of MZ 

I 137,733 53,179 76.02 

II 46,835 18,083 42.16 

III 3,028 1,169 3.23 

IV 12,952 5,001 9.05 

V 5,532 2,136 8.27 

VI 2,660 1,027 14.44 

VII 199 77 1.10 

TOTAL 208,939 80,672 33.02 

Commercial viability is based on 

wind intensity and consistency, 

available markets and access to 

transmission facilities. Consequently, 

current development is focused in areas 

with existing power transmission 

infrastructure associated with urban 

development, preexisting conventional 

energy resource development (e.g., coal 

and natural gas) and power generation. 

Growth of wind power development is 

expected to continue even in the current 

economic climate (EIA 2009b, p. 3), 

spurred by statutory mandates or 

financial incentives to use renewable 

energy sources in all 11 States in the 

range (Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (AFWA) and Service 2007, pp. 

7, 8, 14, 28, 30, 36, 39, 43, 46, 49, 52; 

State of Oregon 2008, entire). 

Wind generating facilities have 

increased in size and number, outpacing 

development of other renewable sources 

in the sage-grouse range. The BLM, the 

major land manager in the sage-grouse 

range, developed programmatic 

guidance to facilitate the use of BLM 

land for wind development (BLM 2005a, 

entire). The BLM wind policy permits 

granting private right-of-ways and 

leasing of public land for 3–year 

monitoring and testing facilities and 

long-term (30 to 35 years) commercial 

generating facilities (American Wind 

Energy Association (AWEA) 2008, p. 4- 

24). Active leases for wind energy 

development on BLM lands increased 

from 9.7 km2 (3.7 mi2) in 2002 to 5,113 

km2 (1,973 mi2) in 2008, and an 

additional 5,381 km2 (2,077 mi2) of 

lease requests were pending approval in 

the sage-grouse range (Knick et al., in 

press, p. 136). 

A recent increase in wind energy 

development is most notable within the 

range of the south-central Wyoming 

subpopulation of greater sage-grouse in 

MZ II where 1,387 km2 (535 mi2) have 

active wind leases and an additional 

2,828 km2 (1,092 mi2) are pending 

(Knick et al., in press, p. 136). The 

south-central Wyoming subpopulation 

has a loose association with adjacent 

populations where there is accelerated 

oil, gas, and coal development in the 

State – the Powder River Basin (MZ I) 

to the northeast and Pinedale-Jonah Gas 

Fields in the southwest Wyoming Basin 

(MZ II) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-62). 

As stated previously, the Powder River 

Basin is home to an important regional 

population of the larger Wyoming Basin 

populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6- 

62). The subpopulation in southwest 

Wyoming and northwest Colorado is a 

stronghold for sage-grouse with some of 

the highest estimated densities of males 

anywhere in the remaining range of the 

species (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-62, 

A5-23). The south-central Wyoming 

wind potential corridor is not only a 

geographical bridge between two 

important population areas but is home 

to a large population of sage-grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. A5-22) and core 

areas identified preliminarily as high 

density breeding areas for sage-grouse 

by the Wyoming State Governor’s 

Executive Order (State of Wyoming 

2008, entire). Although regulatory 

mechanisms are being developed for 

Wyoming’s core areas (see regulatory 

mechanisms section below), they are 

still largely subject to the impacts of 

both conventional and renewable energy 

development. Twenty-one percent of 

Wyoming core areas have high wind 

development potential, and 51 percent 

are subject to either wind or authorized 

development of oil and gas leases 

(Doherty et al., in press, p. 31). 

In addition to Wyoming, southeastern 

Oregon is a focus area for potential 

commercial-scale wind development. 

Currently, south-central and 

southeastern Oregon have large areas of 

relatively unfragmented sage-dominated 

landscapes which are important for 

maintaining long-term connectivity 

between the sage-grouse populations 

(Knick and Hanser, in press, pp. 1-2.). 

Historically, central Oregon’s 

population provided connectivity with 

the Columbia Basin area through narrow 

habitat corridors (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 6-13). These connections have now 

been lost, resulting in the isolation of 

the northern extant population in 

Washington. The Northern Great Basin 

ranks lowest of the MZs in the intensity 

of the human footprint and consequent 

effects (Leu and Hanser, in press, p. 25; 

Wisdom et al., in press, p. 16), and this 

could be contributing to the substantial 

connectivity that still exists between the 

Northern Great Basin, Snake River 

Plain, and the Southern Great Basin 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13951 

Region populations (Knick and Hanser, 

in press, p. 1). The BLM is the major 

land manager in this part of the 

southeastern Oregon, with jurisdiction 

over 49,000 km2 (18,900 mi2) (BLM 

2009d, entire) that include much of the 

scantily vegetated ridge tops prone to 

high and sustained wind. At this time, 

most of the development activity is in 

the initial phase of meteorological site 

investigation and involves little 

infrastructure (AWEA 2009, entire; BLM 

2009e). Many of these monitoring sites 

could be developed, considering the 

projected demand for renewable energy, 

contributing to fragmentation of this 

relatively intact sagebrush landscape. 

Most published reports of the effects 

of wind development on birds focus on 

the risks of collision with towers or 

turbine blades. No published research is 

specific to the effects of wind farms on 

the greater sage-grouse. However, the 

avoidance of human-made structures 

such as powerlines and roads by sagegrouse and other prairie grouse is 

documented (Holloran 2005, p. 1; Pruett 

et al, in press, p. 6). Renewable energy 

facilities, including wind power, 

typically require many of the same 

features for construction and operation 

as do nonrenewable energy resources. 

Therefore, we anticipate that potential 

impacts from direct habitat losses, 

habitat fragmentation through roads and 

powerlines, noise, and increased human 

presence (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-40 

to 7-41) will generally be similar to 

those already discussed for 

nonrenewable energy development. 

Wind farm development begins with 

site monitoring and collection of 

meteorological data to accurately 

characterize the wind regime. Turbines 

are installed after the meteorological 

data indicate the appropriate siting and 

spacing. Roads are necessary to access 

the turbine sites for installation and 

maintenance. Each turbine unit has an 

estimated footprint of 0.4 to 1.2 ha (1 to 

3 ac) (BLM 2005a, pp. 3.1-3.4). One or 

more substations may be constructed 

depending on the size of the farm. 

Substation footprints are 2 ha (5 ac) or 

less in size (BLM 2005a, p. 3.7). 

The average footprint of a turbine unit 

is relatively small from a landscape 

perspective. Turbines require careful 

placement within a field to avoid loss of 

output from interference with 

neighboring turbines. Spacing improves 

efficiency but expands the overall 

footprint of the field. Sage-grouse 

populations are impacted by the direct 

loss of habitat, primarily from 

construction of access roads as well as 

indirect loss of habitat due to avoidance. 

Sage-grouse could be killed by flying 

into turbine rotors or towers (Erickson et 

al. 2001, entire) although reported 

collision mortalities have been few. One 

sage-grouse was found dead within 45 

m (148 ft) of a turbine on the Foote 

Creek Rim wind facility in south-central 

Wyoming, presumably from flying into 

a turbine (Young et al. 2003, Appendix 

C, p. 61). This is the only known sagegrouse mortality at this facility during 

three years of monitoring. Sage-grouse 

hens with broods have been observed 

under turbines at Foote Creek Rim 

(Young 2004, pers. comm.). We have no 

recent reports of sage-grouse mortality 

due to collision with a wind turbine; 

however, many facilities may not be 

monitored. No deaths of gallinaceous 

birds were reported in a comprehensive 

review of avian collisions and wind 

farms in the United States; the authors 

hypothesized that the average tower 

height and flight height of grouse, and 

diurnal migration habitats of some birds 

minimized the risk of collision (Johnson 

et al. 2000, pp. ii-iii; Erickson et al. 

2001, pp. 8, 11, 14, 15). 

Noise is produced by wind turbine 

mechanical operation (gear boxes, 

cooling fans) and airfoil interaction with 

the atmosphere. No published studies 

have focused specifically on the effects 

of wind power noise and greater sagegrouse. In studies conducted in oil and 

gas fields, noise may have played a 

factor in habitat selection and decrease 

in lek attendance (Holloran 2005, pp. 

49, 56). However, comparison between 

wind turbine and oil and gas operations 

is difficult based on the character of 

sound. Adjusting for manufacturer type 

and atmospheric conditions, the audible 

operating sound of a single wind turbine 

has been calculated as the same level as 

conversational speech at 1 m (3 ft) at a 

distance of 600 m (2,000 ft) from the 

turbine. This level is typical of 

background levels of a rural 

environment (BLM 2005a, p. 5-24). 

However, commercial wind farms do 

not have a single turbine, and multiple 

turbines over a large area would likely 

have a much larger noise print. Lowfrequency vibrations created by rotating 

blades produce annoyance responses in 

humans (van den Berg 2003, p. 1), but 

the specific effect on birds is not 

documented. 

Moving blades of turbines cast 

moving shadows that cause a flickering 

effect producing a phenomenon called 

‘‘shadow flicker’’ (AWEA 2008, p. 5-33). 

Hypothetically, shadow flicker could 

mimic predator shadows and elicit an 

avoidance response in birds during 

daylight hours, but this potential effect 

has not been investigated. 

Since 2005, states have required an 

increasing amount of energy to come 

from renewable sources. For example, 

Colorado law requires incremental 

increases of renewable generation from 

3 percent in 2007 to 20 percent by 2020 

(AFWA and Service 2007, p. 8). 

Financial incentives, including grants 

and tax breaks, encourage private 

development of renewable sources. 

Although development of renewables is 

encouraged at a State level, siting 

authority for wind varies from State to 

State (AFWA and Service 2007, pp. 7, 

8, 14, 28, 30, 36, 39, 43, 46, 49, 52; State 

of Oregon 2008, entire). For example, 

the State of Idaho provides tax 

incentives and loan programs for 

renewable energy development, but 

wind power is currently unregulated at 

any level of government (AFWA and 

Service 2007, p. 14). The North Dakota 

Public Service Commission regulates 

siting of wind power facilities over 100 

megawatts using the Service’s interim 

voluntary guidelines (Service 2003, 

entire). 

Wyoming does not have a 

requirement for increased reliance on 

renewable energy sources and no 

specific wind siting authority. However, 

large construction projects in the State 

are subject to approval by an Industrial 

Siting Council (ISC) of the State 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

with the WGFD providing 

recommendations for mitigating impacts 

to wildlife associated with development 

considered by the ISC. The ISC’s review 

and approval of projects is subject to the 

Wyoming Governor’s executive order 

(State of Wyoming 2008, entire) that is 

intended to prevent harmful effects to 

sage-grouse from development or new 

land uses in designated core areas. 

Wind developers in Wyoming 

understand that most proposed wind 

developments regardless of locale must 

be approved by the ISC and that 

development proposed in core areas is 

unlikely to be permitted by the ISC due 

to the Governor’s Executive Order (see 

discussion in Factor D below). 

The BLM manages more land areas of 

high wind resource potential than any 

other land management agency. In 2005, 

the BLM completed the Wind Energy 

Final Programmatic EIS that provides an 

overarching guidance for wind project 

development on BLM-administered 

lands (BLM 2005a, entire). Best 

management practices (BMPs) are 

prescribed to minimize impacts of all 

phases of construction and operation of 

a wind production facility. The BMPs 

guide future project planning and do not 

guarantee protections specific to sagegrouse. We do not have information on 

how or where the EIS guidance has been 

applied since 2005 and cannot evaluate 

its effectiveness. The footprint of wind 

energy developments is reported to be 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

small (BLM 2005a, p. 5-2). The BLM 

indicates that approximately 600 km2

(232 mi2) of BLM-administered lands 

are likely to be developed in nine States 

within the sage-grouse’s range before 

2025 (BLM 2005a, pp. ES-8, 5-2). It is 

estimated that only 5 to 10 percent of a 

development will have a long-term 

disturbance that remains on the 

landscape for at least as long as the 

generating facility is viable (i.e., roads, 

foundations, substation, fencing) (BLM 

2005a, p. 5-2). However, this estimate 

does not account for sage-grouse 

avoidance of developed areas and could 

be an underestimation of indirect 

effects. Based on what we know of oil 

and gas development (previously 

described), the impact of structures, 

noise and human activity can reach far 

beyond the point of origin and 

contribute cumulatively to other 

human-made and natural disturbances 

that fragment and decrease the quality 

of sage-grouse habitats. The BLM’s 

determination of the quantity of lands 

potentially impacted by wind energy 

development could be extremely 

conservative considering the interest in 

reducing green-house emissions and the 

institution of State renewable energy 

mandates and incentives that have 

occurred since 2005. 

Wind development is guided by 

policy at BLM national and State levels 

that generally offers only guidance to 

avoid impacts to sage-grouse and 

habitats. A 2008 BLM Instruction Memo 

IM 2009-43 (BLM 2008e, p. 2) 

emphasizes the use of the Service’s 2003 

interim guidelines as voluntary and to 

be used only on a general basis in siting, 

design, and monitoring decisions. The 

BLM’s Oregon State Office Instruction 

Memorandum OR-2008-014 (BLM 

2007d, entire) is explicit in the 

placement of meteorological test towers 

to avoid active leks, seasonal 

concentrations, and collision; IM OR2009-038 (BLM 2009f, entire) reduces 

the ODFW’s recommended buffer 

distance for wind farms and applies 

only guidelines for avoidance of sagegrouse leks and seasonal habitats. 

Wind energy resources are found 

throughout the range of the greater sagegrouse, and growth of wind power 

development is expected to continue. 

The DOE predicts that wind may 

provide a significant portion of the 

nation’s energy needs by the year 2030, 

and substantial growth of wind 

developments will be required (DOE 

2008, p. 1). In mid-2009, wind energy 

production facilities in the sage-grouse 

range in operation or under construction 

had a capacity of 11.93 gigawatts 

(AWEA 2009, entire) (Table 9). To 

achieve predicted levels of 49 to greater 

than 90 gigawatts capacity (DOE 2008, 

p. 10), the generation capacity will need 

to increase by 400 to 800 percent by 

2030. Existing commercial wind 

turbines range from 1-2 megawatt 

generating capacity (AWEA 2009, 

entire). The forecasted increase in 

production would require 

approximately 37,000 to 78,000 or more 

turbines based on the existing 

technology and equipment in use. 

Assuming a generation capacity of 5 

megawatts per km2 (0.4 mi2) density, 

Copeland et al. (2009, p. 1) estimated an 

additional 50,000 km2 (19,305 mi2) of 

land in the sage-grouse range would be 

required to meet the predicted level of 

wind-generated electricity by 2030. 

TABLE 9— WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREATER SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2009–2030. 

STATE MZ Existing Capacity 2009* (gigawatts) Forecasted Capacity in 2030 (gigawatts)** 

North Dakota I 1.2 1 to 5 

South Dakota I 0.31 5 to 10 

Montana I 0.17 5 to 10 

Wyoming I, II 1.3 10 plus 

Utah II, III, IV, VII 0.4 1 to 5 

Idaho IV 0.15 1 to 5 

Nevada III, IV, V 0 5 to 10 

California III, V 2.8 10 plus 

Oregon IV, V 2.2 5 to 10 

Washington VI 2.2 5 to 10 

Colorado II, VII 1.2 1 to 5 

Total 11.93 49 to 90 plus 

*Includes completed and under construction, Source: American Wind Energy Assn. (2009, entire). 

** Source: DOE (2008, p. 10). 

(1000 megawatt = 1 gigawatt) 

States such as Nevada and Montana 

that have not been tapped for extensive 

wind power development are likely to 

experience significant new energy 

development within the next 20 years 

(Table 9). In Wyoming, where wind 

development is advancing and 

predicted to increase by 10 fold or more 

(Table 9), the effects of both 

conventional and nonconventional 

renewable sources may claim a 

substantial toll on sage-grouse habitats 

and geographic areas that were in the 

past considered refugia for the species. 

As with oil and gas development, the 

average footprint of a turbine unit is 

relatively small from a landscape 

perspective, but the effects of large-scale 

developments have the potential to 

reduce the size of sagebrush habitats 

directly, degrade habitats with invasive 

species, provide pathways for 

synanthropic predators (i.e., predators 

that live near and benefit from an 

association with humans), and 

cumulatively contribute to habitat 

fragmentation. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13953 

Other Renewable Energy Sources 

Hydropower development can cause 

direct habitat losses and possibly an 

increase in human recreational activity. 

Reservoirs created concurrently with 

power generation structures inundated 

large areas of riparian habitats used by 

sage-grouse broods (Braun 1998, p. 144). 

Reservoirs and the availability of 

irrigation water precipitated conversion 

of large expanses of upland shrubsteppe habitat in the Columbia Basin 

adjacent to the rivers (65 FR 51578, 

August 24, 2000). We were unable to 

find any information regarding the 

amount of sage-grouse habitat affected 

by hydropower projects in other areas of 

the species’ range beyond the Columbia 

Basin. No new large-scale facilities have 

been constructed and hydropower 

electricity generation has decreased 

steadily over the past 10 years (EIA 

2009d, entire). We do not anticipate that 

future dam construction will result in 

large losses of sagebrush habitats. 

Solar-powered electricity generation 

is increasing. Between 2005 and the end 

of 2008, solar electricity generation 

increased from the equivalent of 66 

trillion Btu to 83 trillion Btu (EIA 

2009d, entire). Solar-generating systems 

have been used on a small scale to 

power individual buildings, small 

complexes, remote facilities, and signs. 

Solar energy infrastructure is often 

ancillary to other development, and 

large-scale solar-generating systems 

have not contributed to any calculable 

direct habitat loss for sage-grouse, but 

this may change as more systems come 

on line for commercial electricity 

generation. Solar energy systems 

require, depending on local conditions, 

1.6 ha (4 ac) to produce 1 megawatt of 

electricity. For example, the 162-ha 

(400-ac) Nevada Solar One, the third 

largest solar electricity producer in the 

world, has a maximum potential of 75 

megawatts from a 121-ha (300-ac) solar 

field (nevadasolarone.com 2008, entire). 

No commercial solar plants are 

operating in sage-grouse habitats at this 

time. Southern and eastern Nevada, the 

Pinedale area of Wyoming, and eastcentral Utah are the areas of the sagegrouse range with good potential for 

commercial solar development (EIA 

2009e, entire). There are a total of 196 

ha (484 ac) of active solar leases on BLM 

property in northern California (MZ IV) 

and central Wyoming (MZ II) (BLM 

2009g, map) in sagebrush habitats 

within the current sage-grouse range 

and these leases will likely be 

developed. The BLM is developing a 

programmatic EIS for leasing and 

development of solar energy on BLM 

lands. The EIS planning period has been 

extended to analyze the effects of 

concentrating large-scale development 

in selected geographic areas including 

sage-grouse habitats in east-central 

Nevada and southern Utah (BLM 2009h, 

entire) because of the considerable 

administrative and public interest in 

developing public lands for solargenerated electricity (BLM 2009i, 

entire). At this time, we do not have 

enough information available to 

evaluate the scale of future impacts of 

solar power generation in sage-grouse 

habitats. We will continue to evaluate 

and monitor the impacts of solar power 

development in sage-grouse habitats as 

more information becomes available. 

We are not aware of any investigations 

reporting the impacts of solar generating 

facilities on sage-grouse or other 

gallinaceous birds. Commercial solar 

generation could produce direct habitat 

loss (i.e., solar fields completely 

eliminate habitat), fragmentation, roads, 

powerlines, increased human presence, 

and disturbance during facility 

construction with similar effects to sagegrouse as reported with oil and gas 

development. 

Geothermal energy production has 

remained steady since 2005 (EIA 2009d, 

entire). Geothermal facilities are within 

the sage-grouse range in California (3 

plants, MZ III), Nevada (5 plants, MZs 

III and V), Utah (2 plants, MZ III), and 

Idaho (1 plant, MZ IV). Since 2005, two 

additional plants were constructed is in 

current sage-grouse range – one in Idaho 

and one in Utah (Geothermal Energy 

Association 2008, pp. 2-7). One existing 

geothermal plant in southern Utah is in 

the vicinity of sage-grouse habitat in an 

area where wind power is being 

considered for development (First 

Wind-Milford 2009, entire), which will 

result in cumulative impacts. 

Geothermal potential occurs across the 

sage-grouse range in States with existing 

development and southeast Oregon, 

west-central Wyoming, and northcentral Colorado (EIA 2009e, entire). 

Geothermal energy production is 

similar to oil and gas development such 

that it requires surface exploration, 

exploratory drilling, field development, 

and plant construction and operation. 

Wells are drilled to access the thermal 

source and could take from 3 weeks to 

2 months of continuous drilling (Suter 

1978, p. 3), which may cause 

disturbance to sage-grouse. The ultimate 

number of wells, and therefore potential 

loss of habitat, depends on the thermal 

output of the well and expected 

production of the plant (Suter 1978, p. 

3). Pipelines are needed to carry steam 

or superheated liquids to the generating 

plant which is similar in size to a coalor gas-fired plant, resulting in further 

habitat and indirect disturbance. Direct 

habitat loss occurs from well pads, 

structures, roads, pipelines and 

transmission lines, and impacts would 

be similar to those described previously 

for oil and gas development. 

The development of geothermal 

energy requires intensive human 

activity during field development and 

operation. Geothermal plants could be 

in remote areas necessitating housing 

construction, transportation, and utility 

infrastructure for employees and their 

families (Suter 1978, p. 12). Geothermal 

development could cause toxic gas 

release; the type and effect of these 

gases depends on the geological 

formation in which drilling occurs 

(Suter 1978, pp. 7-9). The amount of 

water necessary for drilling and 

condenser cooling may be high. Local 

water depletions may be a concern if 

such depletions result in the loss of 

brood-rearing habitat. 

The BLM has the authority to lease 

geothermal resources in 11 western 

States. A programmatic EIS for 

geothermal leasing and operations was 

completed in 2008 (BLM and USFS 

2008a, entire). Best management 

practices for minimizing the effects of 

geothermal development and operations 

on sage-grouse are guidance only and 

are general in nature (BLM and USFS 

2008a, pp. 4.82-4.83). The EIS’ 

reasonably foreseeable development 

scenario predicts that Nevada will 

experience the greatest increase in 

geothermal growth–doubling the 

production of electricity from 

geothermal sources by 2025 (BLM and 

USFS 2008, p. 2-35). Currently, 

approximately 1,800 km2 (694 mi2) of 

active geothermal leases exist on public 

lands primarily in the Southern (MZ IV) 

and Northern Great Basin (MZ III) and 

1,138 km2 (439 mi2) of leases are 

pending (Knick et al., in press, p. 138). 

Energy production from biomass 

sources has increased every year since 

2005 (EIA 2009d, entire). Wood has 

been a primary biomass source, but corn 

ethanol and biofuels produced from 

cultivated crops are on the increase (EIA 

2008b, entire). Currently, wood 

products and corn production do not 

occur in the range of the sage-grouse in 

significant quantities (Curtis 2008, p. 7). 

The National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory cites potentials for 

agricultural biomass resources in 

northern Montana (MZ I), southern 

Idaho (MZ IV), eastern Washington (MZ 

VI), eastern Oregon MZ IV), northwest 

Nevada (MZ V), and southeast Wyoming 

(MZ II) (NREL 2005, entire). Conversion 

from native sod to agriculture for the 

purpose of biomass production could 

result in a loss of sage-grouse habitat on 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

private lands. The 2007 Energy 

Independence and Security Act 

mandated incremental production and 

use through the year 2022 of advanced 

biofuel, cellulosic biofuel, and biomassbased diesel (P.L. 110-140, section 203) 

and could provide an incentive to 

convert native sod or expired CRP lands 

to biomass crops. The effects on sagegrouse will depend on amount and 

location of sagebrush habitats 

developed. The effects of agriculture are 

discussed in habitat conversion section 

above. 

Transmission Corridors 

Section 368(a) of the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15926) directs 

Federal land management agencies to 

designate corridors on Federal land in 

11 western States for oil, gas and 

hydrogen pipelines and electricity 

transmission and distribution facilities 

(energy transport corridors). The 

agencies completed a programmatic EIS 

(DOE et al. 2008, entire) to address the 

environmental impacts of corridors on 

Federal lands. The proposed action calls 

for designating more than 9,600 km 

(6,000 mi) with an average width of 1 

km (0.6 mi) of energy corridors across 

the western United States (DOE et al. 

2008, p. S-17). The designated corridors 

on Federal lands will tie in to corridors 

on private lands and lands in other 

governmental jurisdictions. Some of the 

areas proposed for designation are 

currently used for transmission. Federal 

lands newly incorporated into 

transportation or utility rights-of-way 

are mostly BLM lands in California (185 

km, 115 mi), Colorado (97 km, 60 mi), 

Idaho (303 km, 188 mi), Montana (254 

km, 158 mi), Nevada (810 km, 503 mi), 

Oregon (418 km, 260 mi), Washington 

(no additional land), Utah (356 km, 221 

mi), and Wyoming (198 km, 123 mi) 

(DOE et al. 2008, p. S-18). 

It is uncertain how much of the 

proposed corridors are in sagebrush 

habitat within the distribution area of 

sage-grouse, but based on the proposed 

location, habitat in Wyoming (MZ II), 

Idaho (MZ IV), Utah (MZ III), Nevada 

(MZ III) and Oregon (MZs III and IV) 

would be most affected. The purpose of 

the corridor designation is to serve a 

role in expediting applications to 

construct or modify oil, gas, and 

hydrogen pipelines and electricity 

transmission and distribution. These 

designated areas will likely facilitate the 

development of novel renewable and 

nonrenewable electricity generating 

facilities on public and private lands. 

Sage-grouse could be impacted through 

a direct loss of habitat, human activity 

(especially during construction periods), 

increased predation, habitat 

deterioration through the introduction 

of nonnative plant species, and 

additional fragmentation of habitat. 

Summary: Energy Development 

Energy development is a significant 

risk to the greater sage-grouse in the 

eastern portion of its range (Montana, 

Wyoming, Colorado, and northeastern 

Utah – MZs I, II, VII and the 

northeastern part of MZ III), with the 

primary concern being the direct effects 

of energy development on the long-term 

viability of greater sage-grouse by 

eliminating habitat, leks, and whole 

populations and fragmenting some of 

the last remaining large expanses of 

habitat necessary for the species’ 

persistence. The intensity of energy 

development is cyclic and based on 

many factors including energy demand, 

market prices, and geopolitical 

uncertainties. However, continued 

exploration and development of 

traditional and nonconventional fossil 

fuel sources in the eastern portion of the 

greater sage-grouse range is predicted to 

continue to increase over the next 20 

years (EIA 2009b, p. 109). Greater sagegrouse populations are predicted to 

decline 7 to 19 percent over the next 20 

years due to the effects of oil and gas 

development in the eastern part of the 

range (Copeland et al. 2009, p. 4); this 

decline is in addition to the 45 to 80 

percent decline that is estimated to have 

already occurred range wide (Copeland 

et al. 2009, p. 4). 

Development of commercially viable 

renewable energy—wind, solar, 

geothermal, biomass—is increasing 

across the range with focus in some 

areas already experiencing traditional 

energy development (EIA 2009b, pp. 3- 

4; AWEA 2009a, entire). In Wyoming, 

where wind development is advancing 

and predicted to increase by 10-fold 

(DOE 2008, p. 10), the effects of both 

conventional and nonconventional and 

renewable sources may claim a 

substantial toll on sage-grouse habitats 

and geographic areas that were in the 

past considered refugia for the species. 

Renewable energy resources are likely to 

be developed in areas previously 

untouched by traditional energy 

development. Wind energy resources 

are being investigated in south-central 

and southeastern Oregon where large 

areas of relatively unfragmented sagedominated landscapes are important for 

maintaining long-term connectivity 

within the sage-grouse populations 

(Knick and Hanser in press, pp. 1-2.). 

Greater sage-grouse populations are 

negatively affected by energy 

development activities, even when 

mitigative measures are implemented 

(Holloran 2005, pp. 57-60; Walker et al. 

2007a, p. 2651). Energy development, 

particularly high density development, 

will continue to threaten sage-grouse 

populations, specifically in the MZs I 

and II, which contain the greatest 

numbers of birds throughout their range. 

Development of commercially viable 

renewable energy–wind, solar, 

geothermal, biomass–is rapidly 

increasing rangewide with a focus in 

some areas already experiencing 

significant traditional energy 

development (e.g., MZs I and II). The 

effects of renewable energy 

development are likely similar to those 

of nonrenewable energy as similar types 

of infrastructure are required. Based on 

our review of the literature, we 

anticipate the impacts of these 

developments will negatively affect the 

ability of greater sage-grouse to persist 

in those areas in the foreseeable future. 

Climate Change 

The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded 

that warming of the climate is 

unequivocal, and that continued 

greenhouse gas emissions at or above 

current rates will cause further warming 

(IPCC 2007, p. 30). Eleven of the 12 

years from 1995 through 2006 rank 

among the 12 warmest years in the 

instrumental record of global surface 

temperature since 1850 (ISAB 2007). 

Climate-change scenarios estimate that 

the mean air temperature could increase 

by over 3°C (5.4°F) by 2100 (IPCC 2007, 

p. 46). The IPCC also projects that there 

will very likely be regional increases in 

the frequency of hot extremes, heat 

waves, and heavy precipitation (IPCC 

2007, p. 46), as well as increases in 

atmospheric carbon dioxide (IPCC 2007, 

p. 36). 

We recognize that there are scientific 

differences of opinion on many aspects 

of climate change, including the role of 

natural variability in climate. In our 

analysis, we rely primarily on synthesis 

documents (e.g., IPCC 2007; Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States 2009) that present the consensus 

view of a very large number of experts 

on climate change from around the 

world. We have found that these 

synthesis reports, as well as the 

scientific papers used in those reports or 

resulting from those reports, represent 

the best available scientific information 

we can use to inform our decision and 

have relied upon them and provided 

citation within our analysis. In addition, 

where possible we have used 

projections specific to the region of 

interest, the western United States and 

southern Canada, which includes the 

range of the greater sage-grouse. We also 

use projections of the effects of climate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13955 

change to sagebrush where appropriate, 

while acknowledging that the 

uncertainty of climate change effects 

increases as one applies those potential 

effects to a habitat variable like 

sagebrush, and then increases again 

when the impacts to the habitat variable 

are applied to the species. 

Projected climate change and its 

associated consequences have the 

potential to affect greater sage-grouse 

and may increase its risk of extinction, 

as the impacts of climate change interact 

with other stressors such as disease, and 

habitat degradation and loss that are 

already affecting the species (Walker 

and Naugle, in press, entire; Global 

Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States 2009, p. 81; Miller et al. in press, 

pp. 46-50). In the Pacific Northwest, 

regionally averaged temperatures have 

risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit) over the last century (as 

much as 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees 

Fahrenheit) in some areas), and are 

projected to increase by another 1.5 to 

5.5 degrees Celsius (3 to 10 degrees 

Fahrenheit) over the next 100 years 

(Mote et al. 2003, p. 54; Global Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States 

2009, p. 135). Arid regions such as the 

Great Basin where greater sage-grouse 

occurs are likely to become hotter and 

drier; fire frequency is expected to 

accelerate, and fires may become larger 

and more severe (Brown et al. 2004, pp. 

382-383; Neilson et al. 2005, p. 150; 

Chambers and Pellant 2008, p. 31; 

Global Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States 2009, p. 83). 

Climate changes such as shifts in 

timing and amount of precipitation, and 

changes in seasonal high and low 

temperatures, as well as average 

temperatures, may alter distributions of 

individual species and ecosystems 

significantly (Bachelet et al. 2001, 

p174). Under projected future 

temperature conditions, the cover of 

sagebrush within the distribution of 

sage-grouse is anticipated to be reduced 

(Neilson et al. 2005, p. 154; Miller et al. 

in press, p. 45). Warmer temperatures 

and greater concentrations of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide create 

conditions favorable to Bromus 

tectorum, as described above, thus 

continuing the positive feedback cycle 

between the invasive annual grass and 

fire frequency that poses a significant 

threat to greater sage-grouse (Chambers 

and Pellant 2008, p. 32; Global Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States 

2009, p. 83). Fewer frost-free days also 

may favor frost-sensitive woodland 

vegetation of Sonoran and Chihuahuan 

deserts, which may expand, potentially 

encroaching on the sagebrush biome in 

the southern Great Basin where sagegrouse populations currently exist 

(Miller et al. in press, p. 44). Such 

encroachment of woody vegetation 

degrades sage-grouse habitat (see Factor 

A, Invasive plants). 

Temperature and precipitation both 

directly influence potential for West 

Nile virus (WNv) transmission (Walker 

and Naugle in press, p. 12). In sagegrouse, WNv outbreaks appear to be 

most severe in years with higher 

summer temperatures (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 13) and under 

drought conditions (Epstein and 

Defilippo, p. 105). This relationship is 

due to the breeding cycle of the WNv 

vector, Culex tarsalis being highly 

dependent on warm water temperature 

for mosquito activity and virus 

amplification (Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 12; see discussion under 

Disease and Predation below). 

Therefore, the higher summer 

temperatures and more frequent or 

severe drought or both, that are likely 

under current climate change 

projections, make more severe WNv 

outbreaks likely in low-elevation sagegrouse habitats where WNv is already 

endemic, and also make WNv outbreaks 

possible in higher elevation sage-grouse 

habitats that to date have been WNv-free 

due to relatively cold conditions. 

Emissions of carbon dioxide, 

considered to be the most important 

anthropogenic greenhouse gas, 

increased by approximately 80 percent 

between 1970 and 2004 due to human 

activities (IPCC 2007, p. 36). Future 

carbon dioxide emissions from energy 

use are projected to increase by 40 to 

110 percent over the next few decades, 

between 2000 and 2030 (IPCC 2007, p. 

44). An increase in the atmospheric 

concentration of carbon dioxide has 

important implications for greater sagegrouse, beyond those associated with 

warming temperatures, because higher 

concentrations of carbon dioxide are 

favorable for the growth and 

productivity of Bromus tectorum (Smith 

et al. 1987, p. 142; Smith et al. 2000, p. 

81). Although most plants respond 

positively to increased carbon dioxide 

levels, many invasive nonnative plants 

respond with greater growth rates than 

native plants, including B. tectorum 

(Smith et al. 1987, p. 142; Smith et al. 

2000, p. 81; Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States 2009, p. 

83). Laboratory research results 

illustrated that B. tectorum grown at 

carbon dioxide levels representative of 

current climatic conditions matured 

more quickly, produced more seed and 

greater biomass, and produced 

significantly more heat per unit biomass 

when burned than B. tectorum grown at 

‘‘pre-industrial’’ carbon dioxide levels 

(Blank et al. 2006, pp. 231, 234). These 

responses to increasing carbon dioxide 

may have increased the flammability in 

B. tectorum communities during the 

past century (Ziska et al. 2005, as cited 

in Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 30; Blank et al. 

2006, p. 234). 

Field studies likewise demonstrate 

that Bromus species demonstrate 

significantly higher plant density, 

biomass, and seed rain (dispersed seeds) 

at elevated carbon dioxide levels 

relative to native annuals (Smith et al. 

2000, pp. 79-81). The researchers 

conclude that ‘‘the results from this 

study confirm experimentally in an 

intact ecosystem that elevated carbon 

dioxide may enhance the invasive 

success of Bromus spp. in arid 

ecosystems,’’ and suggest that this 

enhanced success will then expose 

these areas to accelerated fire cycles 

(Smith et al. 2000, p. 81). Chambers and 

Pellant (2008, p. 32) also suggest that 

higher carbon dioxide levels are likely 

increasing B. tectorum fuel loads due to 

increased productivity, with a resulting 

increase in fire frequency and extent. 

Based on the best available information, 

we expect the current and predicted 

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 

increase the threat posed to greater sagegrouse by B. tectorum and from more 

frequent, expansive, both in sage-grouse 

habitat degradation (functional 

fragmentation) and severe wildfires 

(Smith et al. 1987, p. 143; Smith et al. 

2000, p. 81; Brown et al. 2004, p. 384; 

Neilson et al. 2005, pp. 150, 156; 

Chambers and Pellant 2008, pp. 31-32). 

Therefore, beyond the potential changes 

associated with temperature and 

precipitation, increases in carbon 

dioxide concentrations represent a 

threat to the sagebrush biome and an 

indirect threat to sage-grouse through 

habitat degradation and loss (Miller et 

al. in press, p. 45), with the combined 

effects of higher temperatures and 

carbon dioxide concentrations leading 

to a loss of 12 percent of the current area 

of sagebrush per degree Celsius of 

temperature increase, or from 34 to 80 

percent of sagebrush distribution 

depending on the emissions scenario 

used (Nielson et al. 2005, p. 6, 10; Miller 

et al. in press, p. 45). 

Bradley (2009, pp. 196-208) and 

Bradley et al. (2009, pp. 1-11) predict 

that nonnative invasive species in the 

sagebrush-steppe ecosystem may either 

expand or contract under climate 

change, depending on the current and 

projected future range of a particular 

invasive plant species. They developed 

a bioclimatic model for B. tectorum 

based on maps of invaded range derived 

from remote sensing. The best 

predictors of B. tectorum occurrence 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

were summer, annual, and spring 

precipitation, followed by winter 

temperature (Bradley et al., 2009, p. 5). 

Depending primarily on future 

precipitation conditions, the model 

predicts B. tectorum is likely to shift 

northwards, leading to expanded risk of 

B. tectorum invasion in Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming, but reduced risk of 

invasion in southern Nevada and Utah, 

which currently have large areas 

dominated by this nonnative grass 

(Bradley et al., 2009, p. 5). Therefore, 

the threat posed to greater sage-grouse 

by the greater frequency and geographic 

extent of wildfires and other associated 

negative impacts from the presence of B. 

tectorum is expected to continue into 

the foreseeable future. Bradley (2009, 

pp. 205) stated that the bioclimatic 

model she used is an initial step in 

assessing the potential geographic 

extent of B. tectorum, because climate 

conditions only affect invasion on the 

broadest regional scale. Other factors 

relating to land use, soils, competition, 

or topography may affect suitability of a 

given location. Bradley (2009, entire) 

concludes that the potential for climate 

to shift away from suitability for B. 

tectorum in the future may offer an 

opportunity for restoration of the 

sagebrush biome in this area. We 

anticipate that areas that become 

unsuitable for B. tectorum, may 

transition to other vegetation over time. 

However, it is not known if transition 

back to sagebrush as a dominant 

landcover or to other native or 

nonnative vegetation is more likely. 

In a study that modeled potential 

impacts to big sagebrush (A. tridentata 

ssp.) due to climate change, Shafer et al. 

(2001, pp. 200-215) used response 

surfaces to describe the relationship 

between bioclimatic variables and the 

distribution of tree and shrub taxa in 

western North America. Species 

distributions were simulated using 

scenarios generated by three general 

circulation models – HADCM2, CGCM1, 

and CSIRO. Each scenario produced 

similar results, simulating future 

bioclimatic conditions that would 

reduce the size of the overall range of 

sagebrush and change where sagebrush 

may occur. These simulated changes 

were the result of increases in the mean 

temperature of the coldest month which 

the authors speculated may interact 

with soil moisture levels to produce the 

simulated impact. Each model predicted 

that climate suitability for big sagebrush 

would shift north into Canada. Areas in 

the current range would become less 

suitable climatically, and would 

potentially cause significant 

contraction. The authors also point out 

that increases in fire frequency under 

the simulated climate projections would 

leave big sagebrush more vulnerable to 

fire impacts. 

Shafer et al. (2001, pp. 213) explicitly 

state that their approach should not be 

used to predict the future range of a 

species, and that the underlying 

assumptions of the models they used are 

‘‘unsatisfying’’ because they presume a 

direct causal relationship between the 

distribution of a species and particular 

environmental variables. Shafer et al. 

(2001, pp. 207, 213) identify cautions 

similar to Bradley et al. (in press, pp. 

205) regarding their models. A variety of 

factors are not included in climate space 

models, including: the effect of elevated 

CO2 on the species’ water-use 

efficiency, what really is the 

physiological effect of exceeding the 

assumed (modeled) bioclimatic limit on 

the species, the life stage at which the 

limit affects the species (seedling versus 

adult), the life span of the species, and 

the movement of other organisms into 

the species range (Shafer et al., 2001, 

pp. 207). These variables would likely 

help determine how climate change 

would affect species distributions. 

Shafer et al. (2001, pp. 213) concludes 

that while more empirical studies are 

needed on what determines a species 

and multi-species distributions, those 

data are often lacking; in their absence 

climatic space models can play an 

important role in characterizing the 

types of changes that may occur so that 

the potential impacts on natural systems 

can be assessed. 

Schrag et al. (submitted MS, 2009, pp. 

1-42) developed a bioclimatic envelope 

model for big sagebrush and silver 

sagebrush in the States of Montana, 

Wyoming, and North and South 

Dakotas. This analysis suggests that 

large displacement and reduction of 

sagebrush habitats will occur under 

climate change as early as 2030 for both 

species of sagebrush examined. At the 

time of this finding, the Schrag et al. 

analysis has not been peer reviewed, 

and we have significant reservations 

about using analyses of this level of 

complexity in making management 

decisions, without it having gone 

through a review process where experts 

in the fields of climate change, 

bioclimatic modeling, and sagebrush 

ecology can all assess the validity of the 

reported results. Other models 

projecting the affect of climate change 

on sagebrush habitat discussed more 

below, identify uncertainty associated 

with projecting climatic habitat 

conditions into the future given the 

unknown influence of other factors that 

such models do not incorporate (e.g., 

local physiographic conditions, life 

stage of the plant, generation time of the 

plant and its reaction to changing CO2 

levels). 

In some cases, effects of climate 

change can be demonstrated (e.g., 

McLaughlin et al. 2002) and where it 

can be, we rely on that empirical 

evidence, such as increased stream 

temperatures (see Rio Grande cutthroat 

trout, 73 FR 27900), or loss of sea ice 

(see polar bear, 73 FR 28212), and treat 

it as a threat that can be analyzed. 

However, we have no such data relating 

to greater sage-grouse. Application of 

continental scale climate change models 

to regional landscapes, and even more 

local or ‘‘step-down’’ models projecting 

habitat potential based on climatic 

factors, while informative, contain a 

high level of uncertainty due to a variety 

of factors including: regional weather 

patterns, local physiographic 

conditions, life stages of individual 

species, generation time of species, and 

species reactions to changing CO2 

levels. The models summarized above 

are limited by these types of factors; 

therefore, their usefulness in assessing 

the threat of climate change on greater 

sage-grouse also is limited. 

Summary: Climate Change 

The direct, long-term impact from 

climate change to greater sage-grouse is 

yet to be determined. However, as 

described above, the invasion of Bromus 

tectorum and the associated changes in 

fire regime currently pose one of the 

significant threats to greater sage-grouse 

and the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem. 

Under current climate-change 

projections, we anticipate that future 

climatic conditions will favor further 

invasion by B. tectorum, as well as 

woody invasive species that affect 

habitat suitability, and that fire 

frequency will continue to increase, and 

the extent and severity of fires may 

increase as well. Climate warming is 

also likely to increase the severity of 

WNv outbreaks and to expand the area 

susceptible to outbreaks into areas that 

are now too cold for the WNv vector. 

Therefore, the consequences of climate 

change, if current projections are 

realized, are likely to exacerbate the 

existing primary threats to greater sagegrouse of frequent wildfire and invasive 

nonnative plants, particularly B. 

tectorum as well as the threat posed by 

disease. As the IPCC projects that the 

changes to the global climate system in 

the 21st century will likely be greater 

than those observed in the 20th century 

(IPCC 2007, p. 45), we anticipate that 

these effects will continue and likely 

increase into the foreseeable future. As 

there is some degree of uncertainty 

regarding the potential effects of climate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13957 

change on greater sage-grouse 

specifically, climate change in and of 

itself was not considered a significant 

factor in our determination whether 

greater sage-grouse is warranted for 

listing. However, we expect the severity 

and scope of two of the significant 

threats to greater sage-grouse, frequent 

wildfire and B. tectorum colonization 

and establishment; as well as epidemic 

WNv, to magnify within the foreseeable 

future due the effects of climate change 

already underway (i.e., increased 

temperature and carbon dioxide). Thus, 

currently we consider climate change as 

playing a potentially important indirect 

role in intensifying some of the current 

significant threats to the species. 

Analysis of Habitat Fragmentation in 

the Context of Factor A 

Greater sage-grouse are a landscapescale species requiring large, contiguous 

areas of sagebrush for long-term 

persistence. Large-scale characteristics 

within surrounding landscapes 

influence habitat selection, and adult 

sage-grouse exhibit a high fidelity to all 

seasonal habitats, resulting in little 

adaptability to changes. Fragmentation 

of sagebrush habitats has been cited as 

a primary cause of the decline of sagegrouse populations (Patterson 1952, pp. 

192-193; Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 4; 

Braun 1998, p. 140; Johnson and Braun 

1999, p. 78; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

975; Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 1; 

Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 29; 

Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Aldridge and 

Brigham 2003, p. 25; Beck et al. 2003, 

p. 203; Pedersen et al. 2003, pp. 23-24; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-15; Schroeder 

et al. 2004, p. 368; Leu et al. in press, 

p. 19). Documented negative effects of 

fragmentation include reduced lek 

persistence, lek attendance, population 

recruitment, yearling and adult annual 

survival, female nest site selection, nest 

initiation, and loss of leks and winter 

habitat (Holloran 2005, p. 49; Aldridge 

and Boyce 2007, pp. 517-523; Walker et 

al. 2007a, pp. 2651-2652; Doherty et al. 

2008, p. 194). Functional habitat loss 

also contributes to habitat fragmentation 

as greater sage-grouse avoid areas due to 

human activities, including noise, even 

though sagebrush remains intact. In an 

analysis of population connectivity, 

Knick and Hanser (in press, p. 31) 

demonstrated that in some areas of the 

sage-grouse range, populations are 

already isolated and at risk for 

extirpation due to genetic, demographic, 

and environmental stochasticity. Habitat 

loss and fragmentation contribute to this 

population isolation and increased risk 

of extirpation. 

We examined several factors that 

result in habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Historically, large losses of sagebrush 

habitats occurred due to conversion for 

agricultural croplands. This conversion 

is continuing today, and may increase 

due to the promotion of biofuel 

production and new technologies to 

provide irrigation to arid lands. Indirect 

effects of agricultural activities, such as 

linear corridors created by irrigation 

ditches, also contribute to habitat 

fragmentation by allowing the incursion 

of nonnative plants. Direct habitat loss 

and fragmentation also has occurred as 

the result of expanding human 

populations in the western United 

States, and the resulting urban 

development in sagebrush habitats. 

Fire is one of the primary factors 

linked to population declines of greater 

sage-grouse because of long-term loss of 

sagebrush and conversion to nonnative 

grasses. Loss of sagebrush habitat to 

wildfire has been increasing in the 

western portion of the greater sagegrouse range due to an increase in fire 

frequency and size. This change is the 

result of incursion of nonnative annual 

grasses, primarily Bromus tectorum, 

into sagebrush ecosystems. The positive 

feedback loop between B. tectorum and 

fires facilitates future fires and 

precludes the opportunity for sagebrush, 

which is killed by fire, to become reestablished. B. tectorum and other 

invasive plants also alter habitat 

suitability for sage-grouse by reducing 

or eliminating native forbs and grasses 

essential for food and cover. Annual 

grasses and noxious perennials continue 

to expand their range, facilitated by 

ground disturbances, including wildfire, 

grazing, agriculture, and infrastructure 

associated with energy development 

and urbanization. Concern with habitat 

loss and fragmentation due to fire and 

invasive plants has mostly been focused 

in the western portion of the species’ 

range. However, climate change may 

alter the range of invasive plants, 

potentially expanding this threat into 

other areas of the species’ range. The 

establishment of these plants will then 

contribute to increased fire frequency in 

those areas, further compounding 

habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Functional habitat loss is occurring from 

the expansion of native conifers, mainly 

due to decreased fire return intervals, 

livestock grazing, increases in global 

carbon dioxide concentrations, and 

climate change. 

Sage-grouse populations are 

significantly reduced, including local 

extirpation, by nonrenewable energy 

development activities, even when 

mitigative measures are implemented 

(Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2651). The 

persistent and increasing demand for 

energy resources is resulting in their 

continued development within sagegrouse range, and will only act to 

increase habitat fragmentation. Habitat 

fragmentation due to energy 

development results not only from the 

actual footprint of energy development 

and its appurtenant facilities (e.g., 

powerlines, roads), but also from 

functional habitat loss (e.g., noise, 

presence of overhead structures). 

Livestock management and domestic 

livestock and wild horse grazing have 

the potential to seriously degrade sagegrouse habitat at local scales through 

loss of nesting cover, decreasing native 

vegetation, and successional stage and, 

therefore, vegetative resiliency, and 

increasing the probability of incursion 

of invasive plants. Fencing constructed 

to manage domestic livestock causes 

direct mortality, degradation, and 

fragmentation of habitats, and increased 

predator populations. There is little 

direct evidence linking grazing practices 

to population levels of greater sagegrouse. However, testing for impacts of 

grazing at landscape scales important to 

sage-grouse is confounded by the fact 

that almost all sage-grouse habitat has at 

one time been grazed, and thus no nongrazed areas currently exist with which 

to compare. While some rangeland 

treatments to remove sagebrush for 

livestock forage production can 

temporarily increase sage-grouse 

foraging areas, the predominant effect is 

habitat loss and fragmentation, although 

those losses cannot be quantified or 

spatially analyzed due to lack of data 

collection. 

Restoration of sagebrush habitat is 

challenging, and restoring habitat 

function may not be possible because 

alteration of vegetation, nutrient cycles, 

topsoil, and cryptobiotic crusts have 

exceeded recovery thresholds. Even if 

possible, restoration will require 

decades and will be cost-prohibitive. To 

provide habitat for sage-grouse, 

restoration must include all seasonal 

habitats and occur on a large scale 

(4,047 ha (10,000 ac) or more) to provide 

all necessary habitat components. 

Restoration may never be achieved in 

the presence of invasive grass species. 

The WAFWA identified a goal of ‘‘no 

net loss’’ of birds and habitat in their 

Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 

2006, p. 1-7). Knick and Hanser (in 

press, p. 32) have concluded that this 

strategy may no longer be possible due 

to natural and anthropogenic threats 

that are degrading the remaining 

sagebrush habitats. They recommend 

focusing conservation on areas critical 

to range-wide persistence of this species 

(Knick and Hanser in press, p. 31). 

Wisdom et al. (in press, pp. 24-25) and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Knick and Hanser (in press, p. 17) 

identified two strongholds of contiguous 

sagebrush habitat essential for the longterm persistence of greater sage-grouse 

(the southwest Wyoming Basin and the 

Great Basin area straddling the States of 

Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho). Other areas 

within the greater sage-grouse range had 

a high uncertainty for continued 

population persistence (Wisdom et al., 

in press, p. 25) due to fragmentation 

from anthropogenic impacts. However, 

our analyses of fragmentation in the two 

stronghold areas showed that habitats in 

these areas are becoming fragmented 

due to wildfire, invasive species, and 

energy development. Therefore, we are 

concerned that the level of 

fragmentation in these areas may 

already be limiting sage-grouse 

populations and further reducing 

connectivity between populations. 

These threats have intensified over the 

last two decades, and we anticipate that 

they will continue to accelerate due to 

the positive feedback loop between fire 

and invasives and the persistent and 

increasing demand for energy resources. 

Population Trends in Relation to 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation 

In order to assess the effects of habitat 

loss and fragmentation on greater sagegrouse populations and persistence, we 

examined a variety of data to 

understand how population trends 

reflected the changing habitat condition. 

Patterns of sage-grouse extirpation were 

identified by Aldridge et al. 2008 

(entire) Johnson et al. (in press, entire), 

Wisdom et al. (in press, entire), Knick 

and Hanser (in press, entire), and others, 

and discussed in detail above. Examples 

include fragmentation of populations 

and their isolation as a result of habitat 

loss from fire (Knick and Hanser in 

press, p. 20; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 

22), an increase in the probability of 

extirpation as a result of fire (Knick and 

Hanser in press, p. 31) and agricultural 

activities and human densities 

(Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990; Wisdom et 

al. in press, p. 4), and sage-grouse 

population declines as a result of energy 

development (Doherty et al. 2008, p. 

193; Johnson et al. in press, p. 13; Leu 

and Hanser, in press, p. 28). Therefore, 

where these habitat factors, and others 

identified above, are occurring, we 

anticipate that sage-grouse population 

trends will continue to decline. 

Lek count data are the only data 

available to estimate sage-grouse 

population trends, and are the data 

WAFWA collects (WAFWA 2008, p. 3). 

The use of lek count data as an index 

of trends involves various types of 

uncertainty (such as measurement error, 

count methods, statistical and other 

types of assumptions; e.g. see Connelly 

et al., 2004, pp. 6-18 to 6-20; and 

WAFWA 2008, pp. 7-8). Nevertheless, 

these data have been collected for 50 

years in most locations and therefore do 

have utility in examining long-term 

trends (Gerrodette 1987, p. 1370; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. A3-3; Stiver et 

al. 2009, p. 3-5; WAFWA 2008, p. 3), 

and in evaluating differences in trends 

across the species’ range. Therefore, we 

are considering the results of 

researchers whose work relies on lek 

data (e.g., Garton et al. (in press), 

Wisdom et al. (in press), Connelly et al. 

(2004, p. 6-18 to 6-59; WAFWA 2008, 

entire) to help inform our overall 

analyses. 

Population trends (average number of 

males per lek) in MZs I and II, the areas 

with the highest concentration of 

nonrenewable energy development, 

decreased by 17 and 30 percent from 

1965 to 2007, respectively (Garton et al. 

in press, pp. 28, 35). Individual 

population trends within each MZ 

varied. However, in areas of intensive 

energy development, trends were 

negative as habitat continued to be 

fragmented. For example, in the Powder 

River Basin of Wyoming, sage-grouse 

populations have declined by 79 

percent in the 12 years since coal-bed 

methane development was initiated 

there (Emmerich 2009, pers. comm.). In 

MZs affected by Bromus tectorum and 

fire, (primarily MZs IV (Snake River 

Plain) and V (Northern Great Basin)), 

population trends from 1995 to 2007 

also were negative (Table 6). These 

results are consistent with the analyses 

conducted by Wisdom et al. (in press, p. 

24) that demonstrate that fragmentation 

as a result of disturbance results in 

reduced population numbers and 

population isolation. 

In some populations within the 

species’ range, population trends 

(number of males counted on leks) since 

the early 1990s appear to be stable, and 

in some cases increasing (Garton et al. 

in press, Figs.2-8, pp.188-219). 

However, simply looking at total 

number of males counted does not 

accurately reflect habitat conditions, as 

leks, and by inference the associated 

breeding habitats, could have been lost. 

Additionally, as discussed above, sagegrouse will continue to attend leks even 

after habitat suitability is diminished 

simply due to site fidelity (Walker et al. 

2007a, p. 2651). Therefore, the counts of 

males on these leks may artificially 

minimize the declines seen in trend 

analyses, as little productivity results 

from them. Because the analyses were 

truncated in 2007 to be comparable to 

other analyses of population trends (i.e. 

Connelly et al. 2004 and WAFWA 2008, 

see discussion under population size 

above), delays in population response to 

habitat loss and fragmentation events 

within the past 2 to 3 years may not 

have been captured. Also, some 

significant events that have resulted in 

habitat loss occurred after the 2007 

lekking season. For example, the 

Murphy complex fire in Idaho and 

Nevada burned 264,260 ha (653,000 ac), 

resulting in the loss of 75 of 102 leks, 

and the associated nesting habitats in 

the area. Population-level effects of this 

fire would not be reflected by any of the 

three population trend analyses 

(Connelly et al., 2004; WAFWA 2008; 

Garton et al. in press) simply because it 

occurred after the time period analyzed. 

Projections of Future Populations 

As described above, our analysis of 

habitat trends, and those provided in 

the published literature show that 

population extirpation and declines 

have, and are likely to continue to track 

habitat loss or environmental changes 

(e.g., Walker et al., 2005, Aldridge et al. 

2008; Knick and Hanser in press; 

Wisdom et al. in press). Estimation of 

how these trends may affect future 

population numbers and habitat 

carrying capacity was conducted by 

Garton et al. (in press, entire). We 

realize population viability analyses are 

based on assumptions that may or may 

not be realistic given the species 

analyzed. Additionally, lek counts are 

not the best data for use in these kinds 

of analyses as variability in lek 

attendance, observer bias, and the 

unknown relationship between males 

counted to actual population sizes limit 

unbiased estimation of future 

population numbers (see also discussion 

under population sizes above, and in 

Garton et al., in press, pp. 8, 66). At the 

request of the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, three individuals (Conroy 

2009, entire; Noon 2009, entire; Runge 

2009, entire) reviewed Garton et al. 

outside the established peer review 

process and noted similar limitations of 

these data. We received these reviews 

and have reviewed them in the context 

of all other data we received in 

preparation of this finding. Their 

primary concern was about the 

applicability of analyzing and 

presenting future population projections 

in the manner done by Garton et al. in 

press, based on the limitations of the 

data, the assumptions required, and 

uncertainty in the estimates of the 

model parameters (see also discussion 

above). 

Garton et al., (in press, pp. 6-8, 64-67) 

acknowledged these concerns, as several 

of the reviewers pointed out, and their 

analyses underwent peer review via the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13959 

normal scientific process prior to 

acceptance for publication. Population 

viability analyses can provide useful 

information in examining the potential 

future status of a species as long as the 

assumptions of the model, and 

violations thereof, are clearly identified 

and considered in the interpretation of 

the results. Therefore, we present the 

analyses conducted by Garton et al. (in 

press, entire) here in relation to our 

conclusion of how existing and 

continued habitat fragmentation may 

impact the greater sage-grouse within 

the foreseeable future. The projections 

reported by Garton et al. (in press, 

entire; see discussion below) are 

generally consistent with what we 

expect given the causes of sage-grouse 

declines and extirpation documented in 

the literature (see above) and where 

those threats occur in the species range, 

despite the concerns of the authors and 

others about the limitations of lek data 

and prospective analysis. We are 

unaware of any other prospective 

rangewide population viability analyses 

for this species. 

Garton et al. (in press, entire) 

projected population and habitat 

carrying capacity trends (the modeled 

estimate where population growth rate 

is 0) at 30 (2037) and 100 (2107) years 

into the future. Growth rates were 

analogous to rates from 1987 to 2007, 

and quasi-extinction thresholds 

(artificial thresholds below which the 

long-term persistence and viability of a 

species is questionable due to stochastic 

variables, such as small populations or 

genetic inbreeding) corresponded to 

minimum counts of 20 and 200 males at 

leks (Garton et al. in press, p. 19). The 

thresholds were established to 

correspond to populations of 50 and 500 

breeding birds, numbers generally 

accepted for adequate effective 

population sizes to avoid negative 

genetic effects from inbreeding (Garton 

et al. in press, p. 19). Therefore, 

population projections that fell below 

50 breeding adults (males and females) 

were identified as being at short-term 

risk of extinction, and those that fell 

below 500 breeding adults (males and 

females) were identified as being at 

long-term risk for extinction. However, 

recent work by Bush (2009, p. 106) 

suggests that a higher proportion of 

male sage-grouse are breeding than 

previously identified. Therefore, Garton 

et al. (in press, p. 20) state that their 

resulting projections are likely 

underestimates of actual impacts as 

more birds are necessary than they 

assumed for population productivity. 

Additionally, Traill et al. (2010, p. 32) 

argue that a minimum effective 

population size must be 5,000 

individuals to maintain evolutionary 

minimal viable populations of wildlife 

(retention of sufficient genetic material 

to avoid effect of inbreeding depression 

or deleterious mutations). We examined 

the projected population trends for 30 

years to minimize the risk of error 

associated with the 100 year projections 

simply due to using lek data. 

One assumption made by Garton et al. 

(in press, p. 19) is that future population 

growth would be analogous to what 

occurred from 1987 to 2007. We 

anticipate adverse habitat impacts (see 

discussion of foreseeable future below) 

and synergism between these impacts 

(e.g. fire and invasive species 

expansion) to increase habitat loss; 

therefore, Garton et al.’s (in press) likely 

over-estimate the resulting future 

habitat carrying capacity and population 

numbers. 

In all MZs, the analyses by Garton et 

al. (in press) predict that populations 

will continue to decline. In MZ I, Garton 

et al. (in press, p. 29) project a 

population decline of 59 percent 

between 2007 and 2037 if current 

population and habitat trends continue 

(Table 10). In the Powder River Basin 

area, where significant gas development 

is occurring, population trends were 

projected an almost 90 percent decline 

by 2037 (Garton et al. in press, p. 26). 

This projection is consistent with 

Walker et al. (2007, p. 2651) estimate 

that lek persistence would decline to 5 

percent in the Powder River Basin with 

full field development over a similar 

time frame. Also, Johnson (in press, p. 

13) found that lek counts were reduced 

from 1997 to 2007 in areas of oil and gas 

development, and our GIS analyses 

found that a minimum of 70 percent of 

breeding habitats is affected by energy 

development activities in this area 

(Service 2008b; see discussion under 

Energy Development). Declines in the 

Powder River Basin within the past 12 

years of development have reached 79 

percent (Emmerich 2009, pers. comm.). 

Populations in MZ I that do not 

experience the same levels of energy 

development are not projected to 

decline as significantly, with the 

exception of the Yellowstone watershed 

population (Table 10). This population 

is projected to be extirpated within 30 

years (Garton et al. in press, p. 46). This 

area is highly fragmented by agricultural 

and energy development, factors 

identified by Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 

991) and Wisdom et al. (in press, p. 23) 

with sage-grouse extirpation. Wisdom et 

al. (in press, p. 23) also predicted 

extirpation in this area due to the 

continuing loss of sagebrush. Loss of the 

Yellowstone watershed population will 

result in a gap in the species’ range, 

isolating sage-grouse north of the 

Missouri River from the rest of the 

species. 

TABLE 10—PROJECTED CHANGES IN CARRYING CAPACITIES OF MANAGEMENT ZONES AND POPULATIONS FROM 2007 TO

2037. CARRYING CAPACITIES ARE REFLECTED AS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALES PER LEK, AND WERE CALCULATED

BY DIVIDING POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 2037 BY THE POPULATION ESTIMATE IN 2007. DATA FROM GARTON et al. 

(IN PRESS, PP. 22-63, 95-97). 

Management Zone Population Change in Carrying Capacity from 

2007 to 2037 (%) 

I (Great Plains) -59 

Yellowstone watershed -100 

Powder River -90 

Northern Montana -11 

Dakotas -62 

II (Wyoming Basin) -66 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—PROJECTED CHANGES IN CARRYING CAPACITIES OF MANAGEMENT ZONES AND POPULATIONS FROM 2007 TO

2037. CARRYING CAPACITIES ARE REFLECTED AS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALES PER LEK, AND WERE CALCULATED

BY DIVIDING POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 2037 BY THE POPULATION ESTIMATE IN 2007. DATA FROM GARTON et al. 

(IN PRESS, PP. 22-63, 95-97).—Continued 

Management Zone Population Change in Carrying Capacity from 

2007 to 2037 (%) 

Eagle – S. Routt extirpated 

Jackson Hole — 

Middle Park — 

Wyoming Basin -64 

III (Southern Great Basin) -55 

Bi-State NV/CA -7 

S. Mono Lake — 

NE Interior UT +211 

San Pete County UT — 

S. central UT -36 

Summit-Morgan UT -14 

Toole-Juab UT -27 

Southern Great Basin -61 

IV (Snake River Plain) -55 

Baker, OR No change 

Bannack, MT -9 

Red Rocks, MT -18 

Wisdom, MT — 

E. central ID — 

Snake, Salmon, Beaverhead, ID -18 

Northern Great Basin -73 

V (Northern Great Basin) -74 

Central OR -67 

Klamath, OR — 

NW Interior NV — 

Western Great Basin -59 

VI (Columbia Basin) -46 

Moses Coulee -74 

Yakima — 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13961 

TABLE 10—PROJECTED CHANGES IN CARRYING CAPACITIES OF MANAGEMENT ZONES AND POPULATIONS FROM 2007 TO

2037. CARRYING CAPACITIES ARE REFLECTED AS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF MALES PER LEK, AND WERE CALCULATED

BY DIVIDING POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR 2037 BY THE POPULATION ESTIMATE IN 2007. DATA FROM GARTON et al. 

(IN PRESS, PP. 22-63, 95-97).—Continued 

Management Zone Population Change in Carrying Capacity from 

2007 to 2037 (%) 

VII (Colorado Plateau)* — 

— Data insufficient to model 

* Although the model projects population increases, habitat is limited in the area, likely limiting actual population growth. 

Garton et al. (in press, p. 36) projected 

populations will decline in MZ II by 66 

percent between 2007 and 2037 if 

current population trends and habitat 

activities continue (Table 10). The 

Wyoming Basin area, where significant 

oil, gas and renewable energy 

development is occurring, is projected 

to decline by 64 percent (Garton et al. 

in press, p. 34). Population persistence 

for the Eagle–South Routt population, 

an area also experiencing significant 

energy development activities, could 

not be estimated due to data sampling 

concerns. However, the population is 

unlikely to persist for 20 years (Braun, 

as cited in Garton et al. in press, p 30), 

where 100 percent of the breeding 

habitat is affected by energy 

development (Service 2008b). Johnson 

(in press, p. 13) found that declines in 

lek attendance was strongly, negatively 

associated with the presence of wells in 

these areas once the total number of 

wells in this MZ exceeded 250. Wells in 

both of these populations currently 

exceed that threshold. Therefore, the 

results of Garton et al.’s (in press) 

analyses are not unexpected. 

Garton et al. (in press, p. 46) projected 

populations in MZ III will decline by 53 

percent between 2007 and 2037 if 

current population trends and habitat 

activities continue (Table 10). Most 

populations in this area are already 

isolated by topographic features and 

experience high native conifer 

incursions. Bromus tectorum also is of 

significant concern in the Southern 

Great Basin population. Large losses of 

sagebrush in this MZ have resulted from 

B. tectorum incursion and the resulting 

altered fire cycle (Johnson in press, p. 

23). Fire within 54 km (33.5 mi) of a lek 

was identified by Knick and Hanser (in 

press, p. 29) as one of the most 

important factors negatively affecting 

sage-grouse persistence on the 

landscape. Assuming the current rate of 

habitat loss continues in this MZ, 

carrying capacity is projected to decline 

by 45 percent by 2037 (Garton et al. in 

press, p. 46). 

In MZ IV, Garton et al. (in press, p. 

53) populations are projected to decline 

by 55 percent between 2007 and 2037 if 

current population trends and habitat 

activities continue (Table 10). The 

Northern Great Basin population is 

projected to have the greatest drop in 

carrying capacity, and is the area 

currently most affected by reduced fire 

cycles as a result of Bromus tectorum 

incursions. As discussed above, fire 

within 54 km (33.5 mi) of a lek was 

identified by as one of the most 

important factors negatively affecting 

sage-grouse persistence on the 

landscape (Knick and Hanser in press, 

p. 29). The associated incursion of B. 

tectorum has resulted in large losses of 

habitat in this MZ (Johnson in press, p. 

23). Carrying capacities in other 

populations in this MZ are not projected 

to decline as much, but these 

populations do not have significant fire 

and B. tectorum incursions. 

In MZ V, Garton et al. (in press, p. 58) 

projected populations will decline by 74 

percent between 2007 and 2037 if 

current population trends and habitat 

activities continue (Table 10). Nearly all 

populations within this MZ are affected 

by reduced fire frequencies and Bromus 

tectorum incursions (see discussion 

above). In MZ VI, Garton et al. (in press, 

p. 62) projected populations will 

decline by 46 percent between 2007 and 

2037 if current population trends and 

habitat activities continue (Table 10). 

The two populations in this MZ are 

already isolated from the rest of the 

range, and actively managed by the 

State of Washington to maintain birds 

(e.g., translocations, active habitat 

enhancement). In addition to impacts 

from agricultural activities and human 

development (Johnson in press, p. 27), 

these populations are affected by the 

loss of CRP lands and military activities, 

neither of which were quantified by 

Garton et al. (in press, entire). Therefore, 

the projections provided in the 

population viability analysis are likely 

underestimated. 

Carrying capacity projections could 

not be estimated for MZ VII due to 

insufficient data. Energy development 

activities occur within most populations 

in this area, and Johnson (in press, p. 

13) reported that lek attendance was 

lower around producing wells in this 

MZ. We believe that based on habitat 

impacts, if birds are retained in this 

area, the populations will be reduced in 

size and further isolated. 

The projections from Garton et al. (in 

press, entire), which are consistent with 

results reported by Wisdom et al. (in 

press, entire), our own analyses, and 

others examining the effects of habitat 

loss and degradation on population 

trends, reflect that by 2037 sage-grouse 

populations and connectivity between 

them will be further reduced across the 

species range. This is consistent with 

other literature that has documented 

patterns of decline and extirpation as a 

result of the ongoing habitat losses and 

fragmentation (for example, see Johnson 

in press, Knick et al. in press and 

Wisdom et al. in press). We are cautious 

in using a single projection for 

determining future population status 

based on the limitation of lek data and 

the lack of any other comparable 

rangewide population viability analyses. 

However, Garton et al.’s (in press, 

entire) results are consistent with the 

habitat loss and fragmentation analyses 

conducted by the Service and many 

other authors, as noted in the individual 

MZ discussions above. 

The population and carrying capacity 

projections by Garton et al. (in press, pp. 

22-64 ) are generally consistent with 

what we would expect given the causes 

of sage-grouse declines and extirpation 

documented in the literature (see above) 

and where those threats occur in the 

species range. Therefore, despite the 

concerns of the authors and other about 

the limitations of lek data and 

prospective analysis, the results 

presented by Garton et al. (in press, 

entire) are consistent with our analyses 

of habitat impacts based on the review 

of the best available scientific 

information. 

Foreseeable Future of Habitat Threats 

We examined the persistence of each 

of these habitat threats on the landscape 

to help inform a determination of 

foreseeable future. Habitat conversion 

and fragmentation resulting from 

agricultural activities and urbanization 

will continue indefinitely. Human 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

populations are increasing in the 

western United States and we have no 

data indicating this trend will be 

reversed. Increased fire frequency as 

facilitated by the expanding distribution 

of invasive plant species will continue 

indefinitely unless an effective means 

for controlling the invasives is found. In 

the last approximately 100 years, no 

broad scale Bromus tectorum 

eradication method has been developed. 

Therefore, given the history of invasive 

plants on the landscape, our continued 

inability to control such species, and the 

expansive infestation of invasive plants 

across the species’ range currently, we 

anticipate they and associated fires will 

be on the landscape for the next 100 

years or longer. 

Continued exploration and 

development of traditional and 

nonconventional fossil fuel sources in 

the eastern portion of the greater sagegrouse range will continue to increase 

over the next 20 years (EIA 2009b, p. 

109). Based on existing National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

documents for major oil and gas 

developments, production within 

existing developments will continue for 

a minimum of 20 years, with subsequent 

restoration (if possible) requiring from 

30 to 50 additional years. Renewable 

energy development is estimated to 

reach maximum development by 2030. 

However, since most renewable energy 

facilities are permanent landscape 

features, unlike oil, gas and coal, direct 

and functional habitat loss from the 

development footprint will be 

permanent. Based on this information, 

we estimate the foreseeable future of 

energy development at a minimum of 50 

years, and perhaps much longer for 

nonrenewable sources. 

Grazing (both domestic and wild 

horse and burro) is unlikely to be 

removed from sagebrush ecosystems. 

Therefore, it is difficult to estimate a 

foreseeable future for livestock grazing. 

However, as of 2007, there were 

7,118,989 permitted AUMs in sagegrouse habitat. Although there have 

been recent reductions in the number of 

AUMs (3.4 percent since 2005), we have 

no information suggesting that livestock 

grazing will be significantly reduced, or 

removed, from sage-grouse habitats. 

Therefore, while we cannot provide an 

exact estimate of the foreseeable future 

for grazing, we expect it to be a 

persistent use of the sage-grouse 

landscape for several decades. 

Summary of Factor A 

As identified above in our Factor A 

analysis, habitat conversion for 

agriculture, urbanization, infrastructure 

(e.g., roads, powerlines, fences); fire, 

invasive plants, pinyon-juniper 

woodland encroachment, grazing, 

energy development, and climate 

change are all contributing, individually 

and collectively, to the present and 

threatened destruction, modification, 

and curtailment of the habitat and range 

of the greater sage-grouse. The impacts 

are compounded by the fragmented 

nature of this habitat loss, as 

fragmentation results in functional loss 

of habitat for greater sage-grouse even 

when otherwise suitable habitat is still 

present. 

Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats is 

a key cause, if not the primary cause, of 

the decline of sage-grouse populations. 

Fragmentation can make otherwise 

suitable habitat either too small or 

isolated to be of use to greater sagegrouse (i.e., functional habitat 

destruction), or the abundance of sagegrouse that can be supported in an area 

is diminished. Fire, invasive plants, 

energy development, various types of 

infrastructure, and agricultural 

conversion have resulted in habitat 

fragmentation and additional 

fragmentation is expected to continue 

for the foreseeable future in some areas. 

In our evaluation of Factor A, we 

found that although many of the habitat 

impacts we analyzed (e.g, fire, 

urbanization, invasive species) are 

present throughout the range, they are 

not at a level that is causing a threat to 

greater sage-grouse everywhere within 

its range. Some threats are of high 

intensity in some areas but are low or 

nonexistent in other areas. Fire and 

invasive plants, and the interaction 

between them, is more pervasive in the 

western part of the range than in the 

eastern. Oil and gas development is 

having a high impact on habitat in many 

areas in the eastern part of the range, but 

a low impact further to the west. The 

impact of pinyon-juniper encroachment 

generally is greater in western areas of 

the range, but is of less concern in more 

eastern areas such as Wyoming and 

Montana. Agricultural development is 

high in the Columbia Basin, Snake River 

Plain, and eastern Montana, but low 

elsewhere. Infrastructure of various 

types is present throughout the most of 

range of the greater sage-grouse, as is 

livestock grazing, but the degree of 

impact varies depending on grazing 

management practices and local 

ecological conditions. The degree of 

urbanization and exurban development 

varies across the range, with some areas 

having relatively low impact to habitat. 

While sage-grouse habitat has been 

lost or altered in many portions of the 

species’ range, habitat still remains to 

support the species in many areas of its 

range (Connelly et al. in press c, p. 23), 

such as higher elevation sagebrush, and 

areas with a low human footprint 

(activities sustaining human 

development) such as the Northern and 

Southern Great Basin (Leu and Hanser 

in press, p. 14), indicating that the 

threat of destruction, modification or 

curtailment of the greater sage-grouse is 

moderate in these areas. In addition, 

two strongholds of contiguous 

sagebrush habitat (the southwest 

Wyoming Basin and the Great Basin 

area straddling the States of Oregon, 

Nevada, and Idaho) contain the highest 

densities of males in the range of the 

species (Wisdom et al. in press, pp. 24- 

25; Knick and Hanser in press, p. 17). 

We believe that the ability of these 

strongholds to maintain high densities 

to date in the presence of several threats 

indicates that there are sufficient 

habitats currently to support the greater 

sage-grouse in these areas, but not 

throughout its entire range unless these 

threats are ameliorated. 

As stated above, the impacts to habitat 

are not uniform across the range; some 

areas have experienced less habitat loss 

than others, and some areas are at 

relatively lower risk than others for 

future habitat destruction or 

modification. Nevertheless, the impacts 

are substantial in many areas and will 

continue or even increase in the future 

across much of the range of the species. 

With continued habitat destruction and 

modification, resulting in fragmentation 

and diminished connectivity, greater 

sage-grouse populations will likely 

decline in size and become more 

isolated, making them more vulnerable 

to further reduction over time and 

increasing the risk of extinction. 

We have evaluated the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

regarding the present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the greater sage-grouse’s 

habitat or range. Based on the current 

and ongoing habitat issues identified 

here, their synergistic effects, and their 

likely continuation in the future, we 

conclude that this threat is significant 

such that it provides a basis for 

determining that the species warrants 

listing under the Act as a threatened or 

endangered species. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Commercial Hunting 

The greater sage-grouse was heavily 

exploited by commercial hunting in the 

late 1800s and early 1900s (Patterson 

1952, pp. 30-32; Autenrieth 1981, pp. 3- 

11). Hornaday (1916, pp. 179-221) and 

others alerted the public to the risk of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13963 

extinction of the species as a result of 

this overharvest. The impacts of hunting 

on greater sage-grouse during those 

historical decades may have been 

exacerbated by impacts from human 

expansion into sagebrush-steppe 

habitats (Girard 1937, p. 1). In response, 

many States closed sage-grouse hunting 

seasons by the 1930s (Patterson 1952, 

pp.30-33; Autenrieth 1981, p. 10). Sagegrouse have not been commercially 

harvested for many decades; therefore, 

commercial hunting does not affect the 

greater sage-grouse. 

Recreational Hunting 

With the increase of sage-grouse 

populations by the 1950s, limited 

recreational hunting seasons were 

allowed in most of the species’ range 

(Patterson 1952, p. 242; Autenrieth 

1981, p.11). Currently, greater sagegrouse are legally sport-hunted in 10 of 

11 States where they occur (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 6-3). The hunting season for 

sage-grouse in Washington was closed 

in 1988, and the species was added to 

the State’s list of threatened species in 

1998 (Stinson et al. 2004, p. 1). In 

Canada, sage-grouse are designated as 

an endangered species, and hunting is 

not permitted (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

6-3). 

Harvest levels have varied 

considerably since the 1950s, and in 

recent years have been much lower than 

in past decades (Figure 3) (Service 2009, 

unpublished data). From 1960 to 1980, 

the majority of sage-grouse hunting 

mortality occurred in Wyoming, Idaho, 

and Montana, accounting for at least 75 

to 85 percent of the annual harvest 

(Service 2009, unpublished data). In the 

1960s harvest exceeded 120,000 

individuals annually for 7 out of 10 

years. Harvest levels reached a 

maximum in the 1970s, being above 

200,000 individuals in 9 of 10 years 

with the total estimate at 2,322,581 

birds harvested for the decade. During 

the 1980s, harvest exceeded 130,000 

individuals in 9 of 10 years (Service 

2009, unpublished data). The harvest 

was above 100,000 annually during the 

early 1990s but in 1994 dropped below 

100,000 for the first time in decades. 

From 2000 to 2007, annual harvest has 

averaged approximately 31,000 birds 

(Service 2009, unpublished data). 

Sustainable harvest is determined 

based on the concept of compensatory 

and additive mortality (Connelly 2005, 

p. 7). The compensatory mortality 

hypothesis asserts that if sage-grouse 

produce more offspring than can survive 

to sexual maturity, individuals lost to 

hunting represent losses that would 

have occurred otherwise from some 

other source (e.g., starvation, predation, 

disease). Hunting mortality is termed 

additive if it exceeds natural mortality 

and ultimately results in a decline of the 

breeding population. The validity of 

compensatory mortality in upland 

gamebirds has not been rigorously 

tested, and as we stated above, annual 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP23MR10.002</GPH>
13964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

sage-grouse productivity is relatively 

low compared to other grouse species. 

Autenrieth (1981, p. 77) suggested sagegrouse could sustain harvest rates of up 

to 30 percent annually. Braun (1987, p. 

139) suggested a rate of 20 to 25 percent 

was sustainable. State wildlife agencies 

currently attempt to keep harvest levels 

below 5 to 10 percent of the population, 

based on a recommendation taken from 

Connelly et al. (2000a, p. 976). 

However, it is unclear from Connelly et 

al. (2000a) what this recommendation is 

based on, and similar to previous 

suggested harvest rates, it has not been 

experimentally tested with regard to its 

impacts on sage-grouse populations. 

The validity of the idea that hunting 

is a form of compensatory mortality for 

upland game birds has been questioned 

in recent years (Reese and Connelly, in 

press, p. 6). Connelly et al. 2005 (pp. 

660, 663) cite many studies suggesting 

that hunting of upland game, including 

the greater sage-grouse, is often not 

compensatory. Other studies have 

sought to determine whether hunting 

mortality in sage-grouse is 

compensatory or additive (Crawford 

1982; Crawford and Lutz 1985; Braun 

1987; Zunino 1987; Johnson and Braun 

1999; Connelly et al. 2003; Sedinger et 

al. in press; Sedinger et al. unpublished 

data). Results of those studies have been 

contradictory. For example, Braun 

(1987, p. 139) found that harvest levels 

of 7 to 11 percent had no effect on 

subsequent spring breeding populations 

based on lek counts in North Park, 

Colorado. Johnson and Braun (1999, p. 

83) determined that overwinter 

mortality correlated with harvest 

intensity in North Park, Colorado, and 

hypothesized that hunting mortalities 

may be additive. 

Numerous contradictions are likely 

due to differing methods, lack of 

experimental data, and differing effects 

of harvest due to a relationship between 

harvest and habitat quality. For 

example, Connelly et al. (2003, pp. 256- 

257) evaluated data for monitored lek 

routes in areas experiencing different 

levels of harvest (no harvest, 1-bird 

season, 2-bird season) in Idaho and 

found that populations with no hunting 

season had faster rates of population 

increase than populations with a light to 

modest harvest. The effect was 

particularly pronounced in xeric 

habitats near human populations, which 

suggests that the impact of hunting on 

sage-grouse to some extent depends on 

habitat quality. Gibson (1998, p. 15) 

found that hunting mortality had 

negative impacts on the population 

dynamics of an isolated population of 

sage-grouse in Long Valley, California, 

but appeared to have no effect on sagegrouse in Bodie Hills, California, a 

nearby population that is contiguous 

with adjacent occupied areas of Nevada. 

Data indicated that hunting suppressed 

the population size of the isolated Long 

Valley population well below the 

apparent carrying capacity (Gibson 

1998, p. 15; Gardner 2008, pers. comm.). 

Sage-grouse hunting is regulated by 

State wildlife agencies. Hunting seasons 

are reviewed annually, and States 

change harvest management based on 

estimates for spring production and 

population size (e.g., Bohne 2003, pp.1- 

10). However, harvest affects fall 

populations of sage-grouse, and 

currently there is no reliable method for 

obtaining estimates of fall population 

size (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 9-6). 

Instead, lek counts conducted in the 

spring are used as a surrogate for fall 

population size. However, fall 

populations are already reduced from 

spring estimates as some natural 

mortality inevitably has occurred in the 

interim (Kokko 2001, p. 164). The 

discrepancy between spring and fall 

population size estimates plays a role in 

determining whether harvest will be 

within the recommended level of less 

than 5-10 percent of the fall population. 

For example, hen mortality in Montana 

increased from the typical level of 1 to 

5 percent to 16 percent during July/ 

August in a year (2003) with WNv 

mortality (Moynahan 2006, p.1535). 

During the summer of 2006 and 2007 in 

South Dakota, mortality from WNv was 

estimated to be between 21 and 63 

percent of the population (Kaczor 2008, 

p.72). Despite the increased mortalities 

due to WNv, hunting regulations in both 

States remained similar to previous 

years. 

Female survivorship is a key element 

of population productivity. Harvest 

might affect female and male grouse 

differently. Connelly et al. (2000b, 

p.228-229) found that in Idaho 42 

percent of all documented female 

mortality was attributable to hunting 

while for males the number was 15 

percent. Patterson (1952, p. 245) found 

females accounted for 60 percent (1950) 

and 63 percent (1951) of total hunting 

mortalities. Because sage-grouse are 

relatively long-lived, have moderate 

reproductive rates, and are polygynous, 

their populations are likely to be 

especially sensitive to adult female 

survival (Schroeder 1999, p.2, 13; 

Saether and Bakke 2000, p. 652; 

Connelly 2005, p.9). Yearling sagegrouse hens have less reproductive 

potential than adults (Dalke et al. 1963, 

p. 839; Moynahan 2006, p. 1537). Adult 

females have higher nest initiation rates, 

higher nest success, and higher chick 

survival rates than yearling females 

(Connelly et al., in press a, pp. 15, 20, 

48). High adult female mortality has the 

potential to result in negative lag effects 

as future populations become 

overrepresented by yearling females 

(Moynahan 2006, p. 1537). 

All States with hunting seasons have 

changed limits and season dates to more 

evenly distribute hunting mortality 

across the entire population structure of 

greater sage-grouse, harvesting birds 

after females have left their broods 

(Bohne 2003, p. 5). Females and broods 

congregate in mesic areas late in the 

summer potentially making them more 

vulnerable to hunting (Connelly et al. 

2000b, p. 230). However, despite 

increasingly later hunting seasons, hens 

in Wyoming continue to comprise the 

majority of the harvest in all years 

(WGFD 2004a, p. 4; 2006, p. 7). From 

1996 to 2008, on average 63 percent of 

adult hunting mortalities in Nevada 

were females (range 58 percent to 73 

percent) (NDOW, 2009, unpublished 

data). In 2008 in Oregon, adult females 

accounted for 70 percent of the adults 

harvested (ODFW 2009). These results 

could indicate that females are more 

susceptible to hunting mortality, or it 

could be a reflection of a female skewed 

sex ratio in adult birds. Male sagegrouse typically have lower survival 

rates than females, and the varying 

degrees of female skewed sex ratios 

recorded for sage-grouse are thought to 

be as a result of this differential survival 

(Swenson 1986, p. 16; CO Conservation 

Plan, p. 54). The potential for negative 

effects on populations by harvesting 

reproductive females has long been 

recognized by upland game managers 

(e.g., hunting of female ring-necked 

pheasants, (Phasianus colchicus), is 

prohibited in most States). 

Harvest management levels that are 

based on the concept of compensatory 

mortality assume that overwinter 

mortality is high, which is not true for 

sage-grouse (winter mortality rates 

approximately 2 percent, Connelly et al. 

2000b, p. 229). Additionally, due to 

WNv, sage-grouse population dynamics 

may be increasingly affected by 

mortality that is density independent 

(i.e., mortality that is independent of 

population size). Further, there is 

growing concern regarding wide-spread 

habitat degradation and fragmentation 

from various sources, such as 

development, fire, and the spread of 

noxious weeds, resulting in density 

independent mortality which increases 

the probability that harvest mortality 

will be additive. 

State management agencies have 

become increasingly responsive to these 

concerns. All of the States where 

hunting greater sage-grouse is legal, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13965 

except Montana, now manage harvests 

on a regional scale rather than applying 

State-wide limits. Bag limits and season 

lengths are relatively conservative 

compared to prior decades (Connelly 

2005, p. 9; Gardner 2008, pers. comm.). 

Emergency closures have been used for 

some declining populations. For 

example, North Dakota closed the 2008 

and 2009 hunting seasons following 

record low lek attendance likely due to 

WNv (Robinson 2009, pers. comm.). 

Hunting on the Duck Valley Indian 

Reservation (Idaho/Nevada) has been 

closed since 2006 due to WNv (Dick 

2009, pers. comm.; Gossett 2008, pers. 

comm.). Hunting in Owyhee County, 

Idaho was closed in 2006 and again in 

2008 and 2009 as a result of WNv (Dick 

2008, pers. comm.; IDFG 2009). 

All ten States that allow bow and gun 

hunting of sage-grouse also allow 

falconers to hunt sage-grouse. Falconry 

seasons are typically longer (60 to 214 

days), and in some cases have larger bag 

limits than bow/gun seasons. However, 

due to the low numbers of falconers and 

their dispersed activities, the resulting 

harvest is thought to be negligible (Apa 

2008, pers. comm.; Northrup 2008, pers. 

comm.; Hemker 2008, pers. comm.; 

Olsen 2008, pers. comm.; Kanta 2008, 

pers. comm.). Wyoming is one of the 

few States that collects falconry harvest 

data and reported a take of 180 sagegrouse by falconers in the 2006-2007 

season (WGFD 2007, unpublished data). 

In Oregon, the take is probably less than 

five birds per year (Budeau 2008, pers. 

comm.). In Idaho the 2005 estimated 

Statewide falconry harvest was 77 birds, 

and that number has likely remained 

relatively constant (Hemker 2008, pers. 

comm.). We are not aware of any studies 

that have examined falconry take of 

greater sage-grouse in relation to 

population trends, but the amount of 

greater sage-grouse mortality associated 

with falcon sport hunting appears to be 

negligible. 

We surveyed the State fish and 

wildlife agencies within the range of 

greater sage-grouse to determine what 

information they had on illegal harvest 

(poaching) of the species. Nevada and 

Utah indicated they were aware of 

citations being issued for sage-grouse 

poaching, but that it was rare (Espinosa 

2008, pers. comm.; Olsen 2008, pers. 

comm.). Sage-grouse wings are 

infrequently discovered in wing-barrel 

collection sites during forest grouse 

hunts in Washington, but such take is 

considered a result of hunter 

misidentification rather than deliberate 

poaching (Schroeder 2008, pers. 

comm.). None of the remaining States 

had any quantitative data on the level of 

poaching. Based on these results, illegal 

harvest of greater sage-grouse poaching 

appears to occur at low levels. We are 

not aware of any studies or other data 

that demonstrate that poaching has 

contributed to sage-grouse population 

declines. 

Recreational Use 

Greater sage-grouse are subject to a 

variety of non-consumptive recreational 

uses such as bird watching or tour 

groups visiting leks, general wildlife 

viewing, and photography. Daily human 

disturbances on sage-grouse leks could 

cause a reduction in mating and some 

reduction in total production (Call and 

Maser 1985, p. 19). Overall, a relatively 

small number of leks in each State 

receive regular viewing use by humans 

during the strutting season and most 

States report no known impacts from 

this use (Apa 2008, pers. comm.; 

Christiansen 2008, pers. comm.; 

Gardner 2008, pers. comm.; Northrup 

2008, pers. comm.). Only Colorado has 

collected data regarding the effects of 

non-consumptive use. Their analyses 

suggest that controlled lek visitation has 

not impacted greater sage-grouse (Apa 

2008, pers. comm.). However, Oregon 

reported anecdotal evidence of negative 

impacts of unregulated viewing to 

individual leks near urban areas that are 

subject to frequent disturbance from 

visitors (Hagen 2008, pers. comm.). 

To reduce any potential impact of lek 

viewing on sage-grouse, several States 

have implemented measures to protect 

most leks while allowing recreational 

viewing to continue. The Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 

provides the public with directions to 

16 leks and guidelines to minimize 

viewing disturbance. Leks included in 

the brochure are close to roads and 

already subject to some level of 

disturbance (Christiansen 2008, pers. 

comm.); presumably, focusing attention 

on these areas reduces pressure on 

relatively undisturbed leks. Colorado 

and Montana have some sites with 

viewing trailers for the public for the 

same reasons (Apa 2008, pers. comm.; 

Northrup 2008, pers. comm.). We were 

not able to locate any studies 

documenting how lek viewing, or other 

forms of non-consumptive recreational 

uses, of sage-grouse are related to sagegrouse population trends. Given the 

relatively small number of leks visited, 

we have no reason to believe that this 

type of recreational activity is having a 

negative impact on local populations or 

contributing to declining population 

trends. 

Religious Use 

Some Native American tribes harvest 

greater sage-grouse as part of their 

religious or ceremonial practices as well 

as for subsistence. Native American 

hunting occurs on the Wind River 

Indian Reservation (Wyoming), with 

about 20 males per year taken off of leks 

in the spring plus an average fall harvest 

of approximately 40 birds (Hnilicka 

2008, pers. comm.). The ShoshoneBannock Tribe (Idaho) occasionally 

takes small numbers of birds in the 

spring, but no harvest figures have been 

reported for 2007 and 2008 

(Christopherson 2008, pers. comm.). 

The Shoshone-Paiute Tribe of the Duck 

Valley Indian Reservation (Idaho and 

Nevada) suspended hunting in 2006 to 

2009 due to significant population 

declines resulting from a WNv outbreak 

in the area (Dick 2009, pers. comm.; 

Gossett 2008, pers. comm.). Prior to 

2006, the sage-grouse hunting season on 

the Duck Valley Indian Reservation ran 

from July 1 to November 30 with no bag 

or possession limits. Preliminary 

estimates indicate that the harvest may 

have been as high as 25 percent of the 

population (Gossett 2008, pers. comm.). 

Despite the hunting ban, populations 

have not recovered on the reservation 

(Dick 2009, pers. comm.; Gossett 2008, 

pers. comm.). No harvest by Native 

Americans for subsistence or religious 

and ceremonial purposes occurs in 

South Dakota, North Dakota, Colorado, 

Washington, or Oregon (Apa 2008, pers. 

comm.; Hagen 2008, pers. comm.; Kanta 

2008, pers. comm.; Robinson 2008, pers. 

comm.; Schroeder 2008, pers. comm.). 

Scientific and Educational Use 

Greater sage-grouse are the subject of 

many scientific research studies. We are 

aware of some 51 studies ongoing or 

completed during 2005 and 2008. Of the 

11 western States where sage-grouse 

currently occur, all reported some type 

of field studies that included the 

capture, handling, and subsequent 

banding, or banding and radio-tagging of 

sage-grouse. In 2005, the overall 

mortality rate due to the capture, 

handling, and/or radio-tagging process 

was calculated at approximately 2.7 

percent of the birds captured (68 

mortalities of 2,491 captured). A survey 

of State agencies, BLM, consulting 

companies, and graduate students 

involved in sage-grouse research 

indicates that there has been little 

change in direct handling mortality 

since then. We are not aware of any 

studies that document that this level of 

taking has affected any sage-grouse 

population trends. 

Greater sage-grouse have been 

translocated in several States and the 

Province of British Columbia (Reese and 

Connelly 1997, p. 235). Reese and 

Connelly (1997, pp. 235-238) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

documented the translocation of over 

7,200 birds between 1933 and 1990. 

Only 5 percent of the translocation 

efforts documented by Reese and 

Connelly (1997, p. 240) were considered 

to be successful in producing sustained, 

resident populations at the translocation 

sites. From 2003 to 2005, 137 adult 

female sage-grouse were translocated to 

Strawberry Valley, Utah and had a 60 

percent annual survival rate (Baxter et 

al. 2006, p. 182). Since 2004, Oregon 

and Nevada have supplied the State of 

Washington with close to 100 greater 

sage-grouse to increase the genetic 

diversity of the geographically isolated 

Columbia Basin populations and to 

reestablish a historical population. One 

bird has died during transit and as 

expected natural mortality for 

translocated birds has been higher than 

resident populations (Schroeder 2008, 

pers. comm.). Given the low numbers of 

birds that have been used for 

translocation spread over many decades, 

it is unlikely that the removals from 

source populations have contributed to 

greater sage-grouse declines, while the 

limited success of translocations also 

has likely had nominal impact on 

rangewide population trends. We did 

not find any information regarding the 

direct use of greater sage-grouse for 

educational purposes. 

Summary of Factor B 

Greater sage-grouse are not used for 

any commercial purpose. In Canada, 

hunting of sage-grouse is prohibited in 

Alberta and Saskatchewan. In the 

United States, sage-grouse hunting is 

regulated by State wildlife agencies and 

hunting regulations are reevaluated 

yearly. We have no information that 

suggests any change will occur in the 

current situation, in which hunting 

greater sage-grouse is prohibited in 

Washington and allowed elsewhere in 

the range of the species in the U.S. 

under State regulations, which provide 

a basis for adjustments in annual 

harvest and emergency closures of 

hunting seasons. We have no evidence 

suggesting that gun and bow sport 

hunting has been a primary cause of 

range-wide declines of the greater sagegrouse in the past, or that it currently is 

at level that poses a significant threat to 

the species. However, although harvest 

as a singular factor does not appear to 

threaten the species throughout its 

range, negative impacts on local 

populations have been demonstrated 

and there remains a large amount of 

uncertainty regarding harvest impacts 

because of a lack of experimental 

evidence and conflicting studies. 

Significant habitat loss and 

fragmentation have occurred during the 

past several decades, and there is 

evidence that the sustainability of 

harvest levels depends to a large extent 

upon the quality of habitat and the 

health of the population. However, 

recognition that habitat loss is a limiting 

factor is not conclusive evidence that 

hunting has played no role in 

population declines or that reducing or 

eliminating harvest will not have an 

effect on population stability or 

recovery. 

Take from poaching (illegal hunting) 

appears to occur at low levels in 

localized areas, and there is no evidence 

that it contributes to population 

declines. The information on nonconsumptive recreational activities is 

limited to lek viewing, the extent of 

such activity is small, and there is no 

indication that it has a negative impact 

that contributes to population declines. 

Harvest by Native American tribes, and 

mortality that results from handling 

greater sage-grouse for scientific 

purposes appears to occur at low levels 

in localized areas and thus we do not 

consider these to be a significant threat 

at either the rangewide or local 

population levels. We know of no 

utilization for educational purposes. We 

have no reason to believe any of the 

above activities will increase in the 

future. 

We do not believe data support 

overuse of sage-grouse as a singular 

factor in rangewide population declines. 

We note, however, that in light of 

present and threatened habitat loss 

(Factor A) and other considerations (e.g. 

West Nile virus outbreaks in local 

populations), continued close attention 

will be needed by States and tribes to 

carefully manage hunting mortality, 

including adjusting seasons and 

allowable harvest levels, and imposing 

emergency closures if needed. 

In sum, we find that this threat is not 

significant to the species such that it 

causes the species to warrant listing 

under the Act. 

Factor C: Disease and Predation 

Disease 

Greater sage-grouse are hosts for a 

variety parasites and diseases, including 

macroparasitic arthropods, helminths 

and microparasites (protozoa, bacteria, 

viruses and fungi) (Thorne et al. 1982, 

p. 338; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 10-4 to 

10-7; Christiansen and Tate, in press, p. 

2). However, there have been few 

systematic surveys for parasites or 

infectious diseases of greater sagegrouse; therefore, whether they have a 

role in population declines is unknown 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-3; 

Christiansen and Tate, in press, p. 3). 

Early studies have suggested that sagegrouse populations are adversely 

affected by parasitic infections 

(Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 22). 

Parasites also have been implicated in 

sage-grouse mate selection, with 

potentially subsequent effects on the 

genetic diversity of this species (Boyce 

1990, p. 263; Deibert 1995, p. 38). 

However, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 10-6) 

note that, while these relationships may 

be important to the long-term ecology of 

greater sage-grouse, they have not been 

shown to be significant to the 

immediate population status. Connelly 

et al. (2004, p. 10-3) have suggested that 

diseases and parasites may limit 

isolated sage-grouse populations, but 

that the effects of emerging diseases 

require additional study (see also 

Christiansen and Tate, in press, pp. 22- 

23). 

Internal parasites which have been 

documented in the greater sage-grouse 

include the protozoans Sarcosystis spp. 

and Tritrichomonas simoni, blood 

parasites (including avian malaria 

(Plasmodium spp.), Leucocytozoon spp., 

Haemoproteus spp., and Trypanosoma 

avium, tapeworms (Raillietina 

centrocerci and R. cesticillus), gizzard 

worms (Habronema spp. and Acuaria 

spp.), cecal worms (Heterakis 

gallinarum), and filarid nematodes 

(Ornithofilaria tuvensis) (Honess 1955, 

pp.1-2; Hepworth 1962, p. 6: Thorne et 

al. 1982, p. 338; Connelly et al. 2004, 

pp. 10-4 to 10-6; Petersen 2004, p. 50; 

Christiansen and Tate, in press, pp. 9- 

13). None of these parasites have been 

known to cause mortality in the greater 

sage-grouse (Christiansen and Tate, in 

press, p. 8-13). Sub-lethal effects of 

these parasitic infections on sage-grouse 

have never been studied. 

Greater sage-grouse host many 

external parasites, including lice, ticks, 

and dipterans (midges, flies, 

mosquitoes, and keds) (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 10-6 to 10-7). Most 

ectoparasites do not produce disease, 

but can serve as disease vectors or cause 

mechanical injury and irritation (Thorne 

et al. 1982, p. 231). Ectoparasites can be 

detrimental to their hosts, particularly 

when the bird is stressed by inadequate 

habitat or nutritional conditions 

(Petersen 2004, p. 39). Some studies 

have suggested that lice infestations can 

affect sage-grouse mate selection (Boyce 

1990, p. 266; Spurrier et al. 1991, p. 12; 

Deibert 1995, p. 37), but population 

impacts are not known (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10-6). 

Only a few parasitic infections in 

greater sage-grouse have been 

documented to result in fatalities, 

including the protozoan, Eimeria spp. 

(coccidiosis) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13967 

10-4), and possibly ixodid ticks 

(Haemaphysalis cordeilishas). Mortality 

is not 100 percent with coccidiosis, and 

young birds that survive an initial 

infection typically do not succumb to 

subsequent infections (Thorne et al. 

1982, p. 112). Infections also tend to be 

localized to specific geographic areas. 

Most cases of coccidiosis in greater sagegrouse have been found where large 

numbers of birds congregated, resulting 

in soil and water contamination by fecal 

material (Scott 1940, p. 45; Honess and 

Post 1968, p. 20; Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 10-4; Christiansen and Tate, in press, 

p. 3). While the role of this parasite in 

population regulation is unknown, 

Petersen (2004, p. 47) hypothesized that 

coccidiosis could be limiting for local 

populations, as this parasite causes 

decreased growth and resulted in 

significant mortality in young birds, 

thereby potentially limiting recruitment. 

However, no cases of sage-grouse 

mortality resulting from coccidiosis 

have been documented since the early 

1960s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-4), 

with the exception of two yearlings 

being held in captivity (Cornish 2009a, 

pers. comm.). One hypothesis for the 

apparent decline in occurrences of 

coccidiosis is the reduced density of 

sage-grouse, limiting the spread of the 

disease (Christiansen and Tate, in press, 

p. 14). 

The only mortalities associated with 

ixodid ticks were found in association 

with a tularemia (Francisella tularenis) 

outbreak in Montana (Parker et al. 1932, 

p. 480; Christiansen and Tate, in press, 

p. 7). The sage-grouse mortality was 

likely from the pathological effects of 

the abnormally high number of feeding 

ticks found on the birds, as well as 

tularemia infection itself (Christiansen 

and Tate, in press, p.15). No other 

reports of tularemia have been recorded 

in greater sage-grouse (Christiansen and 

Tate, in press, p. 15). 

Greater sage-grouse also are subject to 

a variety of bacterial, fungal, and viral 

pathogens. The bacteria Salmonella spp. 

has caused mortality in the greater sagegrouse and was apparently contracted 

through of exposure to contaminated 

water supplies around livestock stock 

tanks (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-7). 

However, it is unlikely that diseases 

associated with Salmonella spp. pose a 

significant risk to sage-grouse unless 

environmental conditions concentrate 

birds, resulting in contamination of 

limited water supplies by accumulated 

fecal material (Christiansen and Tate, in 

press, p. 15). A tentative documentation 

of Mycoplasma spp. in sage-grouse is 

known from Colorado (Hausleitner 

2003, p. 147), but we found no other 

information to suggest this bacterium is 

either fatal or widespread. Other 

bacteria found in sage-grouse include 

avian tuberculosis (Mycobacterium 

avium), and avian cholera (Pasteurella 

multocida). These bacteria have never 

been identified as a cause of mortality 

in greater sage-grouse and the risk of 

exposure and hence, population effects, 

is low (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-7 to 

10-8). 

Sage-grouse afflicted with coccidiosis 

in Wyoming also were positive for 

Escherichia coli (Honess and Post 1968, 

p. 17). This bacterium is not believed to 

be a threat to wild populations of greater 

sage-grouse (Christiansen and Tate, in 

press, p. 15), as it has only been shown 

to cause acute mortality in captive birds 

kept in unsanitary conditions (Friend 

1999, p. 125). One death from 

Clostridium perfringens has been 

recorded in a free-ranging adult male 

sage-grouse in Oregon (Hagen and 

Bildfell 2007, p. 545). Friend (1999, p. 

123) mentions that outbreaks of 

Clostridum have been reported in 

greater sage-grouse, but the only 

information we located were two deaths 

reported from northeastern Wyoming 

(Cornish 2009a, pers. comm.). 

Christiansen and Tate (in press, p. 14) 

caution that given the persistence of this 

bacterium’s spores in the soil, the 

resulting necrotic enteritis, especially 

when coupled with coccidiosis, may be 

a concern in small isolated populations. 

One case of aspergillosis, a fungal 

disease, has been documented in sagegrouse, but there is no evidence to 

suggest this fungus plays a role in 

limiting greater sage-grouse populations 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-8; Petersen 

2004, p. 45). Sage-grouse habitats are 

generally incompatible with the ecology 

of this disease due to their arid 

conditions. 

Viruses could cause serious diseases 

in grouse species and potentially 

influence population dynamics 

(Petersen 2004, p. 46). However, prior to 

2002, only avian infectious bronchitis 

(caused by a coronavirus) had been 

identified in the greater sage-grouse 

during necropsy. No clinical signs of the 

disease were observed. 

West Nile virus was introduced into 

the northeastern United States in 1999 

and has subsequently spread across 

North America (Marra et al. 2004, 

p.394). This virus is thought to have 

caused millions of wild bird deaths 

since its introduction (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 4), but most WNv 

mortality goes unnoticed or unreported 

(Ward et al. 2006, p. 101). The virus 

persists largely within a mosquito-birdmosquito infection cycle (McLean 2006, 

p. 45). However, direct bird-to-bird 

transmission of the virus has been 

documented in several species (McLean 

2006, pp. 54, 59) including the greater 

sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 13; Cornish 2009b, pers. 

comm.). The frequency of direct 

transmission has not been determined 

(McLean 2006, p. 54). 

Impacts of WNv on the bird host 

varies by species with some species 

being relatively unaffected (e.g., 

common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula)) 

and others experiencing mortality rates 

of up to 68 percent (e.g., American crow 

(Corvus brachyrhynchos)) (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 4, and references 

therein). Greater sage-grouse are 

considered to have a high susceptibility 

to WNv, with resultant high levels of 

mortality (Clark et al. 2006, p. 19; 

McLean 2006, p. 54). 

In sagebrush habitats, WNv 

transmission is primarily regulated by 

environmental factors, including 

temperature, precipitation, and 

anthropogenic water sources, such as 

stock ponds and coal-bed methane 

ponds, that support the mosquito 

vectors (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309; 

Walker and Naugle in press, pp. 10-12). 

Cold ambient temperatures preclude 

mosquito activity and virus 

amplification, so transmission to and in 

sage-grouse is limited to the summer 

(mid-May to mid-September) (Naugle et 

al. 2005, p. 620; Zou et al. 2007, p. 4), 

with a peak in July and August (Walker 

and Naugle in press, p. 10). Reduced 

and delayed WNv transmission in sagegrouse has occurred in years with lower 

summer temperatures (Naugle et al. 

2005, p. 621; Walker et al. 2007b, p. 

694). In non-sagebrush ecosystems, high 

temperatures associated with drought 

conditions increase WNv transmission 

by allowing for more rapid larval 

mosquito development and shorter virus 

incubation periods (Shaman et al. 2005, 

p.134; Walker and Naugle in press, p. 

11). Greater sage-grouse congregate in 

mesic habitats in the mid-late summer 

(Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971) thereby 

increasing the risk of exposure to 

mosquitoes. If WNv outbreaks coincide 

with drought conditions that aggregate 

birds in habitat near water sources, the 

risk of exposure to WNv will be elevated 

(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 11). 

Greater sage-grouse inhabiting higher 

elevation sites in summer are likely less 

vulnerable to contracting WNv than 

birds at lower elevation as ambient 

temperatures are typically cooler 

(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 11). 

Greater sage-grouse populations in 

northwestern Colorado and western 

Wyoming are examples of high 

elevation populations with lower risk 

for impacts from WNv (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 26). Also, due to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

summer temperatures generally being 

lower in more northerly areas, sagegrouse populations that are in 

geographically more northern 

populations my be less susceptible than 

those at similar elevations farther south 

(Naugle et al. 2005, cited in Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 11). Climate change 

could result in increased temperatures 

and thus potentially exacerbate the 

prevalence of WNv, and thereby impacts 

on greater sage-grouse, but this risk also 

depends on complex interactions with 

other environmental factors including 

precipitation and distribution of 

suitable water (Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 12). 

The primary vector of WNv in 

sagebrush ecosystems is Culex tarsalis 

(Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711; Naugle et al. 

2005, p. 617; Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 6). Individual mosquitoes may 

disperse as much as 18 km (11.2 mi) 

(Miller 2009, pers. comm.; Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 7). This mosquito 

species is capable of overwinter survival 

and, therefore, can emerge as infected 

adults the following spring (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 8 and references 

therein), thereby decreasing the time for 

disease cycling (Miller 2009, pers. 

comm.). This ability may increase the 

occurrence of this virus at higher 

elevation populations or where ambient 

temperatures would otherwise be 

insufficient to sustain the entire 

mosquito-virus cycle. 

In greater sage-grouse, mortality from 

WNv occurs at a time of year when 

survival is otherwise typically high for 

adult females (Schroeder et al. 1999, 

p.14; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 

30), thus potentially making these 

deaths additive and reducing average 

annual survival (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 

621). WNv has been identified as a 

source of additive mortality in 

American white pelicans (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos) in the northern plains 

breeding colonies (Montana, North 

Dakota and South Dakota), and its 

continued impact has the potential to 

severely impact the entire pelican 

population (Sovada et al. 2008, p. 1030). 

WNv was first detected in 2002 as a 

cause of greater sage-grouse mortalities 

in Wyoming (Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 15). Data from four studies in 

the eastern half of the sage-grouse range 

(Alberta, Montana, and Wyoming; MZ I) 

showed survival in these populations 

declined 25 percent in July and August 

of 2003 as a result of the WNv infection 

(Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711). Populations 

of sage-grouse that were not affected by 

WNv showed no similar decline. 

Additionally, individual sage-grouse in 

exposed populations were 3.4 times 

more likely to die during July and 

August, the peak of WNv occurrence, 

than birds in non-exposed populations 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-9; Naugle et 

al. 2004, p. 711). Subsequent declines in 

both male and female lek attendance in 

infected areas in 2004 compared with 

years before WNv suggest outbreaks 

could contribute to local population 

extirpation (Walker et al. 2004, p. 4). 

One outbreak near Spotted Horse, 

Wyoming in 2003 was associated with 

the subsequent extirpation of the local 

breeding population, with five leks 

affected by the disease becoming 

inactive within 2 years (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 16). Lek surveys in 

northeastern Wyoming in 2004 

indicated that regional sage-grouse 

populations did not decline, suggesting 

that the initial effects of WNv were 

localized (WGFD, unpublished data, 

2004b). 

Eight sage-grouse deaths resulting 

from WNv were identified in 2004: four 

from the Powder River Basin area of 

northeastern Wyoming and southeastern 

Montana, one from the northwestern 

Colorado, near the town of Yampa, and 

three in California (Naugle et al. 2005, 

p. 618). Fewer other susceptible hosts 

succumbed to the disease in 2004, 

suggesting that below average 

precipitation and summer temperatures 

may have limited mosquito production 

and disease transmission rates (Walker 

and Naugle in press, pp. 16-17). 

However, survival rates in greater sagegrouse in July and September of that 

year were consistently lower in areas 

with confirmed WNv mortalities than 

those without (avg. 0.86 and 0.96, 

respectively; Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 17). There were no 

comprehensive efforts to track sagegrouse mortalities outside of these areas, 

so the actual distribution and extent of 

WNv in sage-grouse in 2004 is unknown 

(70 FR 2270). 

Mortality rates from WNv in 

northeastern Wyoming and southeastern 

Montana (MZ I) were between 2.4 

(estimated minimum) and 28.9 percent 

(estimated maximum) in 2005 (Walker 

et al. 2007b, p. 693). Sage-grouse 

mortalities also were reported in 

California, Nevada, Utah, and Alberta, 

but no mortality rates were calculated 

(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 17). 

Mortality rates in 2006 in northeastern 

Wyoming ranged from 5 to15 percent of 

radio-marked females (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 17). Mortality rates 

in South Dakota among radio-marked 

juvenile sage-grouse ranged between 6.5 

and 71 percent in the same year (Kaczor 

2008, p. 63). Large sage-grouse mortality 

events, likely the result of WNv, were 

reported in the Jordan Valley and near 

Burns, Oregon (over 60 birds), and in 

several areas of Idaho and along the 

Idaho-Nevada border (over 55 birds) 

(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 18). 

While most of the carcasses had 

decomposed and, therefore, were not 

testable, results for the few that were 

tested showed that they died from WNv. 

Mortality rates in these areas were not 

calculated. However, the hunting season 

in Owyhee County, Idaho, was closed 

that year due to the large number of 

birds that succumbed to the disease 

(USGS 2006, p. 1; Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 18). 

In 2007, a WNv outbreak in South 

Dakota contributed to a 44-percent 

mortality rate among 80 marked females 

(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 18). 

Juvenile mortality rates in 2007 in the 

same area ranged from 20.8 to 62.5 

percent (Kaczor 2008, p. 63), reducing 

recruitment the subsequent spring by 2 

to 4 percent (Kaczor 2008, p. 65). 

Twenty-six percent of radio-marked 

females in northeastern Montana died 

during a 2–week period immediately 

following the first detection of WNv in 

mosquito pools. Two of those females 

were confirmed dead from WNv (Walker 

and Naugle in press, p. 18). In the 

Powder River Basin, WNv-related 

mortality among 85 marked females was 

between 8 and 21 percent (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 18). A 52-percent 

decline in the number of males 

attending leks in North Dakota between 

2007 and 2008 also were associated 

with WNv mortality in 2007 that 

prompted the State wildlife agency to 

close the hunting season in 2008 (North 

Dakota Game and Fish 2008, entire) and 

2009 (Robinson 2009, pers. comm.). The 

Duck Valley Indian Reservation along 

the border of Nevada and Idaho closed 

their hunting season in 2006 due to 

population declines resulting from WNv 

(Gossett 2008, pers. comm.). WNv is still 

present in that area, with continued 

population declines (50.3 percent of 

average males per lek from 2005 to 

2008) (Dick 2008, p. 2), and the hunting 

season remains closed. The hunting 

season was closed in most of the 

adjacent Owyhee County, Idaho for the 

same reason in both 2008 and 2009 

(Dick 2008, pers. comm.; IDFG 2009). 

Only Wyoming reported WNv 

mortalities in sage-grouse in 2008 

(Cornish 2009c, pers. comm.). However, 

with the exceptions of Colorado, 

California, and Idaho, research on sagegrouse in other States is limited, 

minimizing the ability to identify 

mortalities from the disease, or recover 

infected birds before tissue deterioration 

precludes testing. Three sage-grouse 

deaths were confirmed in 2009 in 

Wyoming (Cornish 2009c, pers. comm.), 

two in Idaho (Moser 2009, pers. comm.) 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13969 

and one other is suspected in Utah 

(Olsen 2009, pers. comm.). 

Greater sage-grouse deaths resulting 

from WNv have been detected in 10 

States and 1 Canadian province. To 

date, no sage-grouse mortality from 

WNv has been identified in either 

Washington State or Saskatchewan. 

However, it is likely that sage-grouse 

have been infected in Saskatchewan 

based on known patterns of sage-grouse 

in infected areas of Montana (Walker 

and Naugle in press, p. 15). Also, WNv 

has been detected in other species 

within the range of greater sage-grouse 

in Washington (USGS 2009). 

In 2005, we reported that there was 

little evidence that greater sage-grouse 

can survive a WNv infection (70 FR 

2270). This conclusion was based on the 

lack of sage-grouse found to have 

antibodies to the virus and from 

laboratory studies in which all sagegrouse exposed to the virus, at varying 

doses, died within 8 days or less (70 FR 

2270; Clark et al. 2006, p. 17). These 

data suggested that sage-grouse do not 

develop a resistance to the disease, and 

death is certain once an individual is 

exposed (Clark et al. 2006, p. 18). 

However, 6 of 58 females (10.3 percent) 

birds captured in the spring of 2005 in 

northeastern Wyoming and southeastern 

Montana were seropositive for 

neutralizing antibodies, which suggests 

they were exposed to the virus the 

previous fall and survived an infection. 

Additional, but significantly fewer (2 of 

109, or 1.8 percent) seropositive females 

were found in the spring of 2006 

(Walker et al. 2007b, p. 693). Of 

approximately 1,400 serum tests on 

sage-grouse from South Dakota, 

Montana, Wyoming and Alberta, only 8 

tested positive for exposure to WNv 

(Cornish 2009dpers. comm.), suggesting 

that survival is extremely low. 

Seropositive birds have not been 

reported from other parts of the species’ 

range (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 

20). 

The duration of immunity conferred 

by surviving an infection is unknown 

(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 20). It 

also is unclear whether sage-grouse have 

sub-lethal or residual effects resulting 

from a WNv infection, such as reduced 

productivity or overwinter survival 

(Walker et al. 2007b, p. 694). Other bird 

species infected with WNv have been 

documented to suffer from chronic 

symptoms, including reduced mobility, 

weakness, disorientation, and lack of 

vigilance (Marra et al. 2004, p. 397; 

Nemeth et al. 2006, p. 253), all of which 

may affect survival, reproduction, or 

both (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 

20). Reduced productivity in American 

white pelicans has been attributed to 

WNv (Sovada et al. 2008, p.1030). 

Several variants of WNv have 

emerged since the original identification 

of the disease in the United States in 

1999. One variant, termed NY99, has 

proven to be more virulent than the 

original virus strain of WNv, increasing 

the frequency of disease cycling (Miller 

2009, pers. comm.). This constant 

evolution of the virus could limit 

resistance development in the greater 

sage-grouse. 

Walker and Naugle (in press, pp. 20- 

24) modeled variability in greater sagegrouse population growth for the next 

20 years based on current conditions 

under three WNv impact scenarios. 

These scenarios included: (1) no 

mortalities from WNv; (2) WNv- related 

mortality based on rates of observed 

infection and mortality rate data from 

2003 to 2007; and (3) WNv-related 

mortality with increasing resistance to 

the disease over time. The addition of 

WNv-related mortality (scenario 2) 

resulted in a reduction of population 

growth. The proportion of resistant 

individuals in the modeled population 

increased marginally over the 20–year 

projection periods, from 4 to 15 percent, 

under the increasing resistance scenario 

(scenario 3). While this increase in the 

proportion of resistant individuals did 

reduce the projected WNv rates, the 

authors caution that the presence of 

neutralizing antibodies in the live birds 

does not always indicate that these birds 

are actually resistant to infection and 

disease (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 

25). 

Additional models predicting the 

prevalence of WNv suggest that new 

sources of anthropogenic surface waters 

(e.g., coal-bed methane discharge 

ponds), increasing ambient 

temperatures, and a mosquito parasite 

that reduces the length of time the virus 

is present in the vector before the 

mosquito can spread the virus all 

suggest the impacts of this disease are 

likely to increase (Miller 2008, pers. 

comm.). However, the extent to which 

this will occur, and where, is unclear 

and difficult to predict because several 

conditions that support the WNv cycle 

must coincide for an outbreak to occur. 

Human-created water sources in sagegrouse habitat known to support 

breeding mosquitoes that transmit WNv 

include overflowing stock tanks, stock 

ponds, irrigated agricultural fields, and 

coal-bed natural gas discharge ponds 

(Zou et al. 2006, p. 1035). For example, 

from 1999 through 2004, potential 

mosquito habitats in the Powder River 

Basin of Wyoming and Montana 

increased 75 percent (619 ha to 1084.5 

ha; 1259 ac to 2680) primarily due to the 

increase of small coal-bed natural gas 

water discharge ponds (Zou et al. 2006, 

p. 1034). Additionally, water 

developments installed in arid 

sagebrush landscapes to benefit wildlife 

continue to be common. Several 

scientists have expressed concern 

regarding the potential for exacerbating 

WNv persistence and spread due to the 

proliferation of surface water features 

(e.g., Friend et al., 2001, p. 298; Zou et 

al. 2006, p.1040; Walker et al. 2007b, p. 

695; Walker and Naugle in press, p. 27). 

Walker et al. (2007a, p. 694) concluded 

that impacts from WNv will depend less 

on resistance to the disease than on 

temperatures and changes in vector 

distribution. Zou et al. (2006, p. 1040) 

cautioned that the continuing 

development of coal-bed natural gas 

facilities in Wyoming and Montana 

contributes to maintaining, and possibly 

increasing WNv on that landscape 

through the maintenance and 

proliferation of surface water. 

The long-term response of different 

sage-grouse populations to WNv 

infections is expected to vary markedly 

depending on factors that influence 

exposure and susceptibility, such as 

temperature, land uses, and sage-grouse 

population size (Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 25). Small, isolated, or 

genetically limited populations are at 

higher risk as an infection may reduce 

population size below a threshold 

where recovery is no longer possible, as 

observed with the extirpated population 

near Spotted Horse, Wyoming (Walker 

and Naugle in press, p. 25). Larger 

populations may be able to absorb 

impacts resulting from WNv as long as 

the quality and extent of available 

habitat supports positive population 

growth (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 

25). However, impacts from this disease 

may act synergistically with other 

stressors resulting in reduction of 

population size, bird distribution, or 

persistence (Walker et al. 2007a, p. 

2652). WNv persists on the landscape 

after it first occurs as an epizootic, 

suggesting this virus will remain a longterm issue in affected areas (McLean 

2006, p. 50). 

Proactive measures to reduce the 

impact of WNv on greater sage-grouse 

have been limited and are typically 

economically prohibitive. Fowl vaccines 

used on captive sage-grouse were largely 

ineffective (mortality rates were reduced 

from 100 to 80 percent in five birds) 

(Clark et al. 2006, p. 17; Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 27). Development of 

a sage-grouse specific vaccine would 

require a market incentive and 

development of an effective delivery 

mechanism for large numbers of birds. 

Currently, the delivery mechanism is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

via intramuscular injection (Marra et al. 

2004, p. 399; Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 27), which is not feasible for 

wild populations. Vaccinations would 

likely only benefit the individuals 

receiving the vaccine, and not their 

offspring, so vaccination would have to 

occur on an annual basis (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 27, and references 

therein). 

Mosquito production from humancreated water sources could be 

minimized if water produced during 

coal-bed natural gas development were 

re-injected rather than discharged to the 

surface (Doherty 2007, p. 81). Mosquito 

control programs for reducing the 

number of adult mosquitoes may reduce 

the risk of WNv, but only if such 

methods are consistently and 

appropriately implemented (Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 28). Many coal-bed 

natural gas companies in northeastern 

Wyoming (MZ I) have identified use of 

mosquito larvicides in their 

management plans (Big Horn 

Environmental Consultants in litt., 

2009, p. 3). However, we could find no 

information on the actual use of the 

larvicides or their effectiveness. One 

experimental treatment in the area did 

report that mosquito larvae numbers 

were less in ponds treated with 

larvicides than those that were not (Big 

Horn Environmental Consultants in litt., 

2009, pp. 5-7) but statistical analyses 

were not conducted. While none of the 

sage-grouse mortalities in the treated 

areas were due to WNv (Big Horn 

Environmental Consultants 2009, p.3), 

the study design precluded actual cause 

and effect analyses; therefore, the results 

are inconclusive. The benefits of 

mosquito control in potentially reducing 

the incidence of WNv in sage-grouse 

need to be considered in light of the 

potential detrimental or cascading 

ecological effects of widespread 

spraying (Marra et al. 2004, p. 401). 

Small populations, such as the 

Columbia Basin area in Washington 

State or the subpopulations within the 

Bi-State area along the California and 

Nevada border also may be at high risk 

of extirpation simply due to their low 

population numbers and the additive 

mortality WNv causes (Christiansen and 

Tate, in press, p. 21). Larger populations 

may be better able to sustain losses from 

WNv (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 

25) simply due to their size. However, 

as other impacts to grouse and their 

habitats described under Factor A affect 

these areas, these secure areas or sagegrouse ‘‘refugia’’ also may be at risk (e.g., 

southwestern Wyoming, south-central 

Oregon). Existing and developing 

models suggest that the occurrence of 

WNv is likely to increase throughout the 

range of the species into the future. 

Summary of Disease 

Although greater sage-grouse are host 

to a wide variety of diseases and 

parasites, few have resulted in 

population effects, with the exception of 

WNv. Many large losses from bacterial 

and coccidial infections have resulted 

when large groups of grouse were 

restricted to limited habitats, such as 

springs and seeps in the late summer. If 

these habitats become restricted due to 

habitat losses and degradation, or 

changes in climate, these easily 

transmissible diseases may become 

more prevalent. Sub-lethal effects of 

these disease and parasitic infections on 

sage-grouse have never been studied, 

and, therefore, are unknown. 

Substantial new information on WNv 

and impacts on the greater sage-grouse 

has emerged since we completed our 

finding in 2005. The virus is now 

distributed throughout the species’ 

range, and affected sage-grouse 

populations experience high mortality 

rates with resultant, often large 

reductions in local population numbers. 

Infections in northeastern Wyoming, 

southeastern Montana, and the Dakotas 

seem to be the most persistent, with 

mortalities recorded in that area every 

year since WNv was first detected in 

sage-grouse. Limited information 

suggests that sage-grouse may be able to 

survive an infection; however, because 

of the apparent low level of immunity 

and continuing changes within the 

virus, widespread resistance is unlikely. 

There are few regular monitoring 

efforts for WNv in greater sage-grouse; 

most detection is the result of research 

with radio-marked birds, or the 

incidental discovery of large mortalities. 

In Saskatchewan, where the greater 

sage-grouse is listed as an endangered 

species, no monitoring for WNv occurs 

(McAdams 2009, pers. comm.). Without 

a comprehensive monitoring program, 

the extent and effects of this disease on 

greater sage-grouse rangewide cannot be 

determined. However, it is clear that 

WNv is persistent throughout the range 

of the greater sage-grouse, and is likely 

a locally significant mortality factor. We 

anticipate that WNv will persist within 

sage-grouse habitats indefinitely, and 

will remain a threat to greater sagegrouse until they develop a resistance to 

the virus. 

The most significant environmental 

factors affecting the persistence of WNv 

within the range of sage-grouse are 

ambient temperatures and surface water 

abundance and development. The 

continued development of 

anthropogenic sources of warm standing 

water throughout the range of the 

species will likely increase the 

prevalence of the virus in sage-grouse, 

as predicted by Walker and Naugle (in 

press, pp. 20-24; see discussion above). 

Areas with intensive energy 

development may be at a particularly 

high risk for continued WNv mortalities 

due to the development of surface water 

features, and the continued loss and 

fragmentation of habitats (see discussion 

of energy development above). Resultant 

changes in temperature as a result of 

climate change also may exacerbate the 

prevalence of WNv and thereby impacts 

on greater sage-grouse unless they 

develop resistance to the virus. 

With the exception of WNv, we could 

find no evidence that disease is a 

concern with regard to sage-grouse 

persistence across the species’ range. 

WNv is a significant mortality factor for 

greater sage-grouse when an outbreak 

occurs, given the bird’s lack of 

resistance and the continued 

proliferation of water sources 

throughout the range of the species. 

However, a complex set of 

environmental and biotic conditions 

that support the WNv cycle must 

coincide for an outbreak to occur. 

Currently the annual patchy distribution 

of the disease is keeping the impacts at 

a minimum. The prevalence of this 

disease is likely to increase across the 

species’ range. 

We find that the threat of disease is 

not significant to the point that the 

greater sage-grouse warrants listing 

under the Act as threatened or 

endangered at this time. 

Predation 

Predation is the most commonly 

identified cause of direct mortality for 

sage-grouse during all life stages 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et 

al. 2000b, p. 228; Connelly et al. in 

press a, p. 23). However, sage-grouse 

have co-evolved with a variety of 

predators, and their cryptic plumage 

and behavioral adaptations have 

allowed them to persist despite this 

mortality factor (Schroeder et al. 1999, 

p. 10; Coates 2008 p. 69; Coates and 

Delehanty 2008, p. 635; Hagen in press, 

p. 3). Until recently, there has been little 

published information that indicates 

predation is a limiting factor for the 

greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10-1), particularly where 

habitat quality has not been 

compromised (Hagen in press, p. 3). 

Although many predators will consume 

sage-grouse, none specialize on the 

species (Hagen in press, p. 5). However, 

generalist predators have the greatest 

effect on ground nesting birds because 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13971 

predator numbers are independent of 

prey density (Coates 2007, p. 4). 

Major predators of adult sage-grouse 

include many species of diurnal raptors 

(especially the golden eagle), red foxes, 

and bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Hartzler 1974, 

pp. 532-536; Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 

10-11; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 

25; Rowland and Wisdom 2002, p. 14; 

Hagen in press, pp. 4-5). Juvenile sagegrouse also are killed by many raptors 

as well as common ravens, badgers 

(Taxidea taxus), red foxes, coyotes and 

weasels (Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, 

entire; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10). Nest 

predators include badgers, weasels, 

coyotes, common ravens, American 

crows, and magpies (Pica spp.). Elk 

(Holloran and Anderson 2003, p.309) 

and domestic cows (Bovus spp.) (Coates 

et al. 2008, pp. 425-426), have been 

observed to eat sage-grouse eggs. 

Ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) 

also have been identified as nest 

predators (Patterson 1952, p. 107; 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; Schroeder 

and Baydack 2001, p. 25), but recent 

data show that they are physically 

incapable of puncturing eggs (Holloran 

and Anderson 2003, p 309; Coates et al. 

2008, p 426; Hagen in press, p. 6). 

Several other small mammals visited 

sage-grouse nests monitored by videos 

in Nevada, but none resulted in 

predation events (Coates et al. 2008, p. 

425). Great Basin gopher snakes 

(Pituophis catenifer deserticola) were 

observed at nests, but no predation 

occurred. 

Adult male greater sage-grouse are 

very susceptible to predation while on 

the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; 

Schroeder and Baydack 2000, p. 25; 

Hagen in press, p. 5), presumably 

because they are very conspicuous 

while performing their mating displays. 

Because leks are attended daily by 

numerous birds, predators also may be 

attracted to these areas during the 

breeding season (Braun 1995). Connelly 

et al. (2000b, p.228) found that among 

40 radio-collared males, 83 percent of 

the mortality was due to predation and 

42 percent of those mortalities occurred 

during the lekking season (March 

through June). Adult female greater 

sage-grouse are susceptible to predators 

while on the nest but mortality rates are 

low (Hagen in press, p. 6). Hens will 

abandon their nest when disturbed by 

predators (Patterson 1952, p. 110), likely 

reducing this mortality (Hagen in press, 

p. 6). Connelly et al. (2000b, p. 228) 

found that among 77 radio-collared 

adult hens that died, 52 percent of the 

mortality was due to predation, and 52 

percent of those mortalities occurred 

between March and August, which 

includes the nesting and brood-rearing 

periods. Because sage-grouse are highly 

polygynous with only a few males 

breeding per year, sage-grouse 

populations are likely more sensitive to 

predation upon females. Predation of 

adult sage-grouse is low outside the 

lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing 

season (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 230; 

Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711; Moynahan et 

al. 2006, p. 1536; Hagen in press, p. 6). 

Estimates of predation rates on 

juveniles are limited due to the 

difficulties in studying this age class 

(Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 509; 

Hagen in press, p.8). Chick mortality 

from predation ranged from 27 percent 

to 51 percent in 2002 and 10 percent to 

43 percent in 2003 on three study sites 

in Oregon (Gregg et al. 2003a, p. 15; 

2003b, p. 17). Mortality due to predation 

during the first few weeks after hatching 

was estimated to be 82 percent (Gregg et 

al. 2007, p. 648). Based on partial 

estimates from three studies, Crawford 

et al. (2004, p. 4 and references therein) 

reported survival of juveniles to their 

first breeding season was low, 

approximately 10 percent, and 

predation was one of several factors 

they cited as affecting juvenile survival. 

However, Connelly et al, (in press a, p. 

19) point out that the estimate of 10 

percent survival of juveniles likely is 

biased low, as at least two of the four 

studies that were the basis of this 

estimate were from areas with 

fragmented or otherwise marginal 

habitat. 

Sage-grouse nests are subject to 

varying levels of predation. Predation 

can be total (all eggs destroyed) or 

partial (one or more eggs destroyed). 

However, hens abandon nests in either 

case (Coates, 2007, p. 26). Gregg et al. 

(1994, p. 164) reported that over a 3– 

year period in Oregon, 106 of 124 nests 

(84 percent) were preyed upon (Gregg et 

al. 1994, p. 164). Non-predated nests 

had greater grass and forb cover than 

predated nests. Patterson (1952, p.104) 

reported nest predation rates of 41 

percent in Wyoming. Holloran and 

Anderson (2003, p. 309) reported a 

predation rate of 12 percent (3 of 26) in 

Wyoming. In a 3–year study involving 

four study sites in Montana, Moynahan 

et al. (2007, p. 1777) attributed 131 of 

258 (54 percent) of nest failures to 

predation in Montana, but the rates may 

have been inflated by the study design 

(Connelly et al. in press a, p. 17). Renesting efforts may compensate for the 

loss of nests due to predation 

(Schroeder 1997, p. 938), but re-nesting 

rates are highly variable (Connelly et al. 

in press a, p. 16). Therefore, re-nesting 

is unlikely to offset losses due to 

predation. Losses of breeding hens and 

young chicks to predation potentially 

can influence overall greater sage-grouse 

population numbers, as these two 

groups contribute most significantly to 

population productivity (Baxter et al. 

2008, p. 185; Connelly et al, in press a, 

p. 18). 

Nesting success of greater sage-grouse 

is positively correlated with the 

presence of big sagebrush and grass and 

forb cover (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971). 

Females actively select nest sites with 

these qualities (Schroeder and Baydack 

2001, p. 25; Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). 

Nest predation appears to be related to 

the amount of herbaceous cover 

surrounding the nest (Gregg et al. 1994, 

p. 164; Braun 1995; DeLong et al. 1995, 

p. 90; Braun 1998; Coggins 1998, p. 30; 

Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 975; Schroeder 

and Baydack 2001, p. 25; Coates and 

Delehanty 2008, p. 636). Loss of nesting 

cover from any source (e.g., grazing, fire) 

can reduce nest success and adult hen 

survival. However, Coates (2007, p. 149) 

found that badger predation was 

facilitated by nest cover as it attracts 

small mammals, a badger’s primary 

prey. Similarly, habitat alteration that 

reduces cover for young chicks can 

increase their rate of predation 

(Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 27). 

In a review of published nesting 

studies, Connelly et al. (in press a, p. 17) 

reported that nesting success was 

greater in unaltered habitats versus 

altered habitats. Where greater sagegrouse habitat has been altered, the 

influx of predators can decrease annual 

recruitment into a population (Gregg et 

al. 1994, p. 164; Braun 1995; Braun 

1998; DeLong et al. 1995, p. 91; 

Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 28; 

Coates 2007, p. 2; Hagen in press, p. 7). 

Ritchie et al. (1994, p. 125), Schroeder 

and Baydack (2001, p. 25), Connelly et 

al. (2004, p. 7-23), and Summers et al. 

(2004, p. 523) have reported that 

agricultural development, landscape 

fragmentation, and human populations 

have the potential to increase predation 

pressure on all life stages of greater sagegrouse by forcing birds to nest in less 

suitable or marginal habitats, increasing 

travel time through habitats where they 

are vulnerable to predation, and 

increasing the diversity and density of 

predators. 

Abundance of red fox and corvids, 

which historically were rare in the 

sagebrush landscape, has increased in 

association with human-altered 

landscapes (Sovada et al. 1995, p. 5). In 

the Strawberry Valley of Utah, low 

survival of greater sage-grouse may have 

been due to an unusually high density 

of red foxes, which apparently were 

attracted to that area by anthropogenic 

activities (Bambrough et al. 2000). 

Ranches, farms, and housing 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13972 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

developments have resulted in the 

introduction of nonnative predators 

including domestic dogs (Canis 

domesticus) and cats (Felis domesticus) 

into greater sage-grouse habitats 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-23). Local 

attraction of ravens to nesting hens may 

be facilitated by loss and fragmentation 

of native shrublands, which increases 

exposure of nests to potential predators 

(Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 522; Bui 

2009, p. 32). The presence of ravens was 

negatively associated with grouse nest 

and brood fate (Bui 2009, p. 27). 

Raven abundance has increased as 

much as 1500 percent in some areas of 

western North America since the 1960s 

(Coates and Delehanty 2010, p. 244 and 

references therein). Human-made 

structures in the environment increase 

the effect of raven predation, 

particularly in low canopy cover areas, 

by providing ravens with perches 

(Braun 1998, pp.145-146; Coates 2007, 

p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2). Reduction in 

patch size and diversity of sagebrush 

habitat, as well as the construction of 

fences, powerlines, and other 

infrastructure also are likely to 

encourage the presence of the common 

raven (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426; Bui 

2009, p. 4). For example, raven counts 

have increased by approximately 200 

percent along the Falcon-Gondor 

transmission line corridor in Nevada 

(Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2). Ravens 

contributed to lek disturbance events in 

the areas surrounding the transmission 

line (Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2), but as 

a cause of decline in surrounding sagegrouse population numbers, it could not 

be separated from other potential 

impacts, such as WNv. 

Holloran (2005, p. 58) attributed 

increased sage-grouse nest depredation 

to high corvid abundances, which 

resulted from anthropogenic food and 

perching subsidies in areas of natural 

gas development in western Wyoming. 

Bui (2009, p. 31) also found that ravens 

used road networks associated with oil 

fields in the same Wyoming location for 

foraging activities. Holmes (unpubl. 

data) also found that common raven 

abundance increased in association with 

oil and gas development in 

southwestern Wyoming. The influence 

of synanthropic predators in the 

Wyoming Basin is important as this area 

has one of the few remaining clusters of 

sagebrush landscapes and the most 

highly connected network of sagegrouse leks (Knick and Hanser in press, 

p.18). Raven abundance was strongly 

associated with sage-grouse nest failure 

in northeastern Nevada, with resultant 

negative effects on sage-grouse 

reproduction (Coates 2007, p. 130). The 

presence of high numbers of predators 

within a sage-grouse nesting area may 

negatively affect sage-grouse 

productivity without causing direct 

mortality. Coates (2007, p. 85-86) 

suggested that ravens may reduce the 

time spent off the nest by female sagegrouse, thereby potentially 

compromising their ability to secure 

sufficient nutrition to complete the 

incubation period. 

As more suitable grouse habitat is 

converted to oil fields, agriculture and 

other exurban development, grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing become 

increasingly spatially restricted (Bui 

2009, p. 32). High nest densities which 

result from habitat fragmentation or 

disturbance associated with the 

presence of edges, fencerows, or trails 

may increase predation rates by making 

foraging easier for predators (Holloran 

2005, p. C37). In some areas even low 

but consistent raven presence can have 

a major impact on sage-grouse 

reproductive behavior (Bui 2009, p. 32). 

Leu and Hanser (in press, pp. 24-25) 

determined that the influence of the 

human footprint in sagebrush 

ecosystems may be underestimated due 

to varying quality of spatial data. 

Therefore, the influence of ravens and 

other predators associated with human 

activities may be under-estimated. 

Predator removal efforts have 

sometimes shown short-term gains that 

may benefit fall populations, but not 

breeding population sizes (Cote and 

Sutherland 1997, p. 402; Hagen in press, 

p. 9; Leu and Hanser in press, p. 27). 

Predator removal may have greater 

benefits in areas with low habitat 

quality, but predator numbers quickly 

rebound without continual control 

(Hagen in press, p. 9). Red fox removal 

in Utah appeared to increase adult sagegrouse survival and productivity, but 

the study did not compare these rates 

against other non-removal areas, so 

inferences are limited (Hagen in press, 

p. 11). Slater (2003, p. 133) 

demonstrated that coyote control failed 

to have an effect on greater sage-grouse 

nesting success in southwestern 

Wyoming. However, coyotes may not be 

an important predator of sage-grouse. In 

a coyote prey base analysis, Johnson and 

Hansen (1979, p. 954) showed that sagegrouse and bird egg shells made up a 

very small percentage (0.4-2.4 percent) 

of analyzed scat samples. Additionally, 

coyote removal can have unintended 

consequences resulting in the release of 

mesopredators, many of which, like the 

red fox, may have greater negative 

impacts on sage-grouse (Mezquida et al. 

2006, p. 752). Removal of ravens from 

an area in northeastern Nevada caused 

only short-term reductions in raven 

populations (less than 1 year) as 

apparently transient birds from 

neighboring sites repopulated the 

removal area (Coates 2007, p. 151). 

Additionally, badger predation 

appeared to partially compensate for 

decreases in raven removal (Coates 

2007, p. 152). In their review of 

literature regarding predation, Connelly 

et al. (2004, p. 10-1) noted that only two 

of nine studies examining survival and 

nest success indicated that predation 

had limited a sage-grouse population by 

decreasing nest success, and both 

studies indicated low nest success due 

to predation was ultimately related to 

poor nesting habitat. Bui (2009, pp. 36- 

37) suggested removal of anthropogenic 

subsidies (e.g., landfills, tall structures) 

may be an important step to reducing 

the presence of sage-grouse predators. 

Leu and Hanser (in press, p. 27) also 

argue that reducing the effects of 

predation on sage-grouse can only be 

effectively addressed by precluding 

these features. 

Summary of Predation 

Greater sage-grouse are adapted to 

minimize predation by cryptic plumage 

and behavior. Because sage-grouse are 

prey, predation will continue to be an 

effect on the species. Where habitat is 

not limited and is of good quality, 

predation is not a threat to the 

persistence of the species. However, 

sage-grouse may be increasingly subject 

to levels of predation that would not 

normally occur in the historically 

contiguous unaltered sagebrush 

habitats. The impacts of predation on 

greater sage-grouse can increase where 

habitat quality has been compromised 

by anthropogenic activities (such as 

exurban development, road 

development) (e.g. Coates 2007, p. 154, 

155; Bui 2009, p. 16; Hagen in press, p. 

12). Landscape fragmentation, habitat 

degradation, and human populations 

have the potential to increase predator 

populations through increasing ease of 

securing prey and subsidizing food 

sources and nest or den substrate. Thus, 

otherwise suitable habitat may change 

into a habitat sink for grouse 

populations (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, 

p. 517). Anthropogenic influences on 

sagebrush habitats that increase 

suitability for ravens may limit sagegrouse populations (Bui 2009, p. 32). 

Current land-use practices in the 

intermountain West favor high predator 

(in particular, raven) abundance relative 

to historical numbers (Coates et al. 

2008, p. 426). The interaction between 

changes in habitat and predation may 

have substantial effects at the landscape 

level (Coates 2007, p. 3). 

The studies presented here suggest 

that, in areas of intensive habitat 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13973 

alteration and fragmentation, sagegrouse productivity and, therefore, 

populations could be negatively affected 

by increasing predation. Predators could 

already be limiting sage-grouse 

populations in southwestern Wyoming 

and northeastern Nevada (Coates 2007, 

p. 131; Bui 2009, p. 33). 

The influence of synanthropic 

predators in southwestern Wyoming 

may be particularly significant as this 

area has one of the few remaining 

sagebrush landscapes and the most 

highly connected network of sagegrouse leks (Wisdom et al. in press, p. 

24). Unfortunately, except for the few 

studies presented here, data are lacking 

that definitively link sage-grouse 

population trends with predator 

abundance. However, where habitats 

have been altered by human activities, 

we believe that predation could be 

limiting local sage-grouse populations. 

As more habitats face development, 

even dispersed development, we expect 

the risk of increased predation to 

spread, possibly with negative effects on 

the sage-grouse population trends. 

Studies of the effectiveness of predator 

control have failed to demonstrate an 

inverse relationship between the 

predator numbers and sage-grouse 

nesting success or populations numbers. 

Except in localized areas where 

habitat is compromised, we found no 

evidence to suggest predation is limiting 

greater sage-grouse populations. 

However, landscape fragmentation is 

likely contributing to increased 

predation on this species. 

Summary of Factor C 

With regard to disease, the only 

concern is the potential effect of WNv. 

This disease is distributed throughout 

the species’ range and affected sagegrouse populations experience high 

mortality rates (near 100 percent 

lethality), with resultant reductions in 

local population numbers. Risk of 

exposure varies with factors such as 

elevation, precipitation regimes, and 

temperature. The continued 

development of anthropogenic water 

sources throughout the range of the 

species, some of which are likely to 

provide suitable conditions for breeding 

mosquitoes that are part of the WNv 

cycle, will likely increase the 

prevalence of the virus in sage-grouse. 

We anticipate that WNv will persist 

within sage-grouse habitats indefinitely 

and may be exacerbated by factors (e.g., 

climate change) that increase ambient 

temperatures and the presence of the 

vector on the landscape. The occurrence 

of WNv occurrence is sporadic across 

the species’ range, and a complex set of 

environmental and biotic conditions 

that support the WNv cycle must 

coincide for an outbreak to occur. 

Where habitat is not limited and is of 

good quality, predation is not a 

significant threat to the species. We are 

concerned that continued landscape 

fragmentation will increase the effects of 

predation on this species, potentially 

resulting in a reduction in sage-grouse 

productivity and abundance in the 

future. However, there is very limited 

information on the extent to which such 

effects might be occurring. Studies of 

the effectiveness of predator control 

have failed to demonstrate an inverse 

relationship between the predator 

numbers and sage-grouse nesting 

success or population numbers, i.e., 

predator removal activities have not 

resulted in increased populations. 

Mortality due to nest predation by 

ravens or other human-subsidized 

predators is increasing in some areas, 

but there is no indication this is causing 

a significant rangewide decline in 

population trends. Based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, we conclude that predation is 

not a significant threat to the species 

such that the species requires listing 

under the Act as threatened or 

endangered. 

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine 

whether threats to the greater sagegrouse are adequately addressed by 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms that 

could provide some protection for 

greater sage-grouse include: (1) local 

land use laws, processes, and 

ordinances; (2) State laws and 

regulations; and (3) Federal laws and 

regulations. Regulatory mechanisms, if 

they exist, may preclude listing if such 

mechanisms are judged to adequately 

address the threat to the species such 

that listing is not warranted. Conversely, 

threats on the landscape are exacerbated 

when not addressed by existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or when the 

existing mechanisms are not adequate 

(or not adequately implemented or 

enforced). 

Local Land Use Laws, Processes, and 

Ordinances 

Approximately 31 percent of the 

sagebrush habitats within the sagegrouse MZs are privately owned (Table 

3; Knick in press, p. 39) and are subject 

only to local regulations unless Federal 

actions are associated with the property 

(e.g., wetland modification, Federal 

subsurface owner). We conducted 

extensive internet searches and 

contacted State and local working group 

contacts from across the range of the 

species to identify local regulations that 

may provide protection to the greater 

sage-grouse. We identified only one 

regulation at the local level that 

specifically addresses sage-grouse. 

Washington County, Idaho, Planning 

and Zoning has developed a draft 

Comprehensive Plan which states that 

‘‘Sage Grouse leks...and a buffer around 

those leks, shall be protected from the 

disruption of development’’ 

(Washington County, 2009, p. 27). As 

this plan is still incomplete, and the 

final buffer distance has not been 

identified, it cannot currently provide 

the necessary regulatory provisions to 

be considered further. Sage-grouse were 

mentioned in other county and local 

plans across the range, and some general 

recommendations were made regarding 

effects to sage-grouse associated with 

land uses. However, we could find no 

other examples of county-planning and 

enforceable zoning regulations specific 

to sage-grouse. 

State Laws and Regulations 

State laws and regulations may 

impact sage-grouse conservation by 

providing specific authority for sagegrouse conservation over lands which 

are directly owned by the State; 

providing broad authority to regulate 

and protect wildlife on all lands within 

their borders; and providing a 

mechanism for indirect conservation 

through regulation of threats to the 

species (e.g. noxious weeds). 

In general, States have broad authority 

to regulate and protect wildlife within 

their borders. All State wildlife agencies 

across the range of the species manage 

greater sage-grouse as resident native 

game birds except for Washington 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-3). In 

Washington, the species has been listed 

as a State-threatened species since 1998 

and is managed in accordance with the 

State’s provisions for such species 

(Stinson et al. 2004, p. 1). For example, 

killing greater sage-grouse is banned in 

Washington, and State-owned 

agricultural and grazing lands must 

adhere to standards regarding upland 

plant and vegetative community health 

that protect habitat for the species 

(Stinson et al. 2004, p. 55). However, 

lands owned by the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources 

continue to be converted from sagebrush 

habitat to croplands (Stinson et al. 2004, 

p. 55), which results in a loss of habitat 

for sage-grouse. Therefore, the 

provisions to protect sage-grouse in this 

State do not provide adequate 

protections for us to consider. 

All States across the range of greater 

sage-grouse have laws and regulations 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13974 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

that identify the need to conserve 

wildlife populations and habitat, 

including greater sage-grouse (Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 2-22-11). As an example, 

in Colorado, ‘‘wildlife and their 

environment’’ are to be protected, 

preserved, enhanced and managed 

(Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33, 

Article 1–101 in Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

2-3). Laws and regulations in Oregon, 

Idaho, South Dakota, and California 

have similar provisions (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 2-2 to 2-4, 2-6 to 2-8). 

However, these laws and regulations are 

general in nature and have not provided 

the protection to sage-grouse habitat 

necessary to protect the species from the 

threats described in Factor A above. 

All of the states within the range of 

the sage-grouse have state school trust 

lands that they manage for income to 

support their schools. With the 

exception of Wyoming (see discussion 

below), none of the states have specific 

regulations to ensure that the 

management of the state trust lands is 

consistent with the needs of sagegrouse. Thus there are currently no 

regulatory mechanisms on state trust 

lands to ensure conservation of the 

species. 

On September 26, 2008, the Governor 

of Nevada signed an executive order 

calling for the preservation and 

protection of sage-grouse habitat in the 

State of Nevada. The executive order 

directs the NDOW to ‘‘continue to work 

with state and federal agencies and the 

interested public’’ to implement the 

Nevada sage-grouse conservation plan. 

The executive order also directs other 

State agencies to coordinate with the 

NDOW in these efforts. Although 

directed specifically at sage-grouse 

conservation, the executive order is 

broadly worded and does not outline 

specific measures that will be 

undertaken to reduce threats and ensure 

conservation of sage-grouse in Nevada. 

The California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 

sections 21000–21177), requires full 

disclosure of the potential 

environmental impacts of projects 

proposed in the State of California. 

Section 15065 of the CEQA guidelines 

requires a finding of significance if a 

project has the potential to ‘‘reduce the 

number or restrict the range of a rare or 

endangered plant or animal.’’ Under 

these guidelines sage-grouse are given 

the same protection as those species that 

are officially listed within the State. 

However, the lead agency for the 

proposed project has the discretion to 

decide whether to require mitigation for 

resource impacts, or to determine that 

other considerations, such as social or 

economic factors, make mitigation 

infeasible (CEQA section 21002). In the 

latter case, projects may be approved 

that cause significant environmental 

damage, such as destruction of 

endangered species, their habitat, or 

their continued existence. Therefore, 

protection of listed species through 

CEQA is dependent upon the discretion 

of the agency involved, and cannot be 

considered adequate protection for sagegrouse. 

In Wyoming, the Governor issued an 

executive order on August 1, 2008, 

mandating special management for all 

State lands within sage-grouse ‘‘Core 

Population Areas’’ (State of Wyoming 

2008, entire). Core Population Areas are 

important breeding areas for sage-grouse 

in Wyoming as identified by the 

Wyoming ‘‘Governor’s Sage-Grouse 

Implementation Team.’’ In addition to 

identifying Core Population Areas, the 

Team also recommended stipulations 

that should be placed on development 

activities to ensure that existing habitat 

function is maintained within those 

areas. Accordingly, the executive order 

prescribes special consideration for 

sage-grouse, including authorization of 

new activities only when the project 

proponent can identify that the activity 

will not cause declines in greater sagegrouse populations, in the Core 

Population Areas. These protections 

will apply to slightly less than 23 

percent of all sage-grouse habitats in 

Wyoming, but account for 

approximately 80 percent of the total 

estimated sage-grouse breeding 

population in the State. In February 

2010, the Wyoming State Legislature 

adopted a joint resolution endorsing 

Wyoming’s core area strategy as 

outlined in the Governor’ Executive 

Order 2008-2. 

On August 7, 2008, the Wyoming 

Board of Land Commissioners approved 

the application of the Implementation 

Team’s recommended stipulations to all 

new development activities on State 

lands within the Core Population Areas. 

These actions provide substantial 

regulatory protection for sage-grouse in 

previously undeveloped areas on 

Wyoming State lands. However, as they 

only apply to State lands, which are 

typically single sections scattered across 

the State, the benefit to sage-grouse is 

limited. 

The executive order also applies to all 

activities requiring permits from the 

Wyoming’s Industrial Siting Council 

(ISC), including wind power 

developments on all lands regardless of 

ownership in the State of Wyoming. 

Developments outside of State land and 

not required to receive an ISC permit 

(primarily developments that do not 

reach a certain economic threshold) will 

not be required to follow the 

stipulations. The application of the 

Governor’s order to the Wyoming ISC 

has the potential to provide significant 

regulatory protection for sage-grouse 

from adverse effects associated with 

wind development (see Energy, Factor 

A) and other developments. 

There is still some uncertainty 

regarding what protective stipulations 

will be applied to wind siting 

applications. The State of Wyoming has 

indicated that it will enforce the 

Executive Order where applicable, and 

on August 7, 2009, the Wyoming State 

Board of Land Commissioners voted to 

withdraw approximately 400,000 ha 

(approximately 1 million ac) of land 

within the sage-grouse core areas from 

potential wind development (State of 

Wyoming 2008, entire). The withdrawal 

order states that ‘‘there is no published 

research on the specific impacts of wind 

energy on sage-grouse,’’ and further 

states that permitting for wind 

development should require data 

collection on the potential effects of 

wind on sage-grouse. This action 

demonstrates a significant action in the 

State of Wyoming to address future 

development activities in core areas. 

Wyoming’s executive order does 

allow oil and gas leases on State lands 

within core areas, provided those 

developments adhere to required 

protective stipulations, which are 

consistent with published literature (e.g. 

1 well pad per section). The Service 

believes that the core area strategy 

proposed by the State of Wyoming in 

Executive Order 2008-2, if implemented 

by all landowners via -regulatory 

mechanisms, would provide adequate 

protection for sage-grouse and their 

habitat in that State. 

The protective measures associated 

with the Governor’s order do not extend 

to lands located outside the identified 

core areas but still within occupied 

sage-grouse habitat. Where a siting 

permit is needed, the application is de 

facto applied to all landownerships as 

the Wyoming ISC cannot issue a permit 

without the protective stipulations in 

place. In non-core areas, the 

minimization measures would be 

implemented that are intended to 

maintain habitat conditions such that 

there is a 50 percent likelihood that leks 

will persist over time (WGFD 2009, pp. 

30-35). This approach may result in 

adverse effects to sage-grouse and their 

habitats outside of the core areas (WGFD 

2009, pp. 32-35). 

The Wyoming executive order states 

that current management and existing 

land uses within the core areas should 

be recognized and respected, thus we 

anticipate ongoing adverse effects 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13975 

associated with those activities. The 

Service is working in collaboration with 

the State of Wyoming Sage Grouse 

Implementation team and other entities 

to continue to review and refine ongoing 

activities in the core areas, as well as the 

size and location of the core areas 

themselves to ensure the integrity and 

purpose of the core area approach is 

maintained. Although this strategy 

provides excellent potential for 

meaningful conservation of sage-grouse, 

it has yet to be fully implemented. We 

believe that when fully realized, this 

effort could ameliorate some threats to 

the greater sage-grouse. 

On April 22, 2009, the Governor of 

Colorado signed into law new rules for 

the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission (COGCC), which is the 

entity responsible for permitting oil and 

gas well development in Colorado 

(COGCC 2009, entire). The rules went 

into effect on private lands on April 1, 

2009, and on Federal lands July 1, 2009. 

The new rules require that permittees 

and operators determine whether their 

proposed development location 

overlaps with ‘‘sensitive wildlife 

habitat,’’ or is within restricted surface 

occupancy (RSO) Area. For greater sagegrouse, areas within 1 km (0.6 mi) of an 

active lek are designated as RSOs, and 

surface area occupancy will be avoided 

except in cases of economic or technical 

infeasibility (CDOW, 2009, p. 12). Areas 

within approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) of 

an active lek are considered sensitive 

wildlife habitat (CDOW, 2009, p. 13) 

and the development proponent is 

required to consult with the CDOW to 

identify measures to (1) avoid impacts 

on wildlife resources, including sagegrouse; (2) minimize the extent and 

severity of those impacts that cannot be 

avoided; and (3) mitigate those effects 

that cannot be avoided or minimized 

(COGCC 2009, section 1202.a). 

The COGCC will consider CDOW’s 

recommendations in the permitting 

decision, although the final permitting 

and conditioning authority remains 

with COGCC. Section 1202.d of the new 

rules does identify circumstances under 

which the consultation with CDOW is 

not required; other categories for 

potential exemptions also can be found 

in the new rules (e.g., 1203.b). The new 

rules will inevitably provide for greater 

consideration of the conservation needs 

of the species, but the potential 

decisions, actions, and exemptions can 

vary with each situation, and 

consequently there is substantial 

uncertainty as to the level of protection 

that will be afforded to greater sagegrouse. It should be noted that leases 

that have already been approved but not 

drilled (e.g., COGCC 2009, 1202.d(1)), or 

drilling operations that are already on 

the landscape, may continue to operate 

without further restriction into the 

future. 

Some States require landowners to 

control noxious weeds, a habitat threat 

to sage-grouse on their property, but the 

types of plants considered to be noxious 

weeds vary by State. For example, only 

Oregon, California, Colorado, Utah, and 

Nevada list Taeniatherum asperum as a 

noxious, regulated weed, but T. 

asperum is problematic in other States 

(e.g., Washington, Idaho). Colorado is 

the only western State that officially 

lists Bromus tectorum as a noxious 

weed (USDA 2009), but B. tectorum is 

invasive in many more States. These 

laws may provide some protection for 

sage-grouse in areas, although largescale control of the most problematic 

invasive plants is not occurring, and 

rehabilitation and restoration 

techniques are mostly unproven and 

experimental (Pyke in press, p. 25). 

State-regulated hunting of sage-grouse 

is permitted in all States except 

Washington, where the season has been 

closed since 1988 (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 6-3). In States where hunting sagegrouse is allowed, harvest levels can be 

adjusted annually, and the season and 

limits are largely based on trend data 

gathered from spring lek counts and 

previous harvest data. Management of 

hunting season length and bag limits 

varies widely between States (see 

discussion of hunting regulations in 

Factor B). States maintain flexibility in 

hunting regulations through emergency 

closures or season changes in response 

to unexpected events that affect local 

populations. For example, in areas 

where populations are in decline or 

threats such as WNv have emerged, 

some States have implemented harvest 

reductions or closures. There have not 

been any studies demonstrating that 

hunting is the primary cause of 

population declines in sage-grouse. 

Hunting regulations provide adequate 

protection for the birds (see discussion 

under Factor B), but do not protect the 

habitat. Therefore, the protection 

afforded through this regulatory 

mechanism is limited. 

Federal Laws and Regulations 

Because it is not considered to be a 

migratory species, the greater sagegrouse is not covered by the provisions 

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 

U.S.C. 703-712). However, several 

Federal agencies have other legal 

authorities and requirements for 

managing sage-grouse or their habitat. 

Federal agencies are responsible for 

managing approximately 64 percent of 

the sagebrush habitats within the sagegrouse MZs in the United States (Knick 

in press, p. 39, Table 3). Two Federal 

agencies with the largest land 

management authority for sagebrush 

habitats are the BLM and USFS. The 

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), 

DOE, and other agencies in DOI have 

responsibility for lands and/or decisions 

that involve less than 5 percent of 

greater sage-grouse habitat (Table 3). 

Bureau of Land Management 

Knick (in press, p. 39, Table 3) 

estimates that about 51 percent of 

sagebrush habitat within the sage-grouse 

MZs is BLM-administered land; this 

includes approximately 24.9 million ha 

(about 61.5 million ac). The Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) 

is the primary Federal law governing 

most land uses on BLM-administered 

lands, and directs development and 

implementation of Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) which direct 

management at a local level. The greater 

sage-grouse is designated as a sensitive 

species on BLM lands across the 

species’ range (Sell 2010, pers comm.). 

The management guidance afforded 

species of concern under BLM Manual 

6840 – Special Status Species 

Management (BLM 2008f) states that 

‘‘Bureau sensitive species will be 

managed consistent with species and 

habitat management objectives in land 

use and implementation plans to 

promote their conservation and to 

minimize the likelihood and need for 

listing under the ESA’’ (BLM 2008f, p. 

.05V). BLM Manual 6840 further 

requires that RMPs should address 

sensitive species, and that 

implementation ‘‘should consider all 

site-specific methods and procedures 

needed to bring species and their 

habitats to the condition under which 

management under the Bureau sensitive 

species policies would no longer be 

necessary’’ (BLM 2008f, p. 2A1). As a 

designated sensitive species under BLM 

Manual 6840, sage-grouse conservation 

must be addressed in the development 

and implementation of RMPs on BLM 

lands. 

RMPs are the basis for all actions and 

authorizations involving BLMadministered lands and resources. They 

authorize and establish allowable 

resource uses, resource condition goals 

and objectives to be attained, program 

constraints, general management 

practices needed to attain the goals and 

objectives, general implementation 

sequences, intervals and standards for 

monitoring and evaluating RMPs to 

determine effectiveness, and the need 

for amendment or revision (43 CFR 

1601.0-5(k)). The RMPs also provide a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13976 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

framework and programmatic direction 

for implementation plans, which are 

site-specific plans written to regulate 

decisions made in a RMP. Examples 

include allotment management plans 

(AMPs) that address livestock grazing, 

oil and gas field development, travel 

management, and wildlife habitat 

management. Implementation plan 

decisions normally require additional 

planning and NEPA analysis. 

Of the existing 92 RMPs that include 

sage-grouse habitat, 82 contain specific 

measures or direction pertinent to 

management of sage-grouse or their 

habitats (BLM 2008g, p. 1). However, 

the nature of these measures and 

direction vary widely, with some 

measures directed at a particular land 

use category (e.g., grazing management), 

and others relevant to specific habitat 

use categories (e.g., breeding habitat) 

(BLM 2008h). If an RMP contains 

specific direction regarding sage-grouse 

habitat, conservation, or management, it 

represents a regulatory mechanism that 

has the potential to ensure that the 

species and its habitats are protected 

during permitting and other decisionmaking on BLM lands. This section 

describes our understanding of how 

RMPs are currently implemented in 

relation to sage-grouse conservation. 

In addition to land use planning, BLM 

uses Instruction Memoranda (IM) to 

provide instruction to district and field 

offices regarding specific resource 

issues. Implementation of IMs is 

required unless the IM provides 

discretion (Buckner 2009a. comm.). 

However, IMs are short duration (1 to 2 

years) and are intended to immediately 

address resource concerns or provide 

direction to staff until a threat passes or 

the resource issue can be addressed in 

a long-term planning document. 

Because of their short duration, their 

utility and certainty as a long-term 

regulatory mechanism may be limited if 

not regularly renewed. 

The BLM IM No. 2005-024 directed 

BLM State directors to ‘‘review all 

existing land use plans to determine the 

adequacy in addressing the threats to 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat,’’ and 

then to ‘‘identify and prioritize land use 

plan amendments or land use plan 

revisions based upon the outcome.’’ This 

IM instructed BLM State directors to 

develop a process and schedule to 

update deficient land use plans to 

adequately address sage-grouse and 

sagebrush conservation needs no later 

than April 1, 2005. The BLM reports 

that all land use plan revisions within 

sage-grouse habitat are scheduled for 

completion by 2015 (BLM, 2008g). To 

date, 14 plans have been revised, 31 are 

in progress, and 19 are scheduled to be 

completed in the future. However, the 

information provided to us by BLM did 

not specify what requirements, 

direction, measures, or guidance has 

been included in the newly revised 

RMPs to address threats to sage-grouse 

and sagebrush habitat. Therefore, we 

cannot assess their value or rely on 

them as regulatory mechanisms for the 

conservation of the greater sage-grouse. 

On November 30, 2009, the BLM in 

Montana issued an IM that provides 

guidance for sage-grouse management 

on lands under their authority in MZs 

I and II (BLM 2009j, entire). The IM 

directs all state offices in Montana to 

develop alternatives in ongoing and 

future RMP revisions for activities that 

may affect the greater sage-grouse. The 

IM provides guidance to mitigate 

impacts and BMPs for all proposed 

projects and activities. While this IM 

will result in reduction of negative 

impacts of projects authorized by the 

Montana BLM on sage-grouse, the way 

in which the guidance will be 

interpreted and applied is uncertain and 

we do not have a basis to assess whether 

or the extent to which it might be 

effective in reducing threats. However, 

the IM is based on an approach based 

on core areas in Montana, similar to the 

approach implemented more formally in 

Wyoming. Therefore, it could be 

effective in reducing impacts to sagegrouse habitat in the short term on BLM 

lands in Montana. Unfortunately, the IM 

applies only to ongoing and future 

RMPs, and does not apply to activities 

authorized under existing RMPs. No 

expiration date was provided for this 

IM, but as discussed above typical life 

expectancy of IMs is rarely greater than 

2 years. 

The BLM has regulatory authority 

over livestock grazing, OHV travel and 

human disturbance, infrastructure 

development, fire management, and 

energy development through FLPMA 

and associated RMP implementation, 

and the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) (30 

U.S.C. 181 et seq.). The RMPs provide 

a framework and programmatic 

guidance for AMPs that address 

livestock grazing. In addition to FLPMA, 

BLM has specific regulatory authority 

for grazing management provided at 43 

CFR 4100 (Regulations on Grazing 

Administration Exclusive of Alaska). 

Livestock grazing permits and leases 

contain terms and conditions 

determined by BLM to be appropriate to 

achieve management and resource 

condition objectives on the public lands 

and other lands administered by the 

BLM, and to ensure that habitats are, or 

are making significant progress toward 

being restored or maintained for BLM 

special status species (43 CFR 

4180.1(d)). Terms and conditions that 

are attached to grazing permits are 

generally mandatory. Across the range 

of sage-grouse, BLM required each BLM 

state office to adopt rangeland health 

standards and guidelines by which they 

measure allotment condition (43 CFR 

4180 2(b)). Each state office developed 

and adopted their own standards and 

guidelines based on habitat type and 

other more localized considerations. 

The rangeland health standards must 

address restoring, maintaining or 

enhancing habitats of BLM special 

status species to promote their 

conservation, and maintaining or 

promoting the physical and biological 

conditions to sustain native populations 

and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(e)(9) 

and (10)). BLM is required to take 

appropriate action no later than the start 

of the next grazing year upon 

determining that existing grazing 

practices or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to achieve 

the standards and conform with the 

guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). 

The BLM conducted national data 

calls in 2004 through 2008 to collect 

information on the status of rangelands, 

rangeland health assessments, and 

measures that have been implemented 

to address rangeland health issues 

across sage-grouse habitats under their 

jurisdiction. However, the information 

collected by BLM could not be used to 

make broad generalizations about the 

status of rangelands and management 

actions. There was a lack of consistency 

across the range in how questions were 

interpreted and answered for the data 

call, which limited our ability to use the 

results to understand habitat conditions 

for sage-grouse on BLM lands. For 

example, one question asked about the 

number of acres of land within sagegrouse habitat that was meeting 

rangeland health standards. Field offices 

in more than three States conducted the 

rangeland health assessments, and 

reported landscape conditions at 

different scales (Sell 2009, pers. comm.). 

In addition, the BLM data call reported 

information at a different scale than was 

used for their landscape mapping 

(District or project level versus national 

scale) (Buckner 2009b, pers. comm.). 

Therefore, we lack the information 

necessary to assess how this regulatory 

mechanism effects sage-grouse 

conservation. 

The BLM’s regulations require that 

corrective action be taken to improve 

rangeland condition when the need is 

identified; however, actions are not 

necessarily implemented until the 

permit renewal process is initiated for 

the noncompliant parcel. Thus, there 

may be a lag time between the allotment 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13977 

assessment when necessary 

management changes are identified, and 

when they are implemented. Although 

RMPs, AMPs, and the permit renewal 

process provide an adequate regulatory 

framework, whether or not these 

regulatory mechanisms are being 

implemented in a manner that 

conserves sage-grouse is unclear. The 

BLM’s data call indicates that there are 

lands within the range of sage-grouse 

that are not meeting the rangeland 

health standards necessary to conserve 

sage-grouse habitats. In some cases 

management changes should occur, but 

such changes have not been 

implemented (BLM 2008i). 

The BLM uses regulatory mechanisms 

to address invasive species concerns, 

particularly through the NEPA process. 

For projects proposed on BLM lands, 

BLM has the authority to identify and 

prescribe best management practices for 

weed management; where prescribed, 

these measures must be incorporated 

into project design and implementation. 

Some common best management 

practices for weed management may 

include surveying for noxious weeds, 

identifying problem areas, training 

contractors regarding noxious weed 

management and identification, 

providing cleaning stations for 

equipment, limiting off-road travel, and 

reclaiming disturbed lands immediately 

following ground disturbing activities, 

among other practices. The effectiveness 

of these measures is not documented. 

The BLM conducts treatments for 

noxious and invasive weeds on BLM 

lands, the most common being 

reseeding through the Emergency 

Stabilization and Burned Area 

Rehabilitation Programs. According to 

BLM data, 66 of 92 RMPs noted that 

seed mix requirements (as stated in 

RMPs, emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation, and other plans) were 

sufficient to provide suitable sagegrouse habitat (e.g., seed containing 

sagebrush and forb species)(Carlson 

2008a). However, a sufficient seed mix 

does not assure that restoration goals 

will be met; many other factors (e.g., 

precipitation) influence the outcome of 

restoration efforts. 

Invasive species control is a priority 

in many RMPs. For example, 76 of the 

RMPs identified in the data call claim 

that the RMP (or supplemental plans/ 

guidance applicable to the RMP) 

requires treatment of noxious weeds on 

all disturbed surfaces to avoid weed 

infestations on BLM managed lands in 

the planning area (Carlson 2008a). Also, 

of the 82 RMPs that reference sagegrouse conservation, 51 of these 

specifically address fire, invasives, 

conifer encroachment, or a combination 

thereof (Carlson 2008, pers. comm.). We 

note that it is possible that more RMPs 

are addressing invasives under another 

general restoration category. In the 51 

RMPs that address fire, invasives, and 

conifer encroachment, they typically 

provide nonspecific guidance on how to 

manage invasives. A few examples 

include: manage livestock in a way that 

enhances desirable vegetation cover and 

reduces the introduction of invasives, 

identify tools that may be used to 

control invasives (e.g., manual, 

mechanical, biological, or chemical 

treatments), utilize an integrated weed 

management program, and apply 

seasonal restrictions on fire hazards, 

among other methods (Carlson 2008, 

pers. comm.). As with other agencies 

and organizations, the extent to which 

these measures are implemented 

depends in large part on funding, staff 

time, and other regulatory and nonregulatory factors. Therefore, we cannot 

assess their value as regulatory 

mechanisms for the conservation of the 

greater sage-grouse. 

Herbicides also are commonly used 

on BLM lands to control invasives. In 

2007, the BLM completed a 

programmatic EIS (72 FR 35718) and 

record of decision (72 FR 57065) for 

vegetation treatments on BLMadministered lands in the western 

United States. This program guides the 

use of herbicides for field-level 

planning, but does not authorize any 

specific on-the-ground actions; sitespecific NEPA analysis is still required 

at the project level. 

The BLM has one documented 

regulatory action to address wildfire and 

protect of sage-grouse: National IM 

2008-142 – 2008 Wildfire Season and 

Sage-Grouse Conservation. This IM was 

issued on June 19, 2008, and was 

effective through September 30, 2009. It 

provided guidance to BLM State 

directors that conservation of greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats 

should be a priority for wildfire 

suppression, particularly in areas of the 

Great Basin (portions of WAFWA MZ 

III, IV, and V) (BLM 2008j, entire). At 

least one BLM State office within the 

range of sage-grouse (Idaho) developed 

a State-level IM and guidance that 

prioritized the protection of sage-grouse 

habitats during fire management 

activities, in addition to the national IM 

which pertains to wildfire suppression 

activities (BLM 2008k, entire). 

While we do not know the extent to 

which these directives alleviated the 

wildfire threat to sage-grouse (as 

described under Factor A) during the 

2008 and 2009 fire seasons, we believe 

that this strategic approach to 

ameliorating the threat of fire is 

appropriate and significant. Targeting 

the protection of important sage-grouse 

habitats during fire suppression and 

fuels management activities could help 

reduce loss of key habitat due to fire if 

directed through a long-term, regulatory 

mechanism. Under Factor A, we 

describe why the threat of wildfire is 

likely to continue indefinitely. This 

foreseeable future requires a regulatory 

approach that addresses the threat over 

the long term. The use of IMs to increase 

protection of sage-grouse habitat during 

wildfire is not adequate to protect the 

species because IMs are both short-term 

and have discretionary renewal 

(decisions made on a case-by-case 

basis). 

The BLM is the primary Federal 

agency managing the United States 

energy resources on 102 million surface 

ha (253 million ac) and 283 million subsurface ha (700 million ac) of mineral 

estate (BLM 2010). Public sub-surface 

estate can be under public or private 

(i.e., split-estate) surface. Over 7.3 

million ha (18 million ac) of sage-grouse 

habitats on public lands are leased for 

oil, gas, coal, minerals, or geothermal 

exploration and development across the 

sage-grouse range (Service 2008f). 

Energy development, particularly 

nonrenewable development, has 

primarily occurred within sage-grouse 

MZs I and II. 

The BLM has the legal authority to 

regulate and condition oil and gas leases 

and permits under both FLPMA and the 

MLA. An amendment to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 

U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) in 2000 (Energy 

Policy Act of 2000 (PL 106-469)) 

requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

conduct a scientific inventory of all 

onshore Federal lands to identify oil 

and gas resources underlying these 

lands (42 U.S.C. 6217). The Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801 et 

seq.) further requires the nature and 

extent of any restrictions or 

impediments to the development of 

such resources be identified and 

permitting and development be 

expedited on Federal lands (42 U.S.C. 

15921). In addition, the 2005 Energy 

Policy Act orders the identification of 

renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, 

geothermal) and provides incentives for 

their development (42 U.S.C. 15851). 

On May 18, 2001, President Bush 

signed Executive Order (E.O.) 13212 – 

Actions to Expedite Energy-Related 

Projects (May 22, 2001, 66 FR 28357), 

which states that the executive 

departments and agencies shall take 

appropriate actions, to the extent 

consistent with applicable law, to 

expedite projects that will increase the 

production, transmission, or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13978 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

conservation of energy. The Executive 

Order specifies that this includes 

expediting review of permits or taking 

other actions as necessary to accelerate 

the completion of projects, while 

maintaining safety, public health, and 

environmental protections. On October 

23, 2009, nine Federal agencies signed 

a MOU to expedite the siting and 

construction of qualified electric 

transmission within the United States 

(Federal Agency MOU 2009). The MOU 

states that all existing environmental 

review and safeguard processes will be 

fully maintained. Therefore, we assume 

that this new MOU will not alter the 

regulatory processes (e.g., RMPs, project 

specific NEPA analysis) currently in 

place related to transmission siting on 

BLM lands. 

Program-specific guidance for fluid 

minerals (including oil and gas) in the 

BLM planning handbook (BLM 2005b, 

Appendix C pp. 23-24) specifies that 

land use planning decisions will 

identify restrictions on areas subject to 

leasing, including closures, as well as 

lease stipulations. Stipulations are 

conditions that are made part of a lease 

when the environmental planning 

record demonstrates the need to 

accommodate various resources such as 

the protection of specific wildlife 

species. Stipulations advise the lease 

holder that a wildlife species in need of 

special management may be present in 

the area defined by the lease, and 

certain protective measures may be 

required in order to develop the mineral 

resource on that lease. 

The handbook further specifies that 

all stipulations must have waiver, 

exception, or modification criteria 

documented in the plan, and notes that 

the least restrictive constraint to meet 

the resource protection objective should 

be used (BLM 2005b, Appendix C pp. 

23-24). Waivers are permanent 

exemptions, and modifications are 

changes in the terms of the stipulation. 

The BLM reports the issuance of 

waivers and modifications as rare (BLM 

2008i). Exceptions are a one-time 

exemption to a lease stipulation. For 

example, a company may be issued an 

exception to enter crucial winter habitat 

during a mild winter if an on-theground survey verifies that sage-grouse 

are not using the winter habitat or have 

left earlier than normal (BLM 2004, p. 

86). In 2006 and 2007, of 1,716 mineral 

or right-of-way authorizations on 

Federal surface in 42 BLM planning 

areas no waivers were issued; 24 

modifications were issued and 115 

exceptions were granted, 72 of which 

were in the Great Divide planning area 

in Wyoming (BLM 2008i), one of the 

densest population concentrations for 

sage-grouse. 

Although the restrictive stipulations 

that are applied to permits and leases 

vary, a 0.40-km (0.25-mi) radius around 

sage-grouse leks is generally restricted 

to ‘‘no surface occupancy’’ during the 

breeding season, and noise and 

development activities are often limited 

during the breeding season within a 

0.80- to 3.22-km (0.5- to 2-mi) radius of 

sage-grouse leks. Although these are the 

most often-applied stipulations, sitespecific application is highly variable. 

For example, language in the Randolph 

RMP in Utah states that no exploration, 

drilling, or other development activities 

can occur during the breeding season 

within 3.22 km (2 mi) of a known sagegrouse lek, and that there are ‘‘no 

exceptions to this stipulation’’ (BLM 

2008h). Conversely, under the Platte 

River RMP in the Wind River Basin 

Management Area of Wyoming, ‘‘oil and 

gas development is a priority in the 

area’’ and ‘‘discretionary timing 

stipulations protecting sage-grouse 

nesting habitats...will not be applied’’ 

(BLM 2008h). Most of the RMPs that 

address oil, gas, or minerals 

development specify the standard 

protective stipulations (BLM 2008h). 

The stipulations do not apply to the 

operation or maintenance of existing 

facilities, regardless of their proximity 

to sage-grouse breeding areas (BLM 

2008h). In addition, approximately 73 

percent of leased lands in known sagegrouse breeding habitat have no 

stipulations at all (Service 2008f). 

As noted above, a 0.4-km (0.25-mi) 

radius buffer is used routinely by BLM 

and other agencies to minimize the 

impacts of oil and gas development on 

sage-grouse breeding activity. The 

rationale for using a 0.4-km (0.25-mi) 

buffer as the basic unit for active lek 

protection is not clear, as there is no 

support in published literature for this 

distance affording any measure of 

protection (see also discussion under 

Energy Development, above). 

Anecdotally, this distance appears to be 

an artifact from the 1960s attempt to 

initiate planning guidelines for 

sagebrush management and is not 

scientifically based (Roberts 1991). The 

BLM stipulations most commonly 

attached to leases and permits are 

inadequate for the protection of sagegrouse, and for the long-term 

maintenance of their populations in 

those areas affected by oil and gas 

development activities (Holloran 2005, 

pp. 57-60; Walker 2007, p. 2651). In 

some locations, the BLM is 

incorporating recommendations and 

information from new scientific studies 

into management direction. Wyoming 

BLM issued an IM on December 29, 

2009 (BLM 2009k, entire) to ensure their 

management of sage-grouse and their 

habitats are consistent with the State of 

Wyoming’s core area populations (see 

discussion above). The IM applies to all 

BLM programs and activities within 

Wyoming, with the exception of 

livestock grazing management. A 

separate IM will be issued separately for 

this program. The December 2009 IM 

should have the same efficacy in 

ameliorating threats to the sage-grouse 

in Wyoming. However, the IM is 

scheduled to expire on Sept. 30, 2011, 

and therefore its life is far shorter than 

the foreseeable future (30 to 50 years, 

see discussion below) for energy 

development in that state. However, we 

are optimistic that this IM will result in 

short-term conservation benefits for 

sage-grouse in Wyoming. 

As with fossil fuel sources, the 

production, purchase, and facilitation of 

development of renewable energy 

products by Federal entities and land 

management agencies is directed by the 

2005 Energy Policy Act and Presidential 

E.O. 13212. The energy development 

section of Factor A describes in detail 

the development and operation of 

renewable energy projects, including 

recent increases in wind, solar and 

geothermal energy development. All of 

these activities require ground 

disturbance, infrastructure, and ongoing 

human activities that could adversely 

affect greater sage-grouse on the 

landscape. Recently the BLM has begun 

developing guidance to minimize 

impacts of renewable energy production 

on public lands. A ROD for 

‘‘Implementation of a Wind Energy 

Development Program and Associated 

Land Use Plan Amendments’’ (BLM 

2005a, entire) was issued in 2005. The 

ROD outlines best management 

practices (BMPs) for the siting, 

development and operation of wind 

energy facilities on BLM lands. The 

voluntary guidance of the BMPs do not 

include measures specifically intended 

to protect greater sage-grouse, although 

they do provide the flexibility for such 

measures to be required through sitespecific planning and authorization 

(BLM 2005a, p. 2). 

On December 19, 2008, the BLM 

issued IM 2009-043, which is intended 

to serve as additional guidance for 

processing wind development 

proposals. In that IM, which expires on 

September 30, 2010, BLM updates or 

clarifies previous guidance 

documentation, including the Wind 

Energy Development Policy, and best 

management practices from the wind 

energy development programmatic EIS 

of 2005. The new guidance does not 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13979 

provide specific recommendations for 

greater sage-grouse, and largely defers 

decision-making regarding project 

siting, including meteorological towers, 

to either the individual land use 

planning process, or to the standard 

environmental compliance (i.e., NEPA) 

process. In addition, it emphasizes the 

voluntary nature of the Service’s 2003 

interim guidelines for minimizing the 

effects of wind turbines on avian species 

and reiterates that incorporation of the 

guidelines in BLM agency decisions was 

not mandatory (BLM 2008e). 

BLM State offices in Oregon and 

Idaho issued explicit guidance regarding 

siting of meteorological towers (IM OR2008-014 and ID-2009-006, respectively) 

which required siting restrictions for 

towers around leks such that potential 

adverse effects to sage-grouse are 

avoided or minimized. These IMs 

provided substantial regulatory 

protection for sage-grouse; however, 

both of these IMs expired on September 

30, 2009. We anticipate that they will be 

renewed in FY 2010, but that is an 

annual management decision by the 

respective State BLM offices, thus the 

long-term certainty that such measures 

will remain in place is unknown. 

The BLM is currently in the process 

of developing programmatic-level 

guidance for the development of solar 

and geothermal energy projects. A draft 

programmatic EIS for geothermal 

development is currently available 

(BLM and USFS 2008a, entire), and the 

draft programmatic EIS for solar energy 

is under development (BLM and DOE 

2008). We anticipate that solar and 

geothermal energy development will 

increase in the future (see discussion 

under energy in Factor A), and that the 

development of infrastructure 

associated with these projects could 

affect sage-grouse. Final environmental 

guidance for solar and geothermal 

energy development on BLM lands has 

not yet been issued or implemented; 

thus, we cannot assess its adequacy or 

implications for the conservation of 

sage-grouse. 

Summary: BLM 

The BLM manages the majority of 

greater sage-grouse habitats across the 

range of the species. The BLM has broad 

regulatory authority to plan and manage 

all land use activities on their lands 

including travel management, energy 

development, grazing, fire management, 

invasive species management, and a 

variety of other activities. As described 

in Factor A, all of these factors have the 

potential to affect sage-grouse, including 

direct effects to the species and its 

habitats. The ability of regulatory 

mechanisms to adequately address the 

effects associated with wildfire or 

invasive plant species such as Bromus 

tectorum is limited due primarily to the 

nature of those factors and how they 

manifest on the landscape. However, a 

regulatory mechanism that requires 

BLM staff to target the protection of key 

sage-grouse habitats during fire 

suppression or appropriate fuels 

management activities could help 

address the threat of wildfire in some 

situations. We recognize the use of IMs 

for this purpose, including both at the 

national and State level (Idaho) (BLM 

2008j and 2008k); however, a long-term 

mechanism is necessary given the scale 

of the wildfire threat and its likelihood 

to persist on the landscape in the 

foreseeable future. 

For other threats to sage-grouse on 

BLM lands, the BLM has the regulatory 

authority to address them in a manner 

that will provide protection for sagegrouse. However, BLM’s current 

application of those authorities in some 

areas falls short of meeting the 

conservation needs of the species. This 

is particularly evident in the regulation 

of oil, gas, and other energy 

development activities, both on BLMadministered lands and on split-estate 

lands. Stipulations commonly applied 

by BLM to oil and gas leases and 

permits do not adequately address the 

scope of negative influences of 

development on sage-grouse (Holloran 

2005, pp. 57-60, Walker 2007, pp. 2651; 

see discussion under Factor A), with the 

exception of the new 2010 IM issued by 

the BLM in Wyoming (see discussion 

below). In addition, BLM’s ability to 

waive, modify, and allow exceptions to 

those stipulations without regard to 

sage-grouse persistence further limits 

the adequacy of those regulatory 

mechanisms in alleviating the negative 

impacts to the species associated with 

energy development. 

For other threats, such as grazing, our 

ability to assess the application of 

existing regulatory mechanisms on a 

broad scale is limited by the way that 

BLM collected and summarized their 

data on rangeland health assessments 

and the implementation of corrective 

measures, where necessary. The land 

use planning and activity permitting 

processes, as well as other regulations 

available to BLM give them the 

authority to address the needs of sagegrouse. However, the extent to which 

they do so varies widely from RMP area 

to RMP area across the range of the 

species. In many areas existing 

mechanisms (or their implementation) 

on BLM lands and BLM-permitted 

actions do not adequately address the 

conservation needs of greater sagegrouse, and are exacerbating the effects 

of threats to the species described under 

Factor A. 

USDA Forest Service 

The USFS has management authority 

for 8 percent of the sagebrush area 

within the sage-grouse MZs (Table 3; 

Knick in press, p. 39). The USFS 

estimated that sage-grouse occupy about 

5.2 million ha (12.8 million ac) on 

national forest lands in the western 

United States (USFS 2008 Appendix 2, 

Table 1). Twenty-six of the 33 National 

Forests or Grasslands across the range of 

sage-grouse contain moderately or 

highly important seasonal habitat for 

sage-grouse (USFS 2008 Appendix 2, 

Table 2). Management of activities on 

national forest system lands is guided 

principally by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 

1600-1614, August 17, 1974, as 

amended 1976, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 

1985, 1988, and 1990). NFMA specifies 

that the USFS must have a land and 

resource management plan (LRMP) (16 

U.S.C. 1600) to guide and set standards 

for all natural resource management 

activities on each National Forest or 

National Grassland. All of the LRMPs 

that currently guide the management of 

sage-grouse habitats on USFS lands 

were developed using the 1982 

implementing regulations for land and 

resource management planning (1982 

Rule, 36 CFR 219). 

Greater sage-grouse is designated as 

sensitive species on USFS lands across 

the range of the species (USFS 2008, pp. 

25-26). Designated sensitive species 

require special consideration during 

land use planning and activity 

implementation to ensure the viability 

of the species on USFS lands and to 

preclude any population declines that 

could lead to a Federal listing (USFS 

2008, p. 21). Additionally, sensitive 

species designations require analysis for 

any activity that could have an adverse 

impact to the species, including analysis 

of the significance of any adverse 

impacts on the species, its habitat, and 

overall population viability (USFS 2008, 

p. 21). The specifics of how sensitive 

species status has conferred protection 

to sage-grouse on USFS lands varies 

significantly across the range, and is 

largely dependent on LRMPs and sitespecific project analysis and 

implementation. Fourteen forests 

identify greater sage-grouse as a 

Management Indicator Species (USFS 

2008, Appendix 2, Table 2), which 

requires them to establish objectives for 

the maintenance and improvement of 

habitat for the species during all 

planning processes, to the degree 

consistent with overall multiple use 

objectives of the alternative (1982 Rule, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

36 CFR 219.19(a)). Of the 33 National 

Forests that manage greater sage-grouse 

habitat, 16 do not specifically address 

sage-grouse management or 

conservation in their Forest Plans, and 

only 6 provide a high level of detail 

specific to sage-grouse management 

(USFS 2008, Appendix 2, Table 4). 

Almost all of the habitats that support 

sage-grouse on USFS lands also are 

open to livestock grazing (USFS 2008, p. 

39). Under the Range Rescissions Act of 

1995 (P.L. 104-19), the USFS must 

conduct a NEPA analysis to determine 

whether grazing should be authorized 

on an allotment, and what resource 

protection provisions should be 

included as part of the authorization 

(USFS 2008, p. 33). The USFS reports 

that they use the sage-grouse habitat 

guidelines developed in Connelly et al. 

(2000) to develop desired condition and 

livestock use standards at the project or 

allotment level. However, USFS also 

reported that the degree to which the 

recommended sage-grouse conservation 

and management guidelines were 

incorporated and implemented under 

Forest Plans varied widely across the 

range (USFS 2008, p. 45). We do not 

have the results of rangeland health 

assessments or other information 

regarding the status of USFS lands that 

provide habitat to sage-grouse and, 

therefore, cannot assess the efficacy in 

conserving this species. 

Energy development occurs on USFS 

lands, although to a lesser extent than 

on BLM lands. Through NFMA, LRMPs, 

and the On-Shore Oil and Gas Leasing 

Reform Act (1987; implementing 

regulations at 36 CFR 228, subpart E), 

the USFS has the authority to manage, 

restrict, or attach protective measures to 

mineral and other energy permits on 

USFS lands. Similar to BLM, existing 

protective standard stipulations on 

USFS lands include avoiding 

construction of new wells and facilities 

within 0.4 km (0.25 mi), and noise or 

activity disturbance within 3.2 km (2.0 

mi) of active sage-grouse leks during the 

breeding season. As described both in 

Factor A and above, this buffer is 

inadequate to prevent adverse impacts 

to sage-grouse populations. For most 

LRMPs where energy development is 

occurring, these stipulations also apply 

to hard mineral extraction, wind 

development, and other energy 

development activities in addition to 

fluid mineral extraction (USFS 2008, 

Appendix 1, entire). The USFS is a 

partner agency with the BLM on the 

draft programmatic EIS for geothermal 

energy development described above. 

The Record of Decision for the EIS does 

not amend relevant LRMPs and still 

requires project-specific NEPA analysis 

of geothermal energy applications on 

USFS lands (BLM and USFS 2008b, p. 

3). 

The land use planning process and 

other regulations available to the USFS 

give it the authority to adequately 

address the needs of sage-grouse, 

although the extent to which they do so 

varies widely across the range of the 

species. We do not have information 

regarding the current land health status 

of USFS lands in relation to the 

conservation needs of greater sagegrouse; thus, we cannot assess whether 

existing conditions adequately meet the 

species’ habitat needs. 

Other Federal Agencies 

Other Federal agencies in the DOD, 

DOE, and DOI (including the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, the Service, and National 

Park Service) are responsible for 

managing less than 5 percent of 

sagebrush lands within the United 

States (Knick 2008, p. 31). Regulatory 

authorities and mechanisms relevant to 

these agencies’ management 

jurisdictions include the National Park 

Service Organic Act (39 Stat. 535; 16 

U.S.C. 1, 2, 3 and 4), the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the 

Department of the Army’s Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plans 

for their facilities within sage-grouse 

habitats. Due to the limited amount of 

land administered by these agencies, we 

have not described them in detail here. 

However, most of these agencies do not 

manage specifically for greater sagegrouse on their lands, except in 

localized areas (e.g., specific wildlife 

refuges, reservations). One exception is 

DOD regulatory mechanisms applicable 

within MZ VI, where half of the 

remaining sage-grouse populations and 

habitats occur on their lands. 

The Yakima Training Center (YTC), a 

U.S. Army facility, manages land in 

Washington that is the primary habitat 

for one of two populations of greater 

sage-grouse in that State. During the 

breeding season, the YTC has 

restrictions on training activities for the 

protection of sage-grouse. Leks have a 1- 

km (0.6-mi) buffer where all training is 

excluded, and aircraft below 91.4 m 

(300 ft) are restricted from midnight to 

9 am from March 1 to May 15 (Stinson 

et al. 2004, p. 32). Sage-grouse 

protection areas also are identified, and 

training activities are restricted in those 

areas during nesting and early brood 

rearing periods (Stinson et al. 2004, p. 

32). Other protections also are provided. 

According to Stinson et al. (2004, p. 32), 

the ‘‘YTC is the only area in Washington 

where sage-grouse are officially 

protected from disturbance during the 

breeding and brood-rearing period.’’ 

However, the biggest concern for sagegrouse on the YTC is wildfire, both 

natural and human-caused (Schroeder 

2009, pers. comm.). Military training 

activities occur across the YTC 

throughout the year, including when 

there is high fire risk, and many fires are 

started every year (Schroeder 2009, pers. 

comm.). Although the YTC has an active 

fire response program, there are some 

fires most years that grow large, and 

habitat is being burned faster than it can 

be replaced (Schroeder 2009, pers. 

comm.). The protective stipulations to 

reduce disturbance to greater sagegrouse are useful; however, current 

management, training activities, and fire 

response, are resulting in habitat loss for 

the species on the YTC. 

The USDA Farm Service Agency 

manages the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) which pays landowners 

a rental fee to plant permanent 

vegetation on portions of their lands, 

taking them out of agricultural 

production (Schroeder and Vander 

Haegen in press, p. 4-5). These lands are 

put under contract, typically for a 10– 

year period (Walker 2009, pers. comm.). 

In some areas across the range of sagegrouse, and particularly in Washington 

(Schroeder and Vander Haegen in press, 

p. 21), CRP lands provide important 

habitat for the species (see Factor A 

discussion). Under the 2008 Farm Bill, 

several changes could reduce the 

protection that CRP lands afford sagegrouse. First, the total acreage that can 

be enrolled in the CRP program at any 

time has been reduced from 15.9 million 

ha (39.2 million ac) to 12.9 million ha 

(32 million ac) for 2010-2012 (USDA 

2009a, p. 1). Second, no more than 25 

percent of the agricultural lands in any 

county can now be enrolled under CRP 

contracts, although there are provisions 

to avoid this cap if permission is 

granted by the County government 

(Walker 2009, pers. comm.). Third, the 

2008 Farm Bill authorized the BCAP, 

which provides financial assistance to 

agricultural producers to establish and 

produce eligible crops for the 

conversion to bioenergy products 

(USDA 2009b, p. 1). As CRP contracts 

expire, the BCAP program could result 

in greater incentives to take land out of 

CRP and put it into production for 

biofuels (Walker 2009, pers. comm.). All 

of these changes could affect the amount 

of land in CRP, and in turn the habitat 

value provided to greater sage-grouse. 

This change is of particular importance 

in Washington, where CRP lands have 

been out of production long enough to 

provide habitat for sage-grouse. 

Although the 2008 Farm Bill has been 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13981 

signed into law, the implementing 

regulations and rules have not yet been 

finalized. Thus, we cannot assess how 

the measures described above will be 

implemented, and to what extent they 

may change the quantity or quality of 

CRP land available for sage-grouse. 

Canadian Federal and Provincial Laws 

and Regulations 

Greater sage-grouse are federally 

protected in Canada as an endangered 

species under schedule 1 of the Species 

at Risk Act (SARA; Canada Gazette, Part 

III, Chapter 29, Volume 25, No. 3, 2002). 

Passed in 2002, SARA is similar to the 

ESA and allows for habitat regulations 

to protect sage-grouse (Aldridge and 

Brigham 2003, p. 31). The species is also 

listed as endangered at the provincial 

level in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and 

neither province allows harvest 

(Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 31). In 

Saskatchewan, sage-grouse are protected 

under the Wildlife Habitat Protection 

Act, which protects sage-grouse habitat 

from being sold or cultivated (Aldridge 

and Brigham 2003, p. 32). In addition, 

sage-grouse are listed as endangered 

under the Saskatchewan Wildlife Act, 

which restricts development within 500 

m (1,640 ft) of leks and prohibits 

construction within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of 

leks between March 15 and May 15 

(Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 32). As 

stated above, these buffers are 

inadequate to protect sage-grouse from 

disturbance. In Alberta, individual birds 

are protected, but their habitat is not 

(Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 32). 

Thus, although there are some 

protections for the species in Canada, 

they are not sufficient to assure 

conservation of the species. 

Nonregulatory Conservation Measures 

There are many non-regulatory 

conservation measures that may provide 

local habitat protections. Although they 

are non-regulatory in nature, they are 

here to acknowledge these programs. 

We have reviewed and taken into 

account efforts being made to protect 

the species, as required by the Act. 

Although some local conservation 

efforts have been implemented and are 

effective in small areas, they are neither 

individually nor collectively at a scale 

that is sufficient to ameliorate threats to 

the species or populations. Many other 

conservation efforts are being planned 

but there is substantial uncertainty as to 

whether, where, and when they will be 

implemented, and whether they will be 

effective; further, even if the efforts 

being planned or considered become 

implemented and are effective in the 

future, they are not a scale, either 

individually or collectively, to be 

sufficient to ameliorate the threats to the 

species. 

Other partnerships and agencies have 

also implemented broader-scale 

conservation efforts. Cooperative Weed 

Management Areas (CWMAs) provide a 

voluntary approach to control invasive 

species across the range of sage-grouse. 

CWMAs are partnerships between 

Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, 

individuals, and interested groups to 

manage both species designated by State 

agencies as noxious weeds, and invasive 

plants in a county or multi-county 

geographical area. As of 2005, Oregon, 

Nevada, Utah, and Colorado had 

between 75 and 89 percent of their 

States covered by CWMAs or county 

weed districts, while Washington, 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming had 

between 90 and 100 percent coverage. 

Coverage in North Dakota is between 50 

and 74 percent, and South Dakota has 

less than 25 percent coverage (Center for 

Invasive Plant Management 2008). 

Because these CWMAs are voluntary 

partnerships we cannot be assured that 

they will be implemented nor can we 

predict their effectiveness. 

The Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) of the USDA provides 

farmers, ranchers, and other private 

landowners with technical assistance 

and financial resources to support 

various management and habitat 

restoration efforts. This includes 

helping farmers and ranchers maintain 

and improve wildlife habitat as part of 

larger management efforts, and 

developing technical information to 

assist NRCS field staff with sage-grouse 

considerations when working with 

private landowners. Because of the 

variable nature of the actions that can be 

taken and the species they may address, 

some may benefit greater sage-grouse, 

some may cause negative impacts (e.g., 

because they are aimed at creating 

habitat conditions for other species that 

are inconsistent with the needs of sagegrouse), or are neutral in their effects. In 

May 2008, Congress passed the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(2008 Farm Bill, P.L. 110-246). The 

Farm Bill maintains or extends various 

technical and funding support programs 

for landowners. All conservation 

programs under the Farm Bill are 

voluntary, unless binding contracts for 

conservation planning or restoration are 

completed. 

In 2006, WAFWA published the 

‘‘Greater Sage-Grouse Comprehensive 

Conservation Strategy’’ (Conservation 

Strategy; Stiver et al. 2006). This 

document describes a range-wide 

framework to ‘‘maintain and enhance 

populations and distribution of sagegrouse’’ (Stiver et al. 2006, p. ES-1). 

Although this framework is important to 

guiding successful long-term 

conservation efforts and management of 

the greater sage-grouse and its habitats, 

by design the WAFWA Conservation 

Strategy is not regulatory in nature. 

Implementation of recommendations in 

the Strategy by each signatory to the 

associated MOU is voluntary and few, if 

any of the conservation 

recommendations have been 

implemented. Given the lack of funding 

for this effort, we do not have the 

assurances that implementation will 

occur. However, this is the most 

comprehensive inter-agency strategy 

developed for this species and therefore, 

if the principles identified are properly 

implemented it could have significant 

positive impacts. 

All of the States in the extant range of 

the greater sage-grouse have finalized 

conservation or management plans for 

the species and its habitats. These plans 

focus on habitat and population 

concerns at a State level. The degree to 

which they consider and address 

mitigation for a variety of threats varies 

substantially. For example, some plans 

propose explicit strategies for minerals 

and energy issues (e.g., Montana) or 

wind energy development (e.g., 

Washington), and others more generally 

acknowledge potential issues with 

energy development but do not identify 

specific conservation measures (e.g., 

Nevada) (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 2-24). 

These plans are in various stages of 

implementation. The State level plans 

are not prescriptive, and generally 

contain information to help guide the 

development and implementation of 

more focused conservation efforts and 

planning at a local level. We recognize 

the importance of these plans and 

coordination efforts, but at this time 

cannot rely on them being effectively 

implemented. Specific measures 

recommended in a State plan that have 

been adopted into legal or regulatory 

frameworks (e.g., a resource 

management plan), are assessed as 

regulatory mechanisms in the 

discussion under Factor D. 

The WDFW has designated sagegrouse habitat as a ‘‘priority habitat’’ 

which classifies it as a priority for 

conservation and management, and 

provides species and habitat 

information to interested parties for 

land use planning purposes (Schroeder 

et al. 2003, pp. 17-4 to 17-6, Stinson et 

al. 2004, p. 31). However, the 

recommendations provided under this 

program are guidelines, and we cannot 

be assured they will be implemented. 

Similarly, programs like Utah’s 

Watersheds Restoration Initiative are 

partnership driven efforts intended to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13982 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

conserve, manage, and restore habitats. 

We recognize projects and cooperative 

efforts that are beneficial for sage-grouse 

may occur as a result of this program. 

Summary of Nonregulatory 

Conservation Efforts 

There are several non-regulatory 

conservation efforts that address 

impacts to the sage-grouse, mostly at a 

local scale (e.g. local working group 

plans, CCAA). Their voluntary nature is 

appreciated, but their implementation 

and effectiveness may be compromised 

as a result. We are encouraged by the 

number and scale of these efforts, but 

lacking data on exact locations, scale, 

and effectiveness, we do not know if 

threats to the greater sage-grouse will be 

ameliorated as a result. We strongly 

encourage implementation of the 

WAFWA Conservation Strategy as we 

believe its implementation could be 

effective in reducing threats to this 

species. 

Summary of Factor D 

To our knowledge, no current local 

land use or development planning 

regulations provide adequate protection 

to sage-grouse from development or 

other harmful land uses. Development 

and fragmentation of private lands is a 

threat to greater sage-grouse (see 

discussion under Factor A), and current 

local regulations do not adequately 

address this threat. 

Wyoming and Colorado have 

implemented State regulations regarding 

energy development that could provide 

significant protection for greater sagegrouse. In Wyoming, regulations 

regarding new energy development have 

the potential to provide adequate 

protection to greater sage-grouse by 

protecting core areas of the species’ 

habitat. BLM Wyoming has adopted 

Wyoming’s approach for projects under 

their authorities through a short-term 

IM. However, the restrictive regulations 

do not apply to existing leases, or to 

habitats outside of core areas. Thus, 

sage-grouse may continue to experience 

population-level impacts associated 

with activities (e.g., energy 

development) in Wyoming (see 

discussion under Factor A) both inside 

and outside core areas. In Colorado, the 

regulations describe a required process 

rather than a specific measure that can 

be evaluated; the regulations are only 

recently in place and their 

implementation and effectiveness 

remains to be seen. 

The majority of sage-grouse habitat in 

the United States is managed by Federal 

agencies (Table 3). The BLM and USFS 

have the legal authority to regulate land 

use activities on their respective lands. 

Under Factor A, we describe the ways 

that oil, natural gas, and other energy 

development activities, fire, invasive 

species, grazing, and human disturbance 

are or may be adversely affecting sagegrouse populations and habitat. Overall, 

Federal agencies’ abilities to adequately 

address the issues of wildfire and 

invasive species across the landscape, 

and particularly in the Great Basin, are 

limited. However, we believe that new 

mechanisms could be adopted to target 

the protection of sage-grouse habitats 

during wildfire suppression activities or 

fuels management projects, which could 

help reduce this threat in some 

situations. There is limited opportunity 

to implement and apply new regulatory 

mechanisms that would provide 

adequate protections or amelioration for 

the threat of invasive species. For 

grazing, the regulatory mechanisms 

available to the BLM and USFS are 

adequate to protect sage-grouse habitats; 

however, the application of these 

mechanisms varies widely across the 

landscape. In some areas, rangelands are 

not meeting the habitat standards 

necessary for sage-grouse, and that 

contributes to threats to the species. 

Our assessment of the implementation 

of regulations and associated 

stipulations guiding energy 

development indicates that current 

measures do not adequately ameliorate 

impacts to sage-grouse. Energy and 

associated infrastructure development, 

including both nonrenewable and 

renewable energy resources, are 

expected to continue to expand in the 

foreseeable future. Unless protective 

measures consistent with new research 

findings are widely implemented via a 

regulatory process, those measures 

cannot be considered an adequate 

regulatory mechanism in the context of 

our review. For the BLM and USFS, 

RMPs and LRMPs are mechanisms 

through which adequate protections for 

greater sage-grouse could be 

implemented. However, the extent to 

which appropriate measures to conserve 

sage-grouse have been incorporated into 

those planning documents, or are being 

implemented, varies across the range. 

As evidenced by the discussion above, 

and the ongoing threats described under 

Factor A, BLM and the USFS are not 

fully implementing the regulatory 

mechanisms available to conserve 

greater sage-grouse on their lands. 

Based on our review of the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, we conclude that existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to protect the species. The absence of 

adequate regulatory mechanisms is a 

significant threat to the species, now 

and in the foreseeable future. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ 

Continued Existence 

Pesticides 

Few studies have examined the effects 

of pesticides to sage-grouse, but at least 

two have documented direct mortality 

of greater sage-grouse from use of these 

chemicals. Greater sage-grouse died as a 

result of ingestion of alfalfa sprayed 

with organophosphorus insecticides 

(Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Blus and 

Connelly 1998, p. 23). In this case, a 

field of alfalfa was sprayed with 

methamidophos and dimethoate when 

approximately 200 sage-grouse were 

present; 63 of these sage-grouse were 

later found dead, presumably as a result 

of pesticide exposure (Blus et al. 1989; 

p. 1142, Blus and Connelly 1998, p. 23). 

Both methamidophos and dimethoate 

remain registered for use in the United 

States (Christiansen and Tate in press, 

p. 21), but we found no further records 

of sage-grouse mortalities from their use. 

In 1950, Rangelands treated with 

toxaphene and chlordane bait in 

Wyoming to control grasshoppers 

resulted in game bird mortality of 23.4 

percent (Christian and Tate in press, p. 

20). Forty-five sage-grouse deaths were 

recorded, 11 of which were most likely 

related to the pesticide (Christiansen 

and Tate in press, p. 20, and references 

therein). Sage-grouse who succumbed to 

vehicle collisions and mowing 

machines in the same area also were 

likely compromised from pesticide 

ingestion (Christian and Tate in press, p. 

20). Neither of these chemicals has been 

registered for grasshopper control since 

the early 1980s (Christiansen and Tate 

in press, p. 20, and references therein). 

Game birds that ingested sub-lethal 

levels of pesticides have been observed 

exhibiting abnormal behavior that may 

lead to a greater risk of predation 

(Dahlen and Haugen 1954, p. 477; 

McEwen and Brown 1966, p. 609; Blus 

et al. 1989, p. 1141). McEwen and 

Brown (1966, p. 689) reported that wild 

sharp-tailed grouse poisoned by 

malathion and dieldrin exhibited 

depression, dullness, slowed reactions, 

irregular flight, and uncoordinated 

walking. Although no research has 

explicitly studied the indirect levels of 

mortality from sub-lethal doses of 

pesticides (e.g., predation of impaired 

birds), it has been assumed to be the 

reason for mortality among some study 

birds (McEwen and Brown 1966 p. 609; 

Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Connelly and 

Blus 1991, p. 4). Both Post (1951, p. 383) 

and Blus et al. (1989, p. 1142) located 

depredated sage-grouse carcasses in 

areas that had been treated with 

insecticides. Exposure to these 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13983 

insecticides may have predisposed sagegrouse to predation. Sage-grouse 

mortalities also were documented in a 

study where they were exposed to 

strychnine bait type used to control 

small mammals (Ward et al. 1942 as 

cited in Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). 

Cropland spraying may affect 

populations that are not adjacent to 

agricultural areas, given the distances 

traveled by females with broods from 

nesting areas to late brood-rearing areas 

(Knick et al. in press, p. 17). The actual 

footprint of this effect cannot be 

estimated, because the distances 

traveled to get to irrigated and sprayed 

fields is unknown (Knick et al. in press, 

p. 17). Similarly, actual mortalities from 

pesticides may be underestimated if 

sage-grouse disperse from agricultural 

areas after exposure. 

Much of the research related to 

pesticides that had either lethal or sublethal effects on greater sage-grouse was 

conducted on pesticides that have been 

banned or have their use further 

restricted for more than 20 years due to 

their toxic effects on the environment 

(e.g., dieldrin). We currently do not 

have any information to show that the 

banned pesticides are presently having 

negative impacts to sage-grouse 

populations through either illegal use or 

residues in the environment. For 

example, sage-grouse mortalities were 

documented in a study where they were 

exposed to strychnine bait used to 

control small mammals (Ward et al. 

1942 as cited in Schroeder et al. 1999, 

p. 16). According to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), above-ground uses of strychnine 

were prohibited in 1988 and those uses 

remain temporarily cancelled today. We 

do not know when, or if, above ground 

uses will be permitted to resume. 

Currently strychnine is registered for 

use only below-ground as a bait 

application to control pocket gophers 

(Thomomys sp.; EPA 1996, p. 4). 

Therefore, the current legal use of 

strychnine baits is unlikely to present a 

significant exposure risk to sage-grouse. 

No information on illegal use, if it 

occurs, is available. We have no other 

information regarding mortalities or 

sublethal effects of strychnine or other 

banned pesticides on sage-grouse. 

Although a reduction in insect 

population levels resulting from 

insecticide application can potentially 

affect nesting sage-grouse females and 

chicks (Willis et al. 1993, p. 40; 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16), we have 

no information as to whether 

insecticides are impacting survivorship 

or productivity of the greater sagegrouse. Eng (1952, pp. 332,334) noted 

that after a pesticide was sprayed to 

reduce grasshoppers, songbird and 

corvid nestling deaths ranged from 50 to 

100 percent depending on the chemical 

used, and stated it appeared that 

nestling development was adversely 

affected due to the reduction in 

grasshoppers. Potts (1986 as cited in 

Connelly and Blus 1991, p. 93) 

determined that reduced food supply 

resulting from the use of pesticides 

ultimately resulted in high starvation 

rates of partridge chicks (Perdix perdix). 

In a similar study on partridges, Rands 

(1985, pp. 51-53) found that pesticide 

application adversely affected brood 

size and chick survival by reducing 

chick food supplies. 

Three approved insecticides, carbaryl, 

diflubenzuron, and malathion, are 

currently available for application 

across the extant range of sage-grouse as 

part of implementation of the Rangeland 

Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket 

Suppression Control Program, under the 

direction of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

(APHIS 2004, entire). Carbaryl is 

applied as bait, while diflubenzuron 

and malathion are sprayed. APHIS 

requires that application rates be in 

compliance with EPA regulations, and 

APHIS has general guidelines for buffer 

zones around sensitive species habitats. 

These pesticides are only applied for 

grasshopper and Mormon cricket 

(Anabrus simplex) control when 

requested by private landowners 

(APHIS 2004). Due to delays in 

developing nationwide protocols for 

application procedures, APHIS did not 

perform any grasshopper or Mormon 

cricket suppression activities in 2006, 

2007, or 2008 (Gentle 2008, pers. 

comm.). However, due to an anticipated 

peak year of these pests in 2010, plans 

for suppression are already in progress. 

In the Rangeland Grasshopper and 

Mormon Cricket Suppression Program 

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement—2002 (p.10), APHIS 

concluded that there ‘‘is little likelihood 

that the insecticide APHIS would use to 

suppress grasshoppers would be 

directly or indirectly toxic to sagegrouse. Treatments would typically not 

reduce the number of grasshoppers 

below levels that are present in nonoutbreak years.’’ APHIS (2002, p. 69) 

stated that although ‘‘malathion is also 

an organophosphorus insecticide and 

carbaryl is a carbamate insecticide, 

malathion and carbaryl are much less 

toxic to birds’’ than other insecticides 

associated with effects to sage-grouse or 

other wildlife. The APHIS risk 

assessment (pp. 122-184) for this EIS 

determined that the grasshopper 

treatments would not directly affect 

sage-grouse. As to potential effects on 

prey abundance, APHIS noted that 

during ‘‘grasshopper outbreaks when 

grasshopper densities can be 60 or more 

per square meter (Norelius and 

Lockwood, 1999), grasshopper 

treatments that have a 90 to 95 percent 

mortality still leave a density of 

grasshoppers (3 to 6) that is generally 

greater than the average density found 

on rangeland, such as in Wyoming, in 

a normal year (Schell and Lockwood, 

1997).’’ 

Herbicide applications can kill 

sagebrush and forbs important as food 

sources for sage-grouse (Carr 1968 as 

cited in Call and Maser 1985, p. 14). The 

greatest impact resulting from a 

reduction of either forbs or insect 

populations is for nesting females and 

chicks due to the loss of potential 

protein sources that are critical for 

successful egg production and chick 

nutrition (Johnson and Boyce 1991, p. 

90; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). A 

comparison of applied levels of 

herbicides with toxicity studies of 

grouse, chickens, and other gamebirds 

(Carr 1968, as cited in Call and Maser 

1985, p. 15) concluded that herbicides 

applied at recommended rates should 

not result in sage-grouse poisonings. 

In summary, pesticides can result in 

direct mortality of individuals, and also 

can reduce the availability of food 

sources, which in turn could contribute 

to mortality of sage-grouse. Despite the 

potential effects of pesticides, we could 

find no information to indicate that the 

use of these chemicals, at current levels, 

negatively affects greater sage-grouse 

population numbers. Schroeder et al.’s 

(1999, p.16) literature review found that 

the loss of insects can have significant 

impacts on nesting females and chicks, 

but those impacts were not detailed. 

Many of the pesticides that have been 

shown to have an effect on sage-grouse 

have been banned in the United States 

for more than 20 years. As previously 

noted, we currently do not have any 

information to show that the banned 

pesticides through either illegal use or 

residues in the environment are 

presently having negative impacts to 

sage-grouse populations. 

Contaminants 

Greater sage-grouse exposure to 

various types of environmental 

contaminants may potentially occur as a 

result of agricultural and rangeland 

management practices, mining, energy 

development and pipeline operations, 

nuclear energy production and research, 

and transportation of materials along 

highways and railroads. 

A single greater sage-grouse was 

found covered with oil and dead in a 

wastewater pit associated with an oil 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13984 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

field development in 2006; the site was 

in violation of legal requirements for 

screening the pit (Domenici 2008, pers. 

comm.). To the extent that this source 

of mortality occurs, it would be most 

likely in MZ I and II, as those zones are 

where most of the oil and gas 

development occurs in relation to 

occupied sage-grouse habitat. The extent 

to which such mortality to greater sagegrouse is occurring is extremely difficult 

to quantify due to difficulties in 

retrieving and identifying oiled birds 

and lack of monitoring. We expect that 

the number of sage-grouse occurring in 

the immediate vicinity of such 

wastewater pits would be small due to 

the typically intense human activity in 

these areas, the lack of cover around the 

pits, and the fact that sage-grouse do not 

require free water. Most bird mortalities 

recorded in association with wastewater 

pits are water-dependent species (e.g., 

waterfowl), whereas dead grounddwelling birds (such as the greater sagegrouse) are rarely found at such sites 

(Domenici 2008, pers. comm.). 

However, if the wastewater pits are not 

appropriately screened, sage-grouse may 

have access to them and could ingest 

water and/or become oiled while 

pursing insects. If these birds then 

return to sagebrush cover and die their 

carcasses are unlikely to be found as 

only the pits are surveyed. The effects 

of areal pollutants resulting from oil and 

gas development on greater sage-grouse 

are discussed under the energy 

development section in Factor A. 

Numerous gas and oil pipelines occur 

within the occupied range of several 

populations of the species. Exposure to 

oil or gas from pipeline spills or leaks 

could cause mortalities or morbidity to 

greater sage-grouse. Similarly, given the 

extensive network of highways and 

railroad lines that occur throughout the 

range of the greater sage-grouse, there is 

some potential for exposure to 

contaminants resulting from spills or 

leaks of hazardous materials being 

conveyed along these transportation 

corridors. We found no documented 

occurrences of impacts to greater sagegrouse from such spills, and we do not 

expect they are a significant source of 

mortality because these types of spills 

occur infrequently and involve only a 

small area that might be within the 

occupied range of the species. 

Exposure of sage-grouse to 

radionuclides (radioactive atoms) has 

been documented at the DOE’s Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory in 

eastern Idaho. Although radionuclides 

were present in greater sage-grouse at 

this site, there were no apparent 

harmful effects to the population 

(Connelly and Markham 1983, pp. 175- 

176). There is one site in the range 

formerly occupied by the species 

(Nuclear Energy Institute 2004), and 

construction is scheduled to begin on a 

new nuclear power plant facility in 

2009 in Elmore County, Idaho, near 

Boise (Nuclear Energy Institute 2008) in 

MZ IV. At this new facility and any 

other future facilities developed for 

nuclear power, if all provisions 

regulating nuclear energy development 

are followed, it is unlikely that there 

will be impacts to sage-grouse as a result 

of radionuclides or any other nuclear 

products. 

Recreational Activities 

Boyle and Samson (1985, pp. 110-112) 

determined that non-consumptive 

recreational activities can degrade 

wildlife resources, water, and the land 

by distributing refuse, disturbing and 

displacing wildlife, increasing animal 

mortality, and simplifying plant 

communities. Sage-grouse response to 

disturbance may be influenced by the 

type of activity, recreationist behavior, 

predictability of activity, frequency and 

magnitude, activity timing, and activity 

location (Knight and Cole 1995, p. 71). 

Examples of recreational activities in 

sage-grouse habitats include hiking, 

camping, pets, and off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) use. We have not located any 

published literature concerning 

measured direct effects of recreational 

activities on greater sage-grouse, but can 

infer potential impacts from studies on 

related species and from research on 

non-recreational activities. Baydack and 

Hein (1987, p. 537) reported 

displacement of male sharp-tailed 

grouse at leks from human presence, 

resulting in loss of reproductive 

opportunity during the disturbance 

period. Female sharp-tailed grouse were 

observed at undisturbed leks while 

absent from disturbed leks during the 

same time period (Baydack and Hein 

1987, p. 537). Disturbance of incubating 

female sage-grouse could cause 

displacement from nests, increased 

predator risk, or loss of nests. However, 

disruption of sage-grouse during 

vulnerable periods at leks, or during 

nesting or early brood rearing could 

affect reproduction or survival (Baydack 

and Hein 1987, pp. 537-538). 

Sage-grouse avoidance of activities 

associated with energy field 

development (e.g., Holloran 2005, pp. 

43, 53, 58; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 194) 

suggests these birds are likely disturbed 

by any persistent human presence. 

Additionally, Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 

988) reported that the density of 

humans in 1950 was the best predictor 

of extirpation of greater sage-grouse. The 

authors also determined that sagegrouse have been extirpated in virtually 

all counties reaching a human 

population density of 25 people/km2

(65people/mi2) by 1950. However, their 

analyses considered all impacts of 

human presence and did not separate 

recreational activities from other 

associated activities and infrastructure. 

The presence of pets in proximity to 

sage-grouse can result in sage-grouse 

mortality or disturbance, and increases 

in garbage from human recreationists 

can attract sage-grouse predators and 

help maintain their numbers at 

increased levels (cite). Leu et al. (2008, 

p. 1133) reported that slight increases in 

human densities in ecosystems with low 

biological productivity (such as 

sagebrush) may have a disproportionally 

negative impact on these ecosystems 

due to the potentially reduced resiliency 

to anthropogenic disturbance. 

Indirect effects to sage-grouse from 

recreational activities include impacts 

to vegetation and soils, and facilitating 

the spread of invasive species. Payne et 

al. (1983, p. 329) studied off-road 

vehicle impacts to rangelands in 

Montana, and found long-term (2 years) 

reductions in sagebrush shrub canopy 

cover as the result of repeated trips in 

the area. Increased sediment production 

and decreased soil infiltration rates 

were observed after disturbance by 

motorcycles and four-wheel drive trucks 

on two desert soils in southern Nevada 

(Eckert et al. 1979, p. 395), and noise 

from these activities can cause 

disturbance (Knick et al. in press, p.24). 

Recreational use of OHVs is one of the 

fastest-growing outdoor activities. In the 

western United States, greater than 27 

percent of the human population used 

OHVs for recreational activities between 

1999 and 2004 (Knick et al., in press, p. 

19). Off-highway vehicle use was a 

primary factor listed for 13 percent of 

species either listed under the Act or 

proposed for listing (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 24). Knick et al. (in press, p. 

1) reported that widespread motorized 

access for recreation subsidized 

predators adapted to humans and 

facilitated the spread of invasive plants. 

Any high-frequency human activity 

along established corridors can affect 

wildlife through habitat loss and 

fragmentation (Knick et al. in press, p. 

25). The effects of OHV use on 

sagebrush and sage-grouse have not 

been directly studied (Knick et al. in 

press, p. 25). However, a review of local 

sage-grouse conservation plans 

indicated that local working groups 

considered off-road vehicle use to be a 

risk factor in many areas. 

We are unaware of scientific reports 

documenting direct mortality of greater 

sage-grouse through collision with offVerDate Nov<24>2008 16:54 Mar 22, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23MRP3.SGM 23MRP3

jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13985 

road vehicles. Similarly, we did not 

locate any scientific information 

documenting instances where snow 

compaction as a result of snowmobile 

use precluded greater sage-grouse use, 

or affected their survival in wintering 

areas. Off-road vehicle or snowmobile 

use in winter areas may increase stress 

on birds and displace sage-grouse to less 

optimal habitats. However, there is no 

empirical evidence available 

documenting these effects on sagegrouse, nor could we find any scientific 

data supporting the possibility that 

stress from vehicles during winter is 

limiting greater sage-grouse populations. 

Given the continuing influx of people 

into the western United States (see 

discussion under Urbanization, Factor 

A; Leu and Hanser, in press, p. 4), 

which is contributed to in part by access 

to recreational opportunities on public 

lands, we anticipate effects from 

recreational activity will continue to 

increase. The foreseeable future for this 

effect spans for greater than 100 years, 

as we do not anticipate the desire for 

outdoor recreational activities will 

diminish. 

Life History Traits Affecting Population 

Viability 

Sage-grouse have comparatively low 

reproductive rates and high annual 

survival (Schroeder et al. 1999 pp. 11, 

14; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 969-970), 

resulting in slower potential or intrinsic 

population growth rates than is typical 

of other game birds. Therefore, recovery 

of populations after a decline may 

require years. Also, as a consequence of 

their site fidelity to breeding and broodrearing habitats (Lyon and Anderson 

2003, p. 489), measurable population 

effects may lag behind negative habitat 

impacts (Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 

666). While these natural history 

characteristics would not limit sagegrouse populations across large 

geographic scales under historical 

conditions of extensive habitat, they 

may contribute to local population 

declines when humans alter habitats or 

mortality rates. 

Sage-grouse have one of the most 

polygamous mating systems observed 

among birds (Deibert 1995, p. 92). 

Asymmetrical mate selection (where 

only a few of the available members of 

one sex are selected as mates) should 

result in reduced effective population 

sizes (Deibert 1995, p. 92), meaning the 

actual amount of genetic material 

contributed to the next generation is 

smaller than predicted by the number of 

individuals present in the population. 

With only 10 to 15 percent of sagegrouse males breeding each year 

(Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30), the 

genetic diversity of sage-grouse would 

be predicted to be low. However, in a 

recent survey of 16 greater sage-grouse 

populations, only the Columbia Basin 

population in Washington showed low 

genetic diversity, likely as a result of 

long-term population declines, habitat 

fragmentation, and population isolation 

(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; OylerMcCance et al. 2005, p. 1307). The level 

of genetic diversity in the remaining 

range of sage-grouse has generated a 

great deal of interest in the field of 

behavioral ecology, specifically sexual 

selection (Boyce 1990, p. 263; Deibert 

1995, p. 92-93). There is some evidence 

of off-lek copulations by subordinate 

males, as well as multiple paternity 

within one clutch (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 8-2; Bush 2009, p. 108). Dispersal also 

may contribute to genetic diversity, but 

little is known about dispersal in sagegrouse (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-5). 

However, the lek breeding system 

suggests that population sizes in sagegrouse must be greater than in nonlekking bird species to maintain longterm genetic diversity. 

Aldridge and Brigham (2003, p. 30) 

estimated that up to 5,000 individual 

sage-grouse may be necessary to 

maintain an effective population size of 

500 birds. Their estimate was based on 

individual male breeding success, 

variation in reproductive success of 

males that do breed, and the death rate 

of juvenile birds. We were unable to 

find any other published estimates of 

minimal population sizes necessary to 

maintain genetic diversity and longterm population sustainability in sagegrouse. However, the minimum viable 

population size necessary to sustain the 

evolutionary potential of a species 

(retention of sufficient genetic material 

to avoid the effect of inbreeding 

depression or deleterious mutations) has 

been estimated as high as an adult 

population of 5,000 individuals (Traill 

et al. 2010, p. 32). Many sage-grouse 

populations have already been 

estimated at well below that value (see 

Garton et al. in press and discussions 

under Factor A), suggesting their 

evolutionary potential (ability to persist 

long-term) has already been 

compromised if that value is correct. 

Drought 

Drought is a common occurrence 

throughout the range of the greater sagegrouse (Braun 1998, p. 148) and is 

considered a universal ecological driver 

across the Great Plains (Knopf 1996, 

p.147). Infrequent, severe drought may 

cause local extinctions of annual forbs 

and grasses that have invaded stands of 

perennial species, and recolonization of 

these areas by native species may be 

slow (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, p. 

263). Drought reduces vegetation cover 

(Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7-18), potentially resulting in 

increased soil erosion and subsequent 

reduced soil depths, decreased water 

infiltration, and reduced water storage 

capacity. Drought also can exacerbate 

other natural events such as defoliation 

of sagebrush by insects. For example, 

approximately 2,544 km2 (982 mi2) of 

sagebrush shrublands died in Utah in 

2003 as a result of drought and 

infestations with the Aroga (webworm) 

moth (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-11). 

Sage-grouse are affected by drought 

through the loss of vegetative habitat 

components, reduced insect production 

(Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 9), and 

potentially exacerbation of WNv 

infections as described in Factor C 

above. These habitat component losses 

can result in declining sage-grouse 

populations due to increased nest 

predation and early brood mortality 

associated with decreased nest cover 

and food availability (Braun 1998, p. 

149; Moynahan 2007, p. 1781). 

Sage-grouse populations declined 

during the 1930s period of drought 

(Patterson 1952, p. 68; Braun 1998, p. 

148). Drought conditions in the late 

1980s and early 1990s also coincided 

with a period when sage-grouse 

populations were at historically low 

levels (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 8). 

From 1985 through 1995, the entire 

range of sage-grouse experienced severe 

drought (as defined by the Palmer 

Drought Severity Index) with the 

exceptions of north-central Colorado 

(MZ II) and southern Nevada (MZ III). 

During this time period drought was 

particularly prevalent in southwestern 

Wyoming, Idaho, central Washington 

and Oregon, and northwest Nevada 

(University of Nebraska 2008). 

Abnormally dry to severe drought 

conditions still persist in Nevada and 

western Utah (MZ III and IV), Idaho (MZ 

IV), northern California and central 

Oregon (MZ V), and southwest 

Wyoming (MZ II) (University of 

Nebraska 2008). 

Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) found 

that the number of severe droughts from 

1950 to 2003 had a weak negative effect 

on patterns of sage-grouse persistence. 

However, they cautioned that drought 

may have a greater influence on future 

sage-grouse populations as temperatures 

rise over the next 50 years, and 

synergistic effects of other threats affect 

habitat quality (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 

992). Populations on the periphery of 

the range may suffer extirpation during 

a severe and prolonged drought 

(Wisdom et al. in press, p. 22). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13986 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

In summary, drought has been a 

consistent and natural part of the 

sagebrush-steppe ecosystem and there is 

no information to suggest that drought 

was a cause of persistent population 

declines of greater sage-grouse under 

historic conditions. However, drought 

impacts on the greater sage-grouse may 

be exacerbated when combined with 

other habitat impacts that reduce cover 

and food (Braun 1998, p. 148). 

Summary of Factor E 

Numerous factors have caused sagegrouse mortality, and probably 

morbidity, such as pesticides, 

contaminants, as well as factors that 

contribute to direct and indirect 

disturbance to sage-grouse and 

sagebrush, such as recreational 

activities. Drought has been correlated 

with population declines in sage-grouse, 

but is only a limiting factor where 

habitats have been compromised. 

Although we anticipate use of 

pesticides, recreational activities, and 

fluctuating drought conditions to 

continue indefinitely, we did not find 

any evidence that these factors, either 

separately, or in combination are 

resulting in local or range-wide declines 

of greater sage-grouse. New information 

regarding minimum population sizes 

necessary to maintain the evolutionary 

potential of a species suggests that sagegrouse in some areas throughout their 

range may already be at population 

levels below that threshold. This is a 

result of habitat loss and modification 

(discussed under Factor A). 

We have evaluated the best available 

scientific information on other natural 

or manmade factors affecting the 

species’ continued existence and 

determined that this factor does not 

singularly pose a significant threat to 

the species now or in the foreseeable 

future. 

Findings 

Finding on Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse Across Its Entire Range 

As required by the Act, we have 

carefully examined the best scientific 

and commercial information available 

in relation to the five factors used to 

assess whether the greater sage-grouse is 

threatened or endangered throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. We 

reviewed the petitions, information 

available in our files, other available 

published and unpublished 

information, and other information 

provided to us after our notice initiating 

a status review of the greater sage-grouse 

was published. We also consulted with 

recognized greater sage-grouse and 

sagebrush experts and other Federal and 

State agencies. 

In our analysis of Factor A, we 

identified and evaluated the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the habitat or range of the 

greater sage-grouse from various causes, 

including: habitat conversion for 

agriculture; urbanization; infrastructure 

(e.g., roads, powerlines, fences) in 

sagebrush habitats; fire; invasive plants; 

pinyon-juniper woodland 

encroachment; grazing; energy 

development; and climate change. All of 

these, individually and in combination, 

are contributing to the destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

greater sage-grouse’s habitat or range. 

Almost half of the sagebrush habitat 

estimated to have been present 

historically has been destroyed. The 

impact has been greatly compounded by 

the fragmented nature of this habitat 

loss, as fragmentation results in 

functional habitat loss for greater sagegrouse even when otherwise suitable 

habitat is still present. Although 

sagebrush habitats are increasingly 

being destroyed, modified, and 

fragmented for multiple reasons, the 

impact is especially great in relation to 

fire and invasive plants (and the 

interaction between them) in more 

westerly parts of the range, and energy 

development and related infrastructure 

in more easterly areas. In addition, 

direct loss of habitat and fragmentation 

is occurring due to agriculture, 

urbanization, and infrastructure such as 

roads and powerlines built in support of 

several activities. Some of these habitat 

losses due to these activities occurred 

many years ago, but they continue to 

have an impact due to the resulting 

fragmentation. Renewed interest in 

agricultural activities in areas 

previously defined as unsuitable for 

these activities, due to economic and 

technological incentives are likely to 

increase habitat loss and fragmentation 

from agricultural conversion. 

Encroachment of pinyon and juniper 

woodland into sagebrush is increasing 

and likely to continue in several areas, 

altering the structure and composition 

of habitat to the point that is it is greatly 

diminished or of no value to sagegrouse. While effects of livestock 

grazing must be assessed locally, the 

continued removal of sagebrush to 

increase forage directly fragments 

habitat, and indirectly provides for 

fragmentation through fencing and 

opportunities for invasive plant 

incursion. Habitat loss and 

fragmentation also is very likely to 

increase as a result of increased 

temperatures and changes in 

precipitation regimes associated with 

the effects of climate change; also, the 

impacts of fire and invasive plants 

likely already are, and will continue to 

be, exacerbated by the effects of climate 

change. 

Sagebrush restoration techniques are 

limited and generally ineffective. 

Further, restoring full habitat function 

may not be possible in some areas 

because alteration of vegetation, 

nutrient cycles, topsoil, and cryptobiotic 

crusts have exceeded the point beyond 

which recovery to pre-disturbance 

conditions or conditions suitable to 

populations of greater sage-grouse, is 

possible. 

The impacts to habitat are not 

uniform across the range; some areas 

have experienced less habitat loss than 

others, and some areas are at relatively 

lower risk than others for future habitat 

destruction or modification. 

Nevertheless, the destruction and 

modification of habitat has been 

substantial in many areas across the 

range of the species, it is ongoing, and 

it will continue or even increase in the 

future. Many current populations of 

greater sage-grouse already are relatively 

small and connectivity of habitat and 

populations has been severely 

diminished across much of the range; 

and further isolation is likely for several 

populations. Even the Wyoming Basin 

and the Great Basin area where Oregon, 

Nevada, and Idaho intersect, which are 

the two stronghold areas with relatively 

large amounts of contiguous sagebrush 

and sizeable populations of sage-grouse, 

are experiencing habitat destruction and 

modification (e.g. as a result of oil and 

gas development and other energy 

development in the Wyoming Basin) 

and this will continue in the future. 

Several recent studies have 

demonstrated that sagebrush area is one 

of the best landscape predictors of 

greater sage-grouse persistence. 

Continued habitat destruction and 

modification, compounded by 

fragmentation and diminished 

connectivity, will result in reduced 

abundance and further isolation of 

many populations over time, increasing 

their vulnerability to extinction. 

Overall, this increases the risk to the 

entire species across its range. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available, we find that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

habitat or range of the greater sagegrouse is a significant threat to the 

species now and in the foreseeable 

future. 

During our review of the best 

scientific and commercial information 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13987 

available, we found no evidence of risks 

from overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or education 

affecting the species as a whole. 

Although the allowable harvest of sagegrouse through hunting was very high in 

past years, substantial reductions in 

harvest began during the 1990s and 

have continued to drop, and since 

approximately 2000 total mortality due 

to hunting has been lower than in the 

last 50 years. The present level of 

hunting mortality shows no sign of 

being a significant threat to the species. 

However, in light of present and 

threatened habitat loss (Factor A) and 

other considerations (e.g. West Nile 

virus outbreaks in local populations), 

States and tribes will need to continue 

to carefully manage hunting mortality, 

including adjusting seasons and harvest 

levels, and imposing emergency 

closures if needed. Therefore, we 

conclude that the greater sage-grouse is 

not threatened by overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

We found that while greater sagegrouse are subject to various diseases, 

the only disease of concern is West Nile 

virus. Outbreaks of WNv have resulted 

in disease-related mortality is local 

areas. Because greater sage-grouse have 

little or no resistance to this disease, the 

likelihood of mortality of affected 

individuals is extremely high. Currently 

the annual patchy distribution of the 

disease is resulting in minimal impacts 

except at local scales. We are concerned 

by the proliferation of water sources 

associated with various human 

activities, particularly water sources 

developed in association with coal bed 

methane and other types of energy 

development, as they provide potential 

breeding habitat for mosquitoes that can 

transmit WNv. We expect the 

prevalence of this disease is likely to 

increase across much of the species’ 

range, but understand the long-term 

response of different populations is 

expected to vary markedly. Further, a 

complex set of conditions that support 

the WNv cycle must coincide for an 

outbreak to occur, and consequently 

although we expect further outbreaks 

will occur and may be more 

widespread, they likely will still be 

patchy and sporadic. We found that 

while greater sage-grouse are prey for 

numerous species, and that nest 

predation by ravens and other humansubsidized predators may be increasing 

and of potential concern in areas of 

human development, no information 

indicates that predation is having or is 

expected to have an overall adverse 

effect on the species. Therefore, at this 

time, we find that neither disease nor 

predation is a sufficiently significant 

threat to the greater sage-grouse now or 

in the foreseeable future that it requires 

listing under the Act as threatened or 

endangered based on this factor. 

Our review of the adequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

included mechanisms in both Canada 

(less than 2 percent of the species’ 

range) and the United States. Greater 

sage-grouse are federally protected in 

Canada as an endangered species under 

that country’s Species at Risk Act. The 

species also is listed as endangered by 

the provinces of Alberta and 

Saskatchewan, and neither province 

allows harvest. In Alberta, individual 

birds are protected, but their habitat is 

not. The Saskatchewan Wildlife Act 

restricts development within 500 m 

(1,640 ft) of leks and prohibits 

construction within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of 

leks from March 15 – May 15, but 

numerous studies have shown these 

buffers are inadequate to protect sagegrouse, particularly in nesting areas. 

We found very few mechanisms in 

place at the level of local governments 

that provide, either directly or 

indirectly, protections to the greater 

sage-grouse or its habitat. The species 

receives some protection under laws of 

each of the States currently occupied by 

greater sage-grouse, including hunting 

regulations and various other direct and 

indirect mechanisms. However, in most 

states these provide little or no 

protection to greater sage-grouse habitat. 

Colorado recently implemented State 

regulations regarding oil and gas 

development, but they apply only to 

new developments and prescribe a 

process rather than specific measures 

that we can evaluate or rely on to 

provide protection related to the 

covered actions. In Wyoming, a 

Governor’s Executive Order (E. O. 2008- 

2) outlines a strategic framework of core 

habitat areas that may provide the 

adequate scale of conservation needed 

over time to ensure the long-term 

conservation of greater sage-grouse in 

the state, but currently only the 

provisions for Wyoming State lands 

show promise as regulatory 

mechanisms, affecting only a small 

portion of the species’ range in 

Wyoming. 

The majority of greater sage-grouse 

habitat is on Federal land, particularly 

areas administered by the Bureau of 

Land Management, and to a lesser 

extent the U.S. Forest Service. We found 

a diverse network of laws and 

regulations that relate directly or 

indirectly to protections for the greater 

sage-grouse and its habitat on Federal 

lands, including BLM and FS lands. 

However, the extent to which the BLM 

and FS have adopted and adequately 

implemented appropriate measures to 

conserve the greater sage-grouse and its 

habitat varies widely across the range of 

the species. Regulatory mechanisms 

addressing the ongoing threats related to 

habitat destruction and modification, 

particularly as related to fire, invasive 

plants, and energy development, are not 

adequate. There are no known existing 

regulatory mechanisms currently in 

place at the local, State, national, or 

international level that effectively 

address climate-induced threats to 

greater sage-grouse habitat. In summary, 

based on our review of the best 

scientific information available, we 

conclude that the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms is a significant 

threat to the greater sage-grouse now 

and in the foreseeable future. 

We assessed the potential risks from 

other natural or manmade factors 

including pesticides, contaminants, 

recreational activities, life history traits, 

and drought. We did not find any 

evidence these factors, either separately 

or in combination, pose a risk to the 

species. Therefore, we find that other 

natural and manmade factors affecting 

the continued existence of the species 

do not threaten the greater sage-grouse 

now or in the foreseeable future. 

The greater sage-grouse occurs across 

11 western States and 2 Canadian 

provinces and is a sagebrush obligate. 

Although greater sage-grouse have a 

wide distribution, their numbers have 

been declining since consistent data 

collection techniques have been 

implemented. Recent local moderations 

in the decline of populations indicate a 

period of relative population stability, 

particularly since the mid-1990s. This 

trend information was one key basis for 

our decision in 2005 that listing the 

greater sage-grouse was not warranted. 

The population trends appear to have 

continued to be relatively stable. 

However, our understanding of the 

status of the species and the threats 

affecting it has changed substantially 

since our decision in 2005. In particular, 

numerous scientific papers and reports 

with new and highly relevant 

information have become available, 

particularly during the past year. 

Although the declining population 

trends have moderated over the past 

several years, low population sizes and 

relative lack of any sign of recovery 

across numerous populations is 

troubling. Previously, fluctuations in 

sage-grouse populations were apparent 

over time (based on lek counts as an 

index). However, these have all but 

ceased for several years, suggesting 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13988 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

some populations may be at a point 

where they are unable and unlikely to 

increase due to habitat limitations, 

perhaps in combination with other 

factors. Also, we are aware of the 

likelihood of a lag effect in some areas, 

because population trend and 

abundance estimates are not based on 

information about reproductive success 

and population recruitment, but instead 

are based on the number of adult males 

observed during lek counts. Because of 

the relative longevity of adult sagegrouse, the lek counts of males could 

continue to suggest relative stability 

even when a population is actually 

declining. 

Overall, the range of the species is 

now characterized by numerous 

relatively small populations existing in 

a patchy mosaic of increasingly 

fragmented habitat, with diminished 

connectivity. Many areas lack sufficient 

unfragmented sagebrush habitats on a 

scale, and with the necessary ecological 

attributes (e.g., connectivity and 

landscape context), needed to address 

risks to population persistence and 

support robust populations. Relatively 

small and isolated populations are more 

vulnerable to further reduction over 

time, including increased risk of 

extinction due to stochastic events. Two 

strongholds of relatively contiguous 

sagebrush habitat (southwestern 

Wyoming and northern Nevada, 

southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon 

and northwestern Utah) with large 

populations which are considered 

strongholds for the species are also 

being impacted by direct habitat loss 

and fragmentation that will continue for 

the foreseeable future. 

We have reviewed and taken into 

account efforts being made to protect 

the species, as required by the Act. 

Although some local conservation 

efforts have been implemented and are 

effective in small areas, they are neither 

individually nor collectively at a scale 

that is sufficient to ameliorate threats to 

the species or populations. Many other 

conservation efforts are being planned 

but there is substantial uncertainty as to 

whether, where, and when they will be 

implemented, and whether they will be 

effective. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the present and 

future threats to the greater sage-grouse. 

We have reviewed the petition, 

information available in our files, and 

other published and unpublished 

information, and consulted with 

recognized greater sage-grouse and 

sagebrush experts. We have reviewed 

and taken into account efforts being 

made to protect the species. On the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that listing the greater sage-grouse 

is warranted across its range. However, 

listing the species is precluded by 

higher priority listing actions at this 

time, as discussed in the Preclusion and 

Expeditious Progress section below. 

We have reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species as per 

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

We have determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the greater sage-grouse is not 

warranted at this time (see discussion of 

listing priority, below). However, if at 

any time we determine that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species is warranted, we will 

initiate this action at that time. 

Finding on the Petition to List the 

Western Subspecies of the Greater SageGrouse 

As described in the Taxonomy 

section, above, we have reviewed the 

best scientific information available on 

the geographic distribution, 

morphology, behavior, and genetics of 

sage-grouse in relation to putative 

eastern and western subspecies of sagegrouse, as formally recognized by the 

AOU in 1957 (AOU 1957, p. 139). The 

AOU has not published a revised list of 

subspecies of birds since 1957, and has 

acknowledged that some of the 

subspecies probably cannot be validated 

by rigorous modern techniques (AOU 

1998, p. xii). The Service previously 

made a finding that the eastern 

subspecies is not a valid taxon and thus 

is not a listable entity (69 FR 933, 

January 7, 2004,), and the Court 

dismissed a legal challenge to that 

finding (see Previous Federal Action, 

above). Thus the 12–month petition 

finding we are making here is limited to 

the petition to list the western 

subspecies. 

To summarize the information 

presented in the Taxonomy section 

(above), our status review shows the 

following with regard to the putative 

western subspecies: (1) there is 

insufficient information to demonstrate 

that the petitioned western sage-grouse 

can be geographically differentiated 

from other greater sage-grouse 

throughout the range of the taxon; (2) 

there is insufficient information to 

demonstrate that morphological or 

behavioral aspects of the petitioned 

western subspecies are unique or 

provide any strong evidence to support 

taxonomic recognition of the 

subspecies; and (3) genetic evidence 

does not support recognition of the 

western sage-grouse as a subspecies. To 

be eligible for listing under the Act, an 

entity must fall within the Act’s 

definition of a species, ‘‘*** any 

subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, 

and any distinct population segment of 

any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature’’ (Act, 

section 3(16)). Based on our review of 

the best scientific information available, 

we conclude that the western 

subspecies is not a valid taxon, and 

consequently is not a listable entity 

under the Act. Therefore, we find that 

listing the western subspecies is not 

warranted. 

We note that greater sage-grouse 

covered by the petition to list the 

putative western subspecies (except for 

those in the Bi-State area, which are 

covered by a separate finding, below) 

are encompassed by our finding that 

listing the greater sage-grouse rangewide 

is warranted but precluded (see above). 

Further, greater sage-grouse within the 

Columbia Basin of Washington were 

designated as warranted, but precluded 

for listing as a DPS of the western 

subspecies in 2001 (65 FR 51578, May 

7, 2001). However, with our finding that 

the western subspecies is not a listable 

entity, we acknowledge that we must 

reevaluate the status of the Columbia 

Basin population as it relates to the 

greater sage-grouse; we will conduct this 

analysis as our priorities allow. 

Finding on the Petitions to List the BiState Area (Mono Basin) Population 

As described above we received two 

petitions to list the Bi-State (Mono 

Basin) area populations of greater sagegrouse as a Distinct Population 

Segment. Please see the section titled 

‘‘Previous federal actions’’ for a detailed 

history and description of these 

petitions. In order to make a finding on 

these petitions, we must first determine 

whether the greater sage-grouse in the 

Bi-State area constitute a DPS, and if so, 

we must conduct the relevant analysis 

of the five factors that are the basis for 

making a listing determination. 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

(DPS) Analysis 

Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we 

must determine whether any species is 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the five threat 

factors identified in the Act. Section 

3(16) of the Act defines ‘‘species’’ to 

include ‘‘any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any species of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife which 

interbreeds when mature’’ (16 U.S.C. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13989 

1532 (16)). To interpret and implement 

the distinct population segment portion 

of the definition of a species under the 

Act and Congressional guidance, the 

Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (now the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration–Fisheries) published, 

on February 7, 1996, an interagency 

Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

under the Act (61 FR 4722) (DPS 

Policy). The DPS Policy allows for more 

refined application of the Act that better 

reflects the conservation needs of the 

taxon being considered and avoids the 

inclusion of entities that may not 

warrant protection under the Act. 

Under our DPS Policy, we consider 

three elements in a decision regarding 

the status of a possible DPS as 

endangered or threatened under the Act. 

We apply them similarly for additions 

to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, reclassification, 

and removal from the List. They are: (1) 

Discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the taxon; 

(2) the significance of the population 

segment to the taxon to which it 

belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standards for listing 

(whether the population segment is, 

when treated as if it were a species, 

endangered or threatened). Discreteness 

is evaluated based on specific criteria 

provided in the DPS Policy. If a 

population segment is considered 

discrete under the DPS Policy we must 

then consider whether the discrete 

segment is ‘‘significant’’ to the taxon to 

which it belongs. If we determine that 

a population segment is discrete and 

significant, we then evaluate it for 

endangered or threatened status based 

on the Act’s standards. The DPS 

evaluation in this finding concerns the 

Bi-State (Mono Basin) area greater sagegrouse that we were petitioned to list as 

threatened or endangered, as stated 

above. 

Discreteness Analysis 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: (1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. 

Markedly Separated From Other 

Populations of the Taxon 

Bi-State area greater sage-grouse are 

genetically unique compared with other 

populations of greater sage-grouse. 

Investigations using both mitochondrial 

DNA sequence data and data from 

nuclear microsatellites have 

demonstrated that Bi-State area greater 

sage-grouse contain a large number of 

unique haplotypes not found elsewhere 

within the range of the greater sagegrouse (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 306; 

Oyler–McCance et al. 2005, p. 1300). 

The genetic diversity present in the BiState population was comparable to 

other populations suggesting that the 

differences were not due to a genetic 

bottleneck or founder event (Oyler– 

McCance and Quinn in press, p. 18). 

These genetic studies provide evidence 

that the present genetic uniqueness 

exhibited by Bi-State area greater sagegrouse developed over thousands and 

perhaps tens of thousands of years 

(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler– 

McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307), which 

predates Euro-American settlement. 

The Service’s DPS Policy states that 

quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may be 

used as evidence of the marked 

separation of a population from other 

populations of the same taxon. In the BiState area, the present genetic 

uniqueness is most likely a 

manifestation of prehistoric physical 

isolation. Based on the reported 

timeline (thousands to tens of thousands 

of years) (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308), 

isolation of this population may have 

begun during the Wisconsin Stage of the 

Pleistocene Epoch (from approximately 

25,000 to 9,000 years before present 

(ybp)), when Ancient Lake Lahontan 

covered much of western Nevada. After 

the lake receded (approximately 9,000 

ybp), barriers to genetic mixing 

remained. Physical barriers in the form 

of inhospitable habitats (Sierra-Nevada 

Mountains, salt desert scrub, Mojave 

Desert) in most directions maintained 

this isolation. With the establishment of 

Virginia City, Nevada (1859), any 

available corridor that connected the BiState area to the remainder of the greater 

sage-grouse range was removed. 

Currently, no greater sage-grouse 

occur in the Virginia Range, having been 

extirpated several decades ago. The 

population in closest proximity to the 

Bi-State area occurs in the Pah Rah 

Range to the northeast of Reno, Nevada, 

and approximately 50 km (31 mi) to the 

north of the Bi-State area. The Pah Rah 

Range occurs immediately to the north 

of the Virginia Range and south of the 

Virginia Mountains. It is currently 

unknown if the small remnant 

population occurring in the Pah Rah 

Range aligns more closely with the BiState birds or the remainder of the 

greater sage-grouse. The range 

delineation occurs south of the Virginia 

Mountains in one of three locations: (1) 

the small population occurring in the 

Pah Rah Range, (2) the extirpated 

population historically occurring in the 

Virginia Range, or (3) the Pine Nut 

Mountains. Limited studies of 

behavioral differences between the BiState population and other populations 

have not demonstrated any gross 

differences that suggest behavioral 

barriers (Taylor and Young 2006, p. 39). 

Conclusion for Discreteness 

We conclude the Bi-State population 

of greater sage-grouse is markedly 

separate from other populations of the 

greater sage-grouse based on genetic 

data from mitochondrial DNA 

sequencing and from nuclear 

microsatellites. The Bi-State area greater 

sage-grouse contain a large number of 

unique haplotypes not found elsewhere 

within the range of the species. The 

present genetic uniqueness exhibited by 

Bi-State area greater sage-grouse 

occurred over thousands and perhaps 

tens of thousands of years (Benedict et 

al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al. 

2005, p. 1307) and continues through 

today due to physical isolation from the 

remainder of the range. These genetic 

data are the principal basis for our 

conclusion that the Bi-State area greater 

sage-grouse are markedly separated from 

other populations of greater sage-grouse 

and therefore are discrete under the 

Service’s DPS Policy. 

Significance Analysis 

The DPS Policy states that if a 

population segment is considered 

discrete under one or both of the 

discreteness criteria, its biological and 

ecological significance will then be 

considered in light of Congressional 

guidance that the authority to list DPSs 

be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging 

the conservation of genetic diversity. In 

carrying out this examination, the 

Service considers available scientific 

evidence of the DPS’s importance to the 

taxon to which it belongs. As specified 

in the DPS Policy, this consideration of 

the significance may include, but is not 

limited to, the following: (1) persistence 

of the discrete population segment in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique to 

the taxon; (2) evidence that its loss 

would result in a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon; (3) evidence that it 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13990 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

is the only surviving natural occurrence 

of a taxon that may be more abundant 

elsewhere as an introduced population 

outside its historical range; or (4) 

evidence that the discrete population 

segment differs markedly from other 

populations of the species in its genetic 

characteristics. The DPS Policy further 

states that because precise 

circumstances are likely to vary 

considerably from case to case, it is not 

possible to describe prospectively all 

the classes of information that might 

bear on the biological and ecological 

importance of a discrete population 

segment. 

(1) Persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique to the taxon. 

The Bi-State area greater sage-grouse 

population occurs in the Mono province 

(Rowland et al. 2003, p. 63). This 

ecological province is part of the Great 

Basin, and on a gross scale the 

ecological provinces that comprise this 

area are characterized by basin and 

range topography. Basin and range 

topography covers a large portion of the 

western United States and northern 

Mexico. It is typified by a series of 

north–south-oriented mountain ranges 

running parallel to each other, with arid 

valleys between the mountains. Most of 

Nevada and eastern California comprise 

basin and range topography with only 

slight variations in floristic patterns. 

Hence, we do not consider Bi-State area 

greater sage-grouse to occur in an 

ecological setting that is unique for the 

taxon. 

(2) Evidence that its loss would result 

in a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon. The estimated total extant range 

of greater sage-grouse is 668,412 km2

(258,075 mi2) (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 

363) compared to approximately 18,310 

km2 (7,069 mi2) for the Bi-State area 

sage-grouse (Bi-State Plan 2004). BiState area sage-grouse therefore occupy 

about 3 percent of the total extant range 

of greater sage-grouse. Loss of this 

population would not create a gap in the 

remainder of the species range because 

the Bi-State population does not provide 

for connectivity for other portions of the 

range. Therefore, we conclude that loss 

of this population would not represent 

a significant gap in the range of the 

species. 

(3) Evidence that it is the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historical range. Bi-State area greater 

sage-grouse are not the only surviving 

occurrence of the taxon and represent a 

small proportion of the total extant 

range of the species. 

(4) Evidence that the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. Genetic 

analyses show the Bi-State area sagegrouse have a large number of unique 

haplotypes not found elsewhere in the 

range of the species (Benedict et al. 

2003, p. 306; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, 

p. 1300). Benedict et al. (2003, p. 309) 

indicated that the preservation of 

genetic diversity represented by this 

unique allelic composition is of 

particular importance for conservation. 

On the basis of the discussion 

presented above, we conclude the BiState greater sage-grouse population 

meets the significance criterion of our 

DPS Policy. 

Conclusion of Distinct Population 

Segment Review 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, as described 

above, we find that under our DPS 

Policy, the Bi-State greater sage-grouse 

population is discrete and significant to 

the overall species. Because the Bi-State 

greater sage-grouse population is both 

discrete and significant, we find that it 

is a distinct population segment under 

our DPS Policy. We refer to this 

population segment as the Bi-State DPS 

of the greater sage-grouse. 

Conservation Status 

Pursuant to the Act, as stated above, 

we announced our determination that 

the petitions to list the Bi-State area 

population of greater sage-grouse 

contained substantial information that 

the action may be warranted. Having 

found the Bi-State population qualifies 

as a DPS, we now must consider, based 

on the best available scientific and 

commercial data whether the DPS 

warrants listing. We have evaluated the 

conservation status of the Bi-State DPS 

of the greater sage-grouse in order to 

make that determination. Our analysis 

follows below. 

Life History Characteristics 

Please see this section of the greater 

sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

(GSG finding) above for life history 

information. 

Habitat Description and Characteristics 

Please see this section of the GSG 

finding, above, for information on sagegrouse habitat. 

Distribution 

The Bi-State DPS of the greater sagegrouse historically occurred throughout 

most of Mono, eastern Alpine, and 

northern Inyo Counties, California (Hall 

et al. 2008, p. 97), and portions of 

Carson City, Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, 

and Mineral Counties, Nevada (Gullion 

and Christensen 1957, pp. 131–132; 

Espinosa 2006a, pers. comm.). Although 

the current range of the population in 

California was presumed reduced from 

the historical range (Leach and Hensley, 

1954, p. 386; Hall 1995, p. 54; Schroeder 

et al. 2004, pp. 368–369), the extent of 

loss is not well understood and there 

may, in fact, have been no net loss (Hall 

et al. 2008, p. 96) in the California 

portion of the Bi-State area. Gullion and 

Christensen (1957, pp. 131–132) 

reported that greater sage-grouse 

occurred in Esmeralda, Mineral, Lyon, 

and Douglas Counties. However, parts of 

Carson City County were likely part of 

the original range of the species in 

Nevada and it is possible that greater 

sage-grouse still persist there (Espinosa 

2006a, pers. comm.). The extent of the 

range loss in the Nevada portion of the 

Bi-State area not been estimated (Stiver 

2002, pers. comm.). 

In 2001, the State of Nevada 

sponsored development of the Nevada 

Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy 

(Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning 

Team 2001). This Strategy established 

Population Management Units (PMUs) 

for Nevada and California as 

management tools for defining and 

monitoring greater sage-grouse 

distribution (Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Planning Team 2001, p. 31). The PMU 

boundaries are based on aggregations of 

leks, greater sage-grouse seasonal 

habitats, and greater sage-grouse 

telemetry data (Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 

31). The PMUs that comprise the BiState planning area are Pine Nut, Desert 

Creek–Fales, Mount Grant, Bodie, South 

Mono, and White Mountains (Figure 4). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13991 

Currently in the Bi-State area, sagegrouse leks occur in all of the delineated 

PMUs, with the greatest concentration 

of leks occurring in the Bodie and South 

Mono PMUs. Historically there were as 

many as 122 lek locations in the Bi-State 

area, although not all were active in any 

given year. This number is likely 

inflated due to observer and mapping 

error. The Nevada Department of 

Wildlife (NDOW) reports a total of 89 

known leks in the Bi-State area (NDOW 

2008, p. 7; NDOW 2009, unpublished 

data). Of these, approximately 39 are 

considered active and approximately 30 

appear to be core leks or occupied 

annually. 

• In the Pine Nut PMU, there are 10 

known leks, 4 of which are 

considered active. Only 1 or 2 

appear to be core leks (occupied 

annually) with the remainder 

considered satellite leks (active 

during years of high bird 

abundance). 

• In the Desert Creek–Fales PMU, there 

are 19 known leks on the Nevada 

portion consisting of 8 active leks 

and probably 4 core leks. In 

California, on the Fales portion of 

this PMU, there are 6 known leks 

consisting of 2 or 3 core leks and 3 

satellite leks. 

• In the Mount Grant PMU, there are 12 

known leks with 8 active leks. Of 

the active leks, 2 to 4 appear to be 

annually attended. Survey data are 

limited, and it is not known how 

many leks are active on an annual 

basis versus in years of high bird 

abundance. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP23MR10.003</GPH>
13992 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

• In the Bodie PMU, 29 leks have been 

mapped. Approximately 7 to 8 

appear to be core leks, 6 to 12 

appear to be satellite locations, and 

the remainder are not well defined 

(i.e., satellites or changes in lek 

focal activity, poorly mapped, onetime observations). 

• In the South Mono PMU there are 9 

leks in the Long Valley area near 

Mammoth Lakes, most of which are 

annually active. Additionally, 1 lek 

occurs in the Parker Meadows area 

south of Lee Vining, and 2 leks 

occurred along Highway 120 at the 

base of Granite Mountain and in 

Adobe Valley but these 2 leks may 

be extirpated. 

• In the White Mountains PMU 2 leks 

appear active in California in the 

vicinity of the Mono and Inyo 

County line, and the NDOW reports 

5 active leks in Esmeralda County. 

Due to long-term and extensive survey 

efforts, it is unlikely that new leks will 

be found in the Nevada or California 

portions of the Pine Nut and Desert 

Creek–Fales PMUs or the Bodie and 

South Mono PMUs in California 

(Espinosa 2006b, pers. comm.; Gardner 

2006, pers. comm.). It is possible that 

unknown leks exist in the Mount Grant 

PMU and the Nevada and California 

portions of the White Mountains PMU, 

as these PMUs are less accessible 

resulting in reduced survey effort 

(Espinosa 2006b, pers. comm.; Gardner 

2006, pers. comm.). 

Based on landownership, 46 percent 

of leks in the Bi-State area occur on 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands, 25 percent occur on U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) lands, 17 percent occur 

on private land, 7 percent occur on Los 

Angeles Department of Water and Power 

(LADWP) lands, 4 percent occur on 

Department of Defense (DOD) lands, and 

1 percent occur on State of California 

lands (Espinosa 2006c, pers. comm.; 

Taylor 2006, pers. comm.). Of the 30-35 

core leks in the Bi-State area, only 3 are 

known to occur on private lands. 

Population Trend and Abundance 

In 2004, WAFWA conducted a partial 

population trend analysis for the BiState area (Connelly et al. 2004, Chapter 

6). The WAFWA recognizes four 

populations of greater sage-grouse in the 

Bi-State area but only two populations 

(North Mono Lake and South Mono 

Lake) had sufficient data to warrant 

analysis (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-60, 

6-61, 6-62). Essentially, the South Mono 

Lake population encompasses the South 

Mono PMU, while the North Mono Lake 

population encompasses the Bodie, 

Mount Grant, and Desert Creek–Fales 

PMUs. The authors reported that the 

North Mono Lake population displayed 

a significant negative trend from 1965 to 

2003, and the South Mono Lake 

population displayed a non-significant 

positive trend over this same period 

(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-69, 6-70). 

In 2008, WAFWA conducted a similar 

trend analysis on these two populations 

using a different statistical method for 

the periods from 1965 to 2007, 1965 to 

1985, and 1986 to 2007 (WAFWA 2008, 

Appendix D). The 2008 WAFWA 

analysis reports the trend for the North 

Mono Lake population, as measured by 

maximum male attendance at leks, was 

negative from 1965 to 2007 and 1965 to 

1985 but variable from 1986 to 2007, 

and suggests an increasing trend 

beginning in about 2000. WAFWA’s 

results for the South Mono Lake 

population suggest a negative trend 

from 1965 to 2007, a stable trend from 

1965 to 1985, and a variable trend from 

1986 to 2007, again suggesting a positive 

trend beginning around 2000. These two 

populations do not encompass the 

entire Bi-State area but do represent a 

large percentage of known leks. The two 

PMUs excluded from this analysis were 

the Pine Nut and White Mountains, 

which WAFWA delineates as separate 

populations that lacked sufficient data 

for analysis. 

A new analysis by Garton et al. (in 

press, pp. 36, 37), also reports a decline 

in the North Mono Lake population 

from the 1965–1969 to 2000–2007 

assessment periods, with no consistent 

long-term trend. In the South Mono 

Lake population, Garton et al. (in press, 

pp. 37, 38) report an increase in the 

1965–1969 to 1985–1989 assessment 

periods but a decline in the 1985–1989 

to 2000–2007 assessment periods, with 

no obvious trend. Garton et al. (in press, 

pp. 36, 38) report that the estimated 

average annual rate of change for both 

of these populations suggests that 

growth of these two populations has 

been, at times, both positive and 

negative. 

The CDFG and NDOW annually 

conduct greater sage-grouse lek counts 

in the California and Nevada portions, 

respectively, of the Bi-State area. These 

lek counts are used by the CDFG and 

NDOW to estimate greater sage-grouse 

populations for each PMU in the BiState area. Low and high population 

estimates are derived by combining a 

corrected number of males detected on 

a lek, an assumed sex ratio of two 

females to one male, and two lek 

detection rates (intended to capture the 

uncertainty associated with finding 

leks). The lek detection rates vary by 

PMU but range between 0.75 and 0.95. 

Beginning in 2003, the CDFG and 

NDOW began using the same method to 

estimate population numbers, and 

consequently, the most comparable 

population estimates for the entire BiState area start in 2003. Prior to 2003, 

Nevada survey efforts varied from year 

to year, with no data for some years, and 

inconsistent survey methodology. The 

CDFG methods for estimating 

populations of greater sage-grouse in 

California were more consistent than 

NDOW’s prior to 2003. However, using 

population estimates for greater sagegrouse derived before 2003 could lead to 

invalid and unjustified conclusions 

given the variation in the number of leks 

surveyed, survey methodology, and 

population estimation techniques 

between the NDOW and CDFG. 

Therefore, we are presenting population 

numbers from 2003 to 2009. Population 

estimates derived from spring lek counts 

are problematic due to unknown or 

uncontrollable biases such as the true 

ratio of females to males or the 

percentage of uncounted leks. We 

provide this information in order to 

place into context what we consider to 

be a reasonable range as to the extent of 

the population in the Bi-State area as 

well as to demonstrate the apparent 

variability in annual estimates over the 

short term. For reasons described above 

we caution against assigning too much 

certainty to these results. 

Spring population estimates are 

presented in Tables 11 and 12 for the 

South Mono, Bodie, Mount Grant, and 

Desert Creek–Fales PMUs (CDFG 2009, 

unpublished data; NDOW 2009, 

unpublished data). They also include 

population estimates for the Nevada 

portion of the Pine Nut PMU (NDOW 

2009, unpublished data). However, they 

do not include population estimates for 

the White Mountains PMU or the 

California portion of the Pine Nut PMU. 

Due to the difficulty in accessing the 

White Mountains PMU, no consistent 

surveys have been conducted and it 

appears that birds are not present in the 

California portion of the Pine Nut PMU 

(Gardner 2006, pers. comm.). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13993 

TABLE 11—COMBINED SPRING POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR BI-STATE AREA GREATER SAGE-GROUSE. (SEE TEXT FOR

CITATIONS.) 

Survey year Population estimate range 

2003 2,820 to 3,181 

2004 3,682 to 4,141 

2005 3,496 to 3,926 

2006 4,218 to 4,740 

2007 3,287 to 3,692 

2008 2,090 to 2,343 

2009 2,712 to 3,048 

TABLE 12—POPULATION MANAGEMENT UNIT (PMU) SIZE, OWNERSHIP AND ESTIMATED SUITABLE GREATER-SAGE-GROUSE

HABITAT, AND ESTIMATED GREATER SAGE-GROUSE POPULATION FOR 2009. (SEE TEXT FOR DETAILS AND CITATIONS.) 

Population Management 

Unit (PMU) 

Total Size 

acres (ha) Percent Federal Land 

Estimated 

Habitat 

acres (ha) 

Estimated Population 

(2009) 

Pine Nut 574,373 (232,441) 72 233,483 (94,488) 89–107 

Desert Creek-Fales 567,992 (229,859) 88 191,985 (77,694) 512–575 

Mount Grant 699,079 (282,908) 90 254,961 (103,180) 376–427 

Bodie 349,630 (141,491) 74 183,916 (74,428) 829–927 

South Mono 579,483 (234,509) 88 280,492 (113,512) 906–1,012 

White Mountains 1,753,875 (709,771) 97 418,056 (169,182) NA 

As shown in Table 12, Federal lands 

comprise the majority of the area within 

PMUs. Although other land ownership 

is small in comparison, these other 

lands contain important habitat for 

greater sage-grouse life cycle 

requirements. In particular, mesic areas 

that provide important brood rearing 

habitat are often on private lands. 

Movement, Habitat Use, Nest Success, 

and Survival 

Casazza et al. (2009, pp. 1-49) 

conducted a 3–year study on greater 

sage-grouse movements in the Bi-State 

area. The researchers radio-marked 145 

birds, including 104 females and 41 

males, in Mono County within the 

Desert Creek–Fales, Bodie, White 

Mountains, and South Mono PMUs 

(Casazza et al. 2009, p. 6). The greatest 

distance moved by radio-marked birds 

between any two points is as follows: 29 

percent moved from 0 to 8 km (0 to 5 

mi); 41 percent moved from 8 to 16 km 

(5 to 10 mi); 25 percent moved from 16 

to 24 km (10 to 15 mi); 4 percent moved 

from 24 to 32 km (15 to 20 mi); and 1 

percent moved greater than 32 km (20 

mi). 

Female greater sage-grouse home 

range size ranged from 2.3 to 137.1 km2

(0.9 to 52.9 mi2), with a mean home 

range size of 38.6 km2 (14.9 mi2) 

(Overton 2006, unpublished data). Male 

greater sage-grouse home range size 

ranged from 6.1 to 245.7 km2 (2.3 to 

94.9 mi2) with a mean home range size 

of 62.9 km2 (24.1 mi2) (Overton 2006, 

unpublished data). Annual home ranges 

were largest in the Bodie PMU and 

smallest in the Parker Meadows area of 

the South Mono PMU and the California 

portion of the Desert Creek–Fales PMU. 

The data from more than 7,000 

telemetry locations, representing the 

145 individuals indicate movement 

between populations in the Bi-State area 

is limited. No birds caught within the 

White Mountains, South Mono, or 

Desert Creek–Fales PMUs made 

movements outside their respective 

PMUs of capture. Previously, the NDOW 

tracked a female greater sage-grouse 

radio-marked near Sweetwater Summit 

in the Nevada portion of the Desert 

Creek–Fales PMU to Big Flat in the 

northern portion of the Bodie PMU, 

suggesting possible interaction between 

these PMUs. Also, some birds caught in 

the Bodie PMU made seasonal 

movements on the order of 8 to 24 km 

(5 to 15 mi) east into Nevada and the 

adjacent Mount Grant PMU. Within the 

Bi-State area some known bird 

movements would be classified as 

migratory, but the majority of radiomarked individuals have not shown 

movements large enough to be 

characterized as migratory (Casazza et 

al. 2009, p. 8). 

In association with Casazza et al. 

(2009), Kolada (2007) conducted a study 

examining nest site selection and nest 

survival of greater sage-grouse in Mono 

County, These greater sage-grouse 

selected nest sites high in shrub cover 

(42 percent on average), and these 

shrubs were often species other than 

sagebrush (i.e., bitterbrush (Purshia 

tridentata)) (Kolada 2007, p. 18). The 

reported amount of shrub cover was not 

outside the normal range found in other 

studies (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). 

However, there was a large contribution 

of non-sagebrush shrubs to greater sagegrouse nesting habitat in Mono County. 

There was no evidence that greater sagegrouse hens were selecting for nest sites 

with greater residual grass cover or 

height as compared to random sites. 

Overall nest success among birds in 

Mono County during the 3–year study 

(2003–2005) appears to be among the 

highest of any population rangewide 

(Kolada 2007, p. 70). However, nest 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13994 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

success in Long Valley (South Mono 

PMU) was substantially lower than for 

either the Bodie or Desert Creek–Fales 

PMUs. 

Also in association with Casazza et al. 

(2009), Farinha et al. (2008, 

unpublished data) found that survival of 

adults was lowest in the northern BiState area and highest in Long Valley. 

Near Sonora Junction, California (Desert 

Creek–Fales PMU) and in the Bodie 

Hills (Bodie PMU), adult survival was 4 

and 18 percent, respectively. Sedinger et 

al. (unpublished data, p. 12) derived a 

similar adult survival estimate (16 

percent) for an immediately adjacent 

area in Nevada. Survival estimates at 

these three locations are unusually low 

(Sedinger et al. unpublished data, p. 

12). In Long Valley, Farinha et al. (2008, 

unpublished data) estimated adult 

survival at 53 percent, which is more 

consistent with annual survival 

estimates reported in other portions of 

the species’ range. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the BiState DPS of the Greater Sage-Grouse 

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

and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

part 424, set forth procedures for adding 

species to the federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. In making this finding, we 

summarize below information regarding 

the status and threats to the Bi-State 

DPS of the greater sage-grouse in 

relation to the five factors provided in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Under section 

(4) of the Act, we may determine a 

species to be endangered or threatened 

on the basis of any of the following five 

factors: (A) Present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We evaluated whether threats 

to the Bi-State area greater sage-grouse 

DPS may affect its survival. Our 

evaluation of threats is based on 

information provided in the petitions, 

available in our files, and other sources 

considered to be the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

including published and unpublished 

studies and reports. 

Our understanding of the biology, 

ecology, and habitat associations of the 

Bi-State DPS of the greater sage-grouse, 

and the potential effects of perturbations 

such as disease, urbanization, and 

infrastructure development on this 

population, is based primarily on 

research conducted across the range of 

the entire greater sage-grouse species. 

The available information indicates that 

the members of the species have similar 

physiological and behavioral 

characteristics, and consequently 

similar habitat associations. We believe 

the potential effects of specific stressors 

on the Bi-State DPS of the greater sagegrouse are the same as those described 

in the GSG finding, above. To avoid 

redundancy, the descriptions of these 

effects are omitted below and further 

detail and citations may be found in the 

corresponding analysis in the GSG 

finding, above. 

The range of the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse is roughly 3 percent 

of the area occupied by the entire 

greater sage-grouse species, and the 

relative impact of effects caused by 

specific threats may be greater at this 

smaller scale. We have considered these 

differences of scale in our analysis and 

our subsequent discussion is focused on 

the degree to which each threat 

influences the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse. Individual threats 

described within Factors A through E 

below are not all present across the 

entire Bi-State area. However, the 

influence of each threat on specific 

populations may influence the 

resiliency and redundancy of the entire 

Bi-State greater sage-grouse population. 

Factor A: The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Urbanization 

Changing land uses have and 

continue to occur in the Bi-State area. 

Where traditional private land use was 

primarily farming and ranching 

operations, today, some of these lands 

are being sold and converted to lowdensity residential housing 

developments. About 8 percent of the 

land base in the Bi-State area is 

privately owned. A 2004 threat analysis 

recognized urban expansion as a risk to 

greater sage-grouse in the Pine Nut, 

Desert Creek–Fales, Bodie, and South 

Mono PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 24, 

47, 88, 169). The CDFG reports that 

private lands have been sold and one 

parcel was recently developed on 

Burcham Flat within the Desert Creek– 

Fales PMU (CDFG 2006). Additionally, 

a planned subdivision of a 48 ha (120 

ac) parcel that is in close proximity to 

the Burcham Flat lek, 1 of 3 remaining 

leks in the California portion of the 

Desert Creek–Fales PMU, is currently 

under review by the County of Mono, 

California. The subdivision would 

replace a single ranch operation with 

three private residences. 

Sagehen (16.2 ha (40 ac)) and Gaspipe 

(16.2 ha (40 ac)) Meadows located in the 

South Mono PMU have recently been 

affected by development. Also, 

Sinnamon (~485 ha, ~1,200 ac) and 

Upper Summers Meadows (~1,214 ha; 

~3,000 ac) located in the Bodie PMU 

are currently for sale (Taylor 2008, pers. 

comm.). Each of these private parcels is 

important to greater sage-grouse because 

of the summer brood-rearing habitat 

they provide (Taylor 2008, pers. 

comm.). The NDOW is concerned that 

the urbanization or the division of larger 

tracts of private lands into smaller 

ranchettes will adversely affect greater 

sage-grouse habitat in the Nevada 

portion of the Pine Nut and Desert 

Creek–Fales PMUs (NDOW 2006, p. 4). 

The NDOW reported that expansions of 

Minden, Gardnerville, and Carson City, 

Nevada, are encroaching into the Pine 

Nut Range (within the Pine Nut PMU) 

and that housing development in Smith 

Valley and near Wellington, Nevada, 

has fragmented and diminished greater 

sage-grouse habitats in the north portion 

of the Desert Creek–Fales PMU (NDOW 

2006, p. 4). 

Development of private lands is 

known to impact greater sage-grouse 

habitat (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-25, 

7-26), and federal and state agencies 

may actively work to purchase parcels 

important for greater sage-grouse 

conservation. Recently, the State of 

California purchased a 470 ha (1,160 ac) 

parcel in the Desert Creek–Fales PMU 

comprising the largest contiguous 

private land parcel in the California 

portion of the PMU. 

When private lands adjacent to public 

lands are developed, there can be 

impacts to greater sage-grouse on the 

public lands. Approximately 89 percent 

of the land contained within the BiState area is federally managed land, 

primarily by the USFS and BLM. The 

BLM and USFS manage public lands 

under federal laws that provide for 

multiple-use management, which allows 

a number of actions that are either 

detrimental or beneficial to sage-grouse 

(Bi-State Plan 2004). The Bi-State Plan 

(2004, pp. 24, 88) reported within the 

Pine Nut and Bodie PMUs, habitat loss 

and fragmentation associated with land 

use change and development is not 

restricted to private lands. Rights-of-way 

(ROW) across public lands for roads, 

utility lines, sewage treatment plants, 

and other public purposes are 

frequently granted to support 

development activities on adjacent 

private parcels. 

Based on location data from radiomarked birds in the Desert Creek–Fales, 

Bodie, and South Mono PMUs, greater 

sage-grouse home ranges consist of a 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13995 

combination of public and privately 

owned lands (Casazza 2009, p. 9). In the 

Desert Creek–Fales PMU, use of private 

lands was most pronounced near 

Burcham and Wheeler Flats. Home 

ranges of these individuals 

encompassed between 10 and 15 

percent private lands, depending on the 

season (Casazza et al. 2009, p. 19). In the 

Bodie PMU radio-marked birds were 

found to use private lands between 10 

and 20 percent of the time, with use 

most pronounced during the summer 

and winter months (Casazza 2009, p. 

27). In the South Mono and White 

Mountains PMUs, use of private lands 

was greatly restricted. We have limited 

quantitative data for birds breeding in 

the Nevada portion of the Bi-State area. 

However, some greater sage-grouse 

breeding in the Bodie PMU moved to 

wintering habitat on private land in 

Nevada on the adjacent Mount Grant 

PMU. Also, private lands in the Nevada 

portion of the Desert Creek–Fales PMU 

and the Mount Grant PMU are used by 

sage-grouse throughout the year, 

especially during the late summer 

brood-rearing period (Espinosa 2008, 

pers. comm.). 

The Town of Mammoth Lakes, 

California, located in the southern 

extent of the Bi-State planning area 

recently adopted measures that will 

allow for more development on private 

lands (Town of Mammoth Lakes General 

Plan 2007). Increased indirect effects to 

greater sage-grouse habitat are expected 

due increases in the human population 

in the area. 

The proposed expansion of the 

Mammoth Yosemite Airport is located 

in occupied greater sage-grouse habitat 

within the South Mono PMU. 

Approximately 1.6 ha (4 ac) of land 

immediately surrounding the airport is 

zoned for development. Also, the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

recently resumed regional commercial 

air service at the Airport with two 

winter flights per day beginning in 2008 

and potentially increasing to a 

maximum of eight winter flights per day 

by 2011 (FAA 2008, ES-1). The 

Mammoth Yosemite Airport formerly 

had regional commercial air service 

from 1970 to the mid-1990’s (FAA 2008, 

p. 1-5), and it currently supports about 

400 flights per month of primarily 

single-engine, private aircraft (Town of 

Mammoth Lakes 2005, p. 4-204). All 

greater sage-grouse in the Long Valley 

portion of the South Mono PMU occur 

in close proximity to the Airport and 

have been exposed to commercial air 

traffic in the past, and are currently 

exposed to private air traffic. Effects of 

reinstating commercial air service at the 

Mammoth Yosemite Airport on greater 

sage-grouse are unknown as the level of 

commercial flight traffic these birds may 

be exposed to is undetermined as is the 

impact this exposure will have on 

population dynamics. 

The Benton Crossing landfill in Mono 

County is located north of Crowley Lake 

in Long Valley (South Mono PMU) on 

a site leased from the LADWP. Common 

ravens (Corvus corax) and California 

gulls (Larus californicus) are known to 

heavily use the facility (Coates 2008, 

pers. comm.), although no specific 

surveys of either species’ abundance 

have been conducted. The influence 

these known predators have on the 

population dynamics of the South Mono 

PMU is not known. However, Kolada 

(2007, p. 66) reported that nest success 

in Long Valley was significantly lower 

in comparison to other populations 

within the Bi-State planning area. This 

result may be attributable to the 

increased avian predators subsidized by 

landfill operations (Casazza 2008, pers. 

comm.). 

Summary: Urbanization 

Development of private lands for 

housing and the associated 

infrastructure within the Bi-State area is 

resulting in the destruction and 

modification of habitat of the Bi-State 

area greater sage-grouse DPS. The threat 

of development is greatest in the Pine 

Nut, Desert Creek–Fales, and Bodie 

PMUs, where development is, and will 

likely continue to impact Bi-State area 

greater sage-grouse DPS use of specific 

seasonal sites. The small private 

holdings in the Bi-State area are 

typically associated with mesic meadow 

or spring habitats that play an important 

role in greater sage-grouse life history. 

Greater sage-grouse display strong site 

fidelity to traditional seasonal habitats 

and loss of specific sites can have 

pronounced population impacts. The 

influence of land development on the 

population dynamics of greater sagegrouse in the Bi-State area is greater 

than a simple measure of spatial extent. 

As noted above, resumption of 

commercial air service at the Mammoth 

Yosemite Airport, combined with the 

construction of an adjacent business 

park, will likely affect greater sagegrouse in the South Mono PMU through 

increasing aircraft and human activity 

in or near sage-grouse habitat. 

Development of public and private 

lands for a variety of purposes, 

including residential homes and ROWs 

to support associated infrastructure can 

negatively affect sage-grouse and their 

habitat, and while these threats may not 

be universal, localized areas of impacts 

are anticipated. Based on the data 

available, direct and indirect effects of 

urbanization have exerted and will 

continue to exert a negative influence in 

specific portions of greater sage-grouse 

range in the Bi-State area. This is 

already especially apparent in the 

northern portion of the range of the BiState DPS of the greater sage-grouse, in 

the Pine Nut, Desert Creek–Fales, and 

Bodie PMUs (NDOW 2006, p. 4; Bi-State 

Plan 2004, pp. 24, 88). 

Infrastructure - Fences, Powerlines, and 

Roads 

Fences are considered a risk to greater 

sage-grouse in all Bi-State PMUs (BiState Plan 2004, pp. 54, 80, 120, 124, 

169). As stated in the December 19, 

2006, 90–day finding (71 FR 76058), the 

BLM Bishop Field Office reported 

increased greater sage-grouse mortality 

and decreased use of leks when fences 

were in close proximity. Known 

instances of collision, and the potential 

to fragment and degrade habitat quality 

by providing movement pathways and 

perching substrates for invasive species 

and predators have been cited. 

Fences can also provide a valuable 

rangeland management tool. If properly 

sited and designed, fencing may 

ultimately improve habitat conditions 

for greater sage-grouse. Near several leks 

in the Long Valley area of the South 

Mono PMU, the BLM and LADWP are 

currently using ‘‘let down’’ fences as a 

means of managing cattle. This design 

utilizes permanent fence posts but 

allows the horizontal wire strands to be 

effectively removed (let down) during 

the greater sage-grouse breeding season 

or when cattle are not present. While 

this method does not ameliorate all 

negative aspects of fence presence such 

as perches for avian predators, it does 

reduce the likelihood of collisions. 

Currently, data on the total extent 

(length and distribution) of existing 

fences and the amount of new fences 

being constructed are not available for 

the Bi-State area. 

Powerlines occur in all Bi-State PMUs 

and are a known threat to the greater 

sage-grouse, but the degree of effect 

varies by location. In the Pine Nut PMU, 

powerlines border the North Pine Nut 

lek complex on two sides (Bi-State Plan 

2004, p. 28). An additional line segment 

to the northwest of this complex is 

currently undergoing review by the 

BLM Carson City District. If this 

additional line is approved, powerlines 

will surround the greater sage-grouse 

habitat in the area. Of the four leks 

considered active in the area, the 

distance between the leks and the 

powerlines ranges from approximately 

1.2 to 2.9 km (0.74 to 1.8 mi). 

Additionally, one line currently bisects 

the relatively limited nesting habitat in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the area. Proximity to powerlines is 

negatively associated with greater sagegrouse habitat use, with avoidance of 

otherwise suitable breeding habitat (as 

indicated by the location of active leks), 

which may be the result of predator 

avoidance (e.g., ravens and raptors) (BiState Plan 2004, p. 81; and see 

Powerlines discussion under Factor A in 

the GSG finding above). 

In the Desert Creek–Fales PMU, 

powerlines are one of several types of 

infrastructure development that impact 

greater sage-grouse through 

displacement and habitat fragmentation 

(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). Recent 

declines in populations near Burcham 

and Wheeler Flats in the California 

portion of the Desert Creek–Fales PMU 

may be related to construction of 

powerlines and associated land use 

activities (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). 

This area continues to see urban 

development which will likely require 

additional distribution lines. In the 

Bodie PMU, utility lines are a current 

and future threat that affects multiple 

sites (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 81). In 

northern California, utility lines have a 

negative effect on lek attendance and 

strutting activity. Radio-tagged greater 

sage-grouse loss to avian predation 

increased as the distance to utility lines 

decreased (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 81). 

Common ravens are a capable nest 

predator and often nest on power poles 

or are found in association with roads. 

The Bi-State Plan also identifies 

numerous small-distribution utility 

lines in the Bodie PMU that are likely 

negatively affecting greater sage-grouse. 

The plan references the expected 

development of new lines to service 

private property developments. The 

BLM Bishop Field Office reported 

reduced activity at one lek adjacent to 

a recently developed utility line and 

suggested this may have been 

influenced by the development (Bi-State 

Plan 2004, p. 81). Since 2004, however, 

numbers at this lek have rebounded. 

Currently, there are no high-voltage 

utility lines in the Bodie PMU, nor are 

there any designated corridors for this 

use in existing land use plans (Bi-State 

Plan 2004, p. 82). 

A high-voltage powerline currently 

fragments the Mount Grant PMU from 

north to south, with two to three 

additional smaller distribution lines 

extending from Hawthorne, Nevada, 

west to the California border. The larger 

north–south trending powerline is sited 

in a corridor that was recently adopted 

as part of the West-wide Energy 

Corridor Programmatic EIS (BLM/USFS 

2009), thus future development of this 

corridor is anticipated. There are two 

leks that likely represent a single 

complex in proximity to this line 

segment that have been sporadically 

active over recent years. Whether this 

variation in active use is due to the 

powerline is not clear. Additionally, 

there is strong potential for geothermal 

energy development in the Mount Grant 

PMU that will require additional 

distribution lines to tie into the existing 

electrical grid (see Renewable Energy 

Development below; RETAAC 2007). Of 

significant concern will be additional 

distribution lines in proximity to the 

historic mining district of Aurora, 

Nevada, which supports the largest lek 

in the Mount Grant PMU and occurs 

about 2.5 km (1.5 mi) from the main 

north-south line. 

The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 169) 

mentions three transmission lines in the 

South Mono PMU that may be 

impacting birds in the area on a year 

round basis including three leks that are 

in proximity to existing utility lines. 

Future geothermal development may 

also result in expansion of transmission 

lines in the South Mono PMU (Bi-State 

Plan 2004, p. 169). Threats posed by 

powerlines to the White Mountains 

PMU are not currently imminent, 

although future development is 

possible. 

An extensive road network occurs 

throughout the Bi-State area. The type of 

road varies from paved, multilane 

highways to rough jeep trails but the 

majority of road miles are unpaved, dirt 

two-track roads. Traffic volume varies 

significantly, as does individual 

population exposure. For a 

comprehensive discussion of the effects 

of roads on greater sage-grouse see 

Roads under Factor A in the GSG 

finding above. In the Desert Creek–Fales 

PMU, roads are a risk to greater sagegrouse (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). All 

leks in this PMU are in close proximity 

to dirt two-track roads. Seven of eight 

consistently occupied leks in recent 

years are in relatively close proximity (< 

2.5 km (1.5 mi)) to well- traveled 

highways. Although abundant, roads 

were not presented as a specific risk 

factor for the Pine Nut, Bodie, or Mount 

Grant PMUs during the development of 

their respective risk assessments (BiState Plan 2004). Large portions of these 

PMUs are not accessible, due to heavy 

winter snow until early summer after 

the completion of the breeding season 

and many of the roads are not frequently 

traveled. However, several leks in the 

Bodie PMU are in proximity to wellmaintained and traveled roads. 

In the South Mono PMU, roads are 

recognized as a risk factor that affects 

greater sage-grouse habitat and 

populations (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169). 

A variety of roads in this area have 

access to many significant lek sites. In 

Long Valley, lek sites are accessible via 

well maintained gravel roads. 

Recreational use of these areas is high 

and road traffic is substantial. Two lek 

sites that were in close proximity (< 300 

m (1,000 ft)) to Highway 120 are thought 

to be extirpated although the exact 

cause of extirpation is unknown. Roads 

in the White Mountains PMU may 

negatively impact greater sage-grouse 

populations and their habitats, and 

construction of new roads in this PMU 

will fragment occupied or potential 

habitat for the species (Bi-State Plan 

2004, pp. 120, 124). 

Although greater sage-grouse have 

been killed due to vehicle collisions in 

the Bi-State area (Wiechmann 2008, p. 

3), the greater threat with respect to 

roads is their influence on predator 

movement, invasion by nonnative 

annual grasses, and human disturbance. 

Currently in the Bi-State area, all federal 

lands except those managed by the 

BLM’s Carson City District Office have 

restrictions limiting vehicular travel to 

designated routes. The lands where 

these restrictions apply account for 

roughly 1.6 million ha (4 million ac) or 

86 percent of the land base in the BiState area. Both the Inyo and 

Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forests 

have recently mapped existing roads 

and trails on Forest Lands in the BiState area as part of a USFS Travel 

Management planning effort including 

identification of designated routes (Inyo 

National Forest 2009; Humboldt– 

Toiyabe National Forest 2009). These 

planning efforts will most directly 

influence the South Mono, Desert 

Creek–Fales, and Mount Grant PMUs; 

however, the degree to which they will 

influence greater sage-grouse 

populations is unclear. While the 

planning effort of the Inyo National 

Forest has, and the planning effort of the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest will 

likely add many miles of unauthorized 

routes to the National Forest System, 

these routes have already been in use for 

decades and any future negative impacts 

will be the result of an increase in use 

of these routes. 

Starting in 2005, the BLM’s Bishop 

Field Office implemented seasonal 

closures of several roads in proximity to 

three lek complexes in the Long Valley 

area of the South Mono PMU during the 

spring breeding season as part of a 

greater sage-grouse management strategy 

(BLM 2005c, p. 3). The Field Office is 

also rehabilitating several miles of 

redundant routes to consolidate use and 

minimize habitat degradation and 

disturbance for these same lek 

complexes. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13997 

Summary: Infrastructure - Fences, 

Powerlines, and Roads 

Existing fences, powerlines, and roads 

fragment and degrade greater sagegrouse habitat, and contribute to direct 

mortality through collisions. 

Additionally, new fences, powerlines, 

and roads increase predators and 

invasive plants that increase fire risk 

and or displace native sagebrush 

vegetation. In the Bi-State area, all of 

these linear features adversely affect 

each of the PMUs both directly and 

indirectly to varying degrees. However, 

we do not have consistent and 

comparable information on miles of 

existing or new fences, powerlines and 

roads, or densities of these features 

within PMUs for the Bi-State area as a 

whole. Wisdom et al. (in press, p. 58) 

reported that across the entire range of 

the greater sage-grouse species, the 

mean distance to highways and 

transmission lines for extirpated 

populations was approximately 5 km 

(3.1 mi) or less. In the Bi-State area 

between 35 and 45 percent of annually 

occupied leks, which are indicative of 

the presence of nesting habitat, are 

within this distance to state or federal 

highways and between 40 and 50 

percent are within this distance to 

existing transmission lines. 

Lek counts suggest that greater sagegrouse populations in Long Valley, and 

to a lesser degree Bodie Hills, have been 

relatively stable over the past 15 years. 

The remaining populations in the BiState area appear considerably less 

stable. Research on adult and yearling 

survival suggests that annual survival is 

relatively low in the northern half of the 

Bi-State area (Farinha 2008, 

unpublished data). Annual survival was 

lowest in birds captured in association 

with the Wheeler and Burcham Flat leks 

in the California portion of the Desert 

Creek–Fales PMU, an area in very close 

proximity to Highway 395 and several 

transmission lines. Research conducted 

on nest success, however, shows an 

opposite trend from that of adult 

survival, with overall nest success 

relatively high in the northern half of 

the Bi-State area and lower in the 

southern half (Kolada 2007, p. 52). In 

Long Valley, where nest success was 

lowest, the combination of linear 

features (infrastructure) and an 

increased food source (Benton Crossing 

landfill) for avian predators may be 

influencing nest survival. Given current 

and future development (based on 

known energy resources), the Mount 

Grant, Desert Creek–Fales, Pine Nut, 

and South Mono PMUs are likely to be 

the most directly influenced by new 

powerlines and associated 

infrastructure. 

Greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State 

area have been affected by roads and 

associated human disturbance for many 

years. The geographic extent, density, 

type, and frequency of disturbance have 

changed over time, and the impact has 

likely increased with the proliferation of 

off-highway vehicles. There are no 

indications that the increasing trend of 

these activities will diminish in the near 

future. 

Mining 

Mineral extraction has a long history 

throughout the Bi-State area. Currently, 

the PMUs with the greatest exposure are 

Bodie, Mount Grant, Pine Nut, and 

South Mono (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89, 

137, 178). Although mining represents a 

year round risk to greater sage-grouse, 

direct loss of key seasonal habitats or 

population disturbances during critical 

seasonal periods are of greatest impact. 

In the Bodie PMU, mining impacts to 

the ecological conditions were most 

pronounced in the late 1800’s and early 

1900’s when as many as 10,000 people 

inhabited the area. The area is still open 

to mineral development, and 

exploration is likely to continue into the 

future (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89–90). 

In the Bodie Hills, current mining 

operations are restricted to small-scale 

gold and silver exploration and sand 

and gravel extraction activities with 

limited impacts on greater sage-grouse 

(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 90). An 

exploratory drilling operation is 

currently authorized in the Bodie Hills 

near the historic Paramount Mine, 

approximately 8 km (5 mi) north of 

Bodie, California. The proposed action 

may influence movement and use of 

important seasonal habitats near Big 

Flat. If subsequent development occurs, 

restricted use of or movement through 

this area will adversely influence 

connectivity between the Bodie and 

Mount Grant PMUs. 

The Mount Grant and Pine Nut PMUs 

also have a long history of mining 

activity. Activity in the Mount Grant 

PMU has typically consisted of open pit 

mining. Two open pit mines exist, one 

of which is currently active. It is likely 

that mining will continue and may 

increase during periods when prices for 

precious metals are high, negatively 

effecting the sage-grouse populations in 

those areas. Mining in the Mount Grant 

PMU is largely concentrated around the 

Aurora historic mining district. This 

area contains the largest remaining lek 

in the PMU, which is located on private 

land. In the Pine Nut PMU, most mining 

activity is confined in woodland habitat 

but there is some overlap with sagegrouse habitats. 

Summary: Mining 

The effect of mining is not evenly 

distributed throughout the Bi-State area. 

It is greatest in the Mount Grant and 

Bodie PMUs where mining impacts to 

habitat may decrease the persistence of 

greater sage-grouse in the Mount Grant 

PMU Aurora lek complex area. This area 

represents a significant stronghold for 

the Mount Grant PMU and serves as a 

potential connection between breeding 

populations in the Bodie Hills to the 

west with breeding populations 

occurring further east in the Wassuk 

Range located on the eastern edge of the 

Mount Grant PMU. Further mineral 

extraction in either of these PMUs will 

negatively influence the spatial extent of 

the breeding population occurring in the 

Bodie Hills and the long term 

persistence of these populations. 

Energy Development 

Although energy development and the 

associated infrastructure was identified 

as a risk for greater sage-grouse 

occurring in the Bi-State area (Bi-State 

Plan 2004, pp. 30, 178), the risk 

assessment preceded the current 

heightened interest in renewable energy 

and underestimated the threats to the 

species. Several locations in the Bi-State 

area have suitable wind resources, but 

currently only the Pine Nut Mountains 

have active leases that overlap sagegrouse distribution. Approximately 

3,696 ha (9,135 ac) have been leased 

from the BLM Carson City District and 

are being evaluated for wind 

development. The areas under lease are 

on the main ridgeline of the Pine Nut 

Mountains extending from Sunrise Pass 

near the Lyon and Douglas County line 

south to the Mount Siegel area. The area 

is a mix of shrub and woodland habitats 

containing year-round greater sagegrouse habitat. The ridgeline occurs 

between the north and south greater 

sage-grouse populations in the Pine Nut 

PMU. The area was recently designated 

as a renewable energy ‘‘wind zone’’ by 

Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons’ 

Renewable Energy Transmission Access 

Advisory Committee (RETAAC; 

RETAAC 2007, Figure 2). Development 

of the Pine Nut area will have a 

significant impact on the connectivity 

within this small population and greatly 

restrict access to nesting and brooding 

habitat. Additional areas located in 

sage-grouse habitat may have suitable 

wind resources and could be developed 

in the future. 

In the South Mono PMU there are two 

geothermal plants located on private 

land immediately east of U.S. 395 at 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
13998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Casa Diablo. These are the only 

operating geothermal plants in the BiState area. Within the South Mono PMU 

about 3,884 ha (9,600 ac) are under 

geothermal lease. The leased areas are 

located to the west of U.S. 395 and 

immediately north of Highway 203 and 

largely outside of occupied sage-grouse 

habitat. 

Within the Desert Creek–Fales PMU, 

about 2,071 ha (5,120 ac) on the north 

end of the Pine Grove Hills near Mount 

Etna are leased for geothermal 

development. The leases in this area are 

valid through 2017. Several locations 

within the Mount Grant PMU are also 

under current leases and several more 

areas are currently proposed for leasing. 

Based on location and vegetation 

community, two of the leased areas in 

the Mount Grant PMU are of great 

importance to sage-grouse. Four sections 

(1,035 ha, 2,560 ac) are leased 

approximately 1.6–4.8 km (1–3 mi) 

southeast of the confluence between 

Rough Creek and the East Walker River 

near the Lyon and Mineral County line 

on lands managed by the USFS. This 

area is considered year-round greater 

sage-grouse habitat with from one to 

three active leks in proximity. 

Additionally, approximately 13 sections 

(3,366 ha, 8,320 ac) are leased around 

the Aurora historic mining district near 

the Nevada and California border. Much 

of this area is dominated by pinyon– 

juniper woodlands, but at least three 

sections (776 ha, 1,920 ac) contain 

sagebrush communities and there is one 

known lek in close proximity. The 

leased sections within the Desert Creek– 

Fales and Mount Grant PMUs also fall 

within the boundary delineated for 

geothermal development proposed by 

RETAAC (RETAAC 2007, Figure 2). 

Summary: Energy Development 

The likelihood of renewable energy 

facility development in the Bi-State area 

is high. There is strong support for 

energy diversification in both Nevada 

and California, and the energy industry 

considers the available resources in the 

area to warrant investment (RETAAC 

2007, p. 8). Greater sage-grouse habitat 

in the Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs 

will likely be most affected by facility 

and infrastructure development. Given 

this anticipated development, 

additional fragmentation and isolation 

as well as some degree of range 

contraction will occur that will 

significantly affect the Pine Nut and 

Mount Grant PMUs. Renewable energy 

development is not evenly distributed 

across the entire Bi-State area, but it will 

likely be a significant threat to 

populations in the Pine Nut and Mount 

Grant PMUs. 

Grazing 

In the Bi-State area, all PMUs are 

subject to livestock grazing with the 

majority of ‘‘public’’ allotments allocated 

to cattle and sheep (Bi-State Plan 2004). 

Determining how grazing impacts 

greater sage-grouse habitat and 

populations is complicated. There are 

data to support both beneficial and 

detrimental aspects of grazing 

(Klebenow 1981, p. 122; Beck and 

Mitchell 2000, p. 993), suggesting that 

the risk of livestock grazing to greater 

sage-grouse is dependent on sitespecific management. 

Kolada (2007, p. 52) reports nest 

success of greater sage-grouse in the BiState area on average to be as high as 

any results reported across the range of 

the species. However, nest success is 

varied among PMUs, and residual grass 

cover did not appear to be as significant 

a factor to nest success as in other 

western U.S. locations. These findings 

suggest that grazing in the Bi-State area 

may not be strongly influencing this 

portion of the bird’s life history. 

Important mesic meadow sites are 

relatively limited outside of Long Valley 

and the South Mono PMU, especially 

north of Mono Lake (Bi-State Plan 2004, 

pp. 17, 65, 130). This limitation may 

influence greater sage-grouse population 

growth rates. Although most of the 

grazed lands in the Bi-State area are 

managed by the BLM and USFS under 

rangeland management practices and 

are guided by agency land use plans, 

much of the suitable mesic habitats are 

located on private lands. Given their 

private ownership assessing the 

condition of these sites is difficult and 

conditions are not well known. 

Although there are federal grazing 

allotments that are exhibiting adverse 

impacts from livestock grazing, such as 

the Churchill Allotment in the Pine Nut 

PMU (Axtell 2008, pers. comm.), most 

allotments in the Bi-State area are 

classified as being in fair to good 

condition (Axtell 2008, pers. comm.; 

Murphy 2008, pers. comm.; Nelson 

2008, pers. comm.). We have no 

information indicating how allotment 

condition classifications used by the 

BLM and USFS correlate with greater 

sage-grouse population health. 

Feral horses are present in the BiState area. Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7- 

36–7-37) stated that areas occupied by 

horses have lower grass, shrub, and total 

vegetative cover and that horse 

alteration of spring or other mesic areas 

may be a concern with regard to greater 

sage-grouse brood rearing. The most 

significant impact from feral horses has 

occurred in the Mount Grant and Pine 

Nut PMUs (Axtell 2008, pers. comm.). 

The Bodie PMU has also been impacted 

by feral horses and these animals pose 

a risk of disturbance to the 7-Troughs 

lek population (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 

86–87). The intent of the agencies 

involved is to maintain horse numbers 

at or below those established for the 

herd management areas (HMA) and wild 

horse territories (WHT). In 2003, the 

BLM captured and removed 26 horses 

from the Powell Mountain WHT located 

in the Mount Grant PMU and 7 horses 

from the Bodie PMU. Currently there are 

relatively low numbers of horses (10 to 

20) in the Bodie PMU. The Bodie Hills 

have no defined HMA/WHT but the 

horses present are likely coming from 

the Powell Mountain WHT located in 

the Mount Grant PMU (Bi-State Plan 

2004, pp. 86–87). In 2007, the USFS 

took an additional 87 horses off the 

Powell Mountain WHT (Murphy 2008, 

pers. comm.). The herd management 

level set for the Powell Mountain WHT 

is 35 individuals. Although 

management of feral horse populations 

is an ongoing issue, local land managers 

consider it to be controllable given 

sufficient funding and public support. 

Summary: Grazing 

There are localized areas of habitat 

degradation attributable to grazing that 

indirectly and cumulatively affect 

greater sage-grouse. Overall population 

estimates, while variable from year-toyear, show no discernable trend 

attributable to grazing. The impact on 

ecosystems by different ungulate taxa 

may have a combined negative 

influence on greater sage-grouse habitats 

(Beever and Aldridge in press, p. 20). 

Cattle, horses, mule deer, and antelope 

each use the sagebrush ecosystem 

somewhat differently and the 

combination of multiple species may 

produce a different result than simply 

more of a single species. Greater sagegrouse habitat in the Pine Nut PMU, as 

well as limited portions of the Bodie 

PMU, is affected by grazing management 

practices and has a negative effect on 

sage-grouse in those areas. Overall, the 

available data do not provide evidence 

that grazing by domestic or feral animals 

is a major impact to habitat of greater 

sage-grouse throughout the entire BiState area. However, the loss or 

degradation of habitat due to grazing 

contributes to the risk of extirpation of 

some local populations, which in turn 

contributes to increased risk to the 

persistence of the Bi-State DPS. 

Fire 

As discussed above, in the GSG 

finding, changes in the fire ecology that 

result in an altered wildfire regime are 

a present and future risk in all PMUs in 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 13999 

the Bi-State area (Bi-State Plan 2004). A 

reduction in fire occurrence has 

facilitated the expansion of woodlands 

into montane sagebrush communities. 

In the Pine Nut and Desert Creek–Fales 

PMUs this has resulted in a loss of 

sagebrush habitat (Bi-State Plan 2004, 

pp. 20, 39), while in other locations 

such as the Bodie and Mount Grant 

PMUs the most significant impact of 

conifer expansion is the additional 

fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat and 

isolation of the greater sage-grouse 

populations (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 95- 

96, 133). 

Invasion by annual grasses (e.g., 

Bromus tectorum) can lead to a 

shortening of the fire frequency that is 

difficult to reverse. Often invasive 

species become established or become 

apparent only following a fire or similar 

disturbance event. In the Bi-State area, 

there has been little recent fire activity 

(Finn et al. 2004, http:// 

wildfire.cr.usgs.gov/firehistory/ 

data.html). One exception is in the 

southern portion of the Pine Nut PMU 

where B. tectorum has readily invaded 

a recent burn in the Minnehaha Canyon 

area. In 2007, the Adrian Fire burned 

about 5,600 ha (14,000 ac) of important 

nesting habitat at the north end of the 

Pine Nut PMU. Although there does 

appear to be native grass establishment 

in the burn, B. tectorum is present and 

recovery of this habitat will likely be 

slow or impossible (Axtell 2008, pers. 

comm.). In 1996, a wildfire burned in 

the center of the Pine Nut PMU, in 

important brood rearing habitat. The 

area is recovering and has little invasive 

annual grass establishment. However, 

after 15 years the burned area has very 

limited sagebrush cover. While birds 

still use the meadow habitat, the 

number of individuals in the Pine Nut 

PMU is small. It is not known to what 

degree this loss of habitat has 

influenced population dynamics in the 

area but it is likely that it has and will 

continue to be a factor in the persistence 

of the Pine Nut population given its 

small size. Across the remainder of the 

Bi-State area wildfires occur on an 

annual basis, however, impacts to 

sagebrush habitats have been limited to 

date. Most species of sagebrush are 

killed by fire (West 1983, p. 341; Miller 

and Eddleman 2000, p. 17; West and 

Young 2000, p. 259), and historic firereturn intervals were as long as 350 

years, depending on sagebrush type and 

environmental conditions (Baker in 

press, p. 16). Natural sagebrush 

recolonization in burned areas depends 

on the presence of adjacent live plants 

for a seed source or on the seed bank, 

if present (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 

17), and requires decades for full 

recovery. 

Summary: Fire 

Within the Bi-State area, wildfire is a 

potential threat to greater sage-grouse 

habitat in all PMUs. To date few large 

landscape scale fires have occurred and 

we have not yet seen changes to the fire 

cycle (e.g., shorter) due to invasion by 

nonnative annual grasses. The BLM and 

USFS manage the area under what is 

essentially a full-suppression firefighting policy given adequate 

resources. Based on the available 

information, wildfire is not currently a 

significant threat to the Bi-State DPS of 

the greater sage-grouse. However, the 

future threat of wildfire, given the 

fragmented nature and small size of the 

populations within the DPS, would 

have a significant effect on the overall 

viability of the DPS based on its effects 

on the habitat in the Pine Nut PMU. 

Invasive Species, Noxious Weeds, and 

Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment 

A variety of nonnative, invasive plant 

species are present in all PMUs that 

comprise the Bi-State area, with Bromus 

tectorum (cheatgrass) being of greatest 

concern. (For a general discussion on 

the effects of non-native and invasive 

plant species, please see Invasive plants 

under Factor A in the GSG finding 

above). 

Wisdom et al. (2003, pp. 4-3 to 4-13) 

assessed the risk of Bromus tectorum 

displacement of native vegetation for 

Nevada and reported that 44 percent of 

existing sagebrush habitat is either at 

moderate or high risk of displacement 

and correspondingly 56 percent of 

sagebrush habitat is at low risk of 

displacement. In conjunction with 

Wisdom et al. (2003), Rowland et al. 

(2003, p. 40) found that 48 percent of 

greater sage-grouse habitat on lands 

administered by the BLM Carson City 

Field Office is at low risk of B. tectorum 

replacement, about 39 percent is at 

moderate risk, and about 13 percent is 

at high risk. Both assessments, however, 

included large portions of land outside 

the Bi-State area. Peterson (2003), in 

association with the Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program, estimated percent 

cover of B. tectorum in approximately 

the northern half of the Bi-State area 

using satellite data. Land managers and 

this satellite data assessment indicate 

that B. tectorum is present throughout 

the Bi-State area but percent cover is 

low. Conversion to an annual grass 

dominated community is limited to only 

a few locations. Areas of greatest 

concern are along main travel corridors 

and in the Pine Nut, Bodie, and Mount 

Grant PMUs. 

Bromus tectorum out-competes 

beneficial understory plant species and 

can dramatically alter fire ecology (See 

Wildfire discussion above). In the BiState area, essential sage-grouse habitat 

is often highly concentrated and a fire 

event would have significant adverse 

effects to sage-grouse populations. Land 

managers have had little success 

preventing B. tectorum invasion in the 

West. Occurrence of B. tectorum in the 

Bi-State area is apparent at elevations 

above that thought to be relatively 

immune based on the grass’s ecology. 

This suggests that few locations in the 

Bi-State area will be safe from B. 

tectorum invasion in the future. Climate 

change may strongly influence the 

outcome of these interactions; the 

available data suggest that future 

conditions will be most influenced by 

precipitation (Bradley 2008, p. 9) (Also 

see Climate Change discussion below). 

Pinyon–juniper encroachment into 

sagebrush habitat is a threat occurring in 

the Bi-State area (USFS 1966, p. 22). 

Pinyon–juniper encroachment is 

occurring to some degree in all PMUs, 

with the greatest loss and fragmentation 

of important sagebrush habitat in the 

Pine Nut, Desert Creek–Fales, Mount 

Grant, and Bodie PMUs (Bi-State Plan 

2004, pp. 20, 39, 96, 133, 137, 167). No 

data exist for the Bi-State area that 

quantify the amount of sagebrush 

habitat lost to encroachment, or that 

clearly demonstrate pinyon–juniper 

encroachment has caused greater sagegrouse populations to decline. However, 

land managers consider it a significant 

threat impacting habitat quality, 

quantity and connectivity and 

increasing the risk of avian predation to 

sage-grouse populations (Bi-State Plan 

2004, pp. 20, 39, 96) and several 

previously occupied locations are 

thought to have been abandoned due to 

encroachment (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 

20, 133). Management treatment of 

pinyon–juniper is feasible but is often 

constrained by competing resource 

values and cost. Several thinning 

projects have been completed in the BiState area, accounting for approximately 

1,618 ha (4,000 ac) of woodland 

removed. 

Summary: Invasive Species, Noxious 

Weeds, Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment 

While the current occurrence of 

Bromus tectorum in the Bi-State area is 

relatively low, it is likely the species 

will continue to expand and adversely 

impact sagebrush habitats and the 

greater sage-grouse by out-competing 

beneficial understory plant species and 

altering the fire ecology of the area. 

Alteration of the fire ecology of the BiState area is of greatest concern (see Fire 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

discussion above). Land managers have 

had little success preventing B. 

tectorum invasion in the West and 

elevational barriers to invasion are not 

apparent in the Bi-State area. While 

climate change may strongly influence 

the outcome of these interactions, the 

available data suggest that future 

conditions will be most influenced by 

precipitation (Bradley 2008, p. 9). 

Bromus tectorum is a serious threat to 

the sagebrush shrub community and 

will be detrimental to greater sagegrouse in the Bi-State area. 

Encroachment of sagebrush habitats by 

woodlands is occurring throughout the 

Bi-State area and continued isolation 

and reduction of suitable habitats will 

influence both short- and long-term 

persistence of sage-grouse. 

Climate Change 

Global climate change is expected to 

affect the Bi-State area (Lenihan et al. 

2003, p. 1674; Diffenbaugh et al. 2008, 

p. 3; Lenihan et al. 2008, p. S223). 

Impacts are not well defined and precise 

predictions are problematic due to the 

coarse nature of the climate models and 

relatively small geographic extent of the 

area. In general, model predictions tend 

to agree on an increasing temperature 

regime (Cayan et al. 2008, pp. S38–S40). 

Model predictions for the Bi-State area, 

using the mid-range ensemble emissions 

scenario, show an overall increase in 

annual temperatures, with some areas 

projected to experience mean annual 

temperature increases of 1 to 3 degrees 

Fahrenheit over the next 50 years (TNC 

Climate Wizard, 2009). Of greater 

uncertainty is the influence of climate 

change on local precipitation 

(Diffenbaugh et al. 2005, p. 15776; 

Cayan et al. 2008, p. S28). This variable 

is of major importance to greater sagegrouse, as timing and quantity of 

precipitation greatly influences plant 

community composition and extent, 

specifically forb production, which in 

turn affects nest and chick survival. 

Across the west, models predict a 

general increase in precipitation 

(Neilson et al. 2005, p. 150), although 

scaled-down predictions for the Bi-State 

area show an overall decrease in annual 

precipitation ranging from under 1 inch 

up to 3 inches over the next 50 years 

(TNC Climate Wizard 2009). 

A warming trend in the mountains of 

western North America is expected to 

decrease snow pack, accelerate spring 

runoff, and reduce summer stream flows 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 11). Specifically 

in the Sierra Nevada, March 

temperatures have warmed over the last 

50 years resulting in more rain than 

snow precipitation, which translates 

into earlier snowmelt. This trend is 

likely to continue and accelerate into 

the future (Kapnick and Hall 2009, p. 

11). This change in the type of 

precipitation and the timing of snow 

melt will influence reproductive success 

by altering the availability of understory 

vegetation and meadow habitats. 

Increased summer temperature is also 

expected to increase the frequency and 

intensity of wildfires. Westerling et al. 

(2009, pp. 10-11) modeled potential 

wildfire occurrences as a function of 

land surface characteristics in 

California. Their model predicts an 

overall increase in the number of 

wildfires and acreage burned by 2085 

(Westerling et al. 2009, pp. 17-18). 

Increases in the number of sites 

susceptible to invasive annual grass and 

increases in WNv outbreaks are 

reasonably anticipated (IPCC 2007, p. 

13; Lenihan et al. 2008, p. S227). 

Reduction in summer precipitation is 

expected to produce the most suitable 

condition for B. tectorum. Recent 

warming is linked, in terrestrial 

ecosystems, to poleward and upward 

shifts in plant and animal ranges (IPCC 

2007, p. 2). 

While it is reasonable to assume the 

Bi-State area will experience vegetation 

changes, we do not know how climate 

change will ultimately effect this greater 

sage-grouse population. It is unlikely 

that the current extent of shrub habitat 

will remain unchanged, whether the 

shift is toward a grass or woodland 

dominated system is unknown. Either 

result will negatively affect greater sagegrouse in the area. Additionally, it is 

also reasonable to assume that changes 

in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, 

temperature, precipitation, and timing 

of snowmelt, will act synergistically 

with other threats such as wildfire and 

invasive species to produce yet 

unknown but likely negative effects to 

greater sage-grouse habitat and 

populations in the Bi-State area. 

Summary of Factor A 

Destruction and modification of 

greater sage-grouse habitat is occurring 

and will continue in the Bi-State area 

due to urbanization, infrastructure (e.g., 

fences, powerlines, and roads), mining, 

renewable energy development, grazing, 

wildfire, and invasive plant species. At 

the individual PMU level the impact 

and timing of these threats vary. The 

Pine-Nut PMU has the lowest number of 

individuals of all Bi-State area 

(approximately 89 to 107 in 2009) PMUs 

and is threatened by urbanization, 

grazing management, wildfire, invasive 

species, and energy development. The 

threats to habitat in this PMU are likely 

to continue in the future which may 

result in continued declines in the 

populations over the short term. 

The Desert-Creek Fales PMU contains 

the greatest number of sage-grouse of all 

Bi-State PMUs in Nevada 

(approximately 512 to 575 in 2009). The 

most significant threats in this PMU are 

wildfire, invasive species (specifically 

conifer encroachment), urbanization, 

and fragmentation. Private lands 

purchase in California and pinyonjuniper forest removal in Nevada 

reduced some of the threats at two 

important locations within this PMU. 

However, a recent proposal for a land 

parcel subdivision in proximity to 

Burcham Flat, California, threatens 

nesting habitat and one of the two 

remaining leks in the area. The 

imminence of these threats varies, 

however, with urbanization and 

fragmentation being the most imminent 

threats to habitat in this PMU. 

The Mount Grant PMU has an 

estimated population of 376 to 427 

individuals based on 2009 surveys. 

Threats in this PMU include renewable 

energy development and mining 

associated infrastructure. Additional 

threats include infrastructure (fences, 

powerlines, and roads), conifer 

encroachment, fragmentation, and 

impacts to mesic habitat on private land 

from grazing and water table alterations. 

These threats currently fragment, and 

may in the future continue to fragment 

habitat in this PMU and reduce or 

eliminate connectivity to populations in 

the Bodie Hills PMU to the west. 

The Bodie and South Mono PMUs are 

the core of greater sage-grouse 

populations in the Bi-State area, and 

have estimated populations of 829 to 

927 and 906 to 1,012 individuals based 

on 2009 surveys, respectively. These 

two PMUs comprise approximately 65 

percent of the total population in the BiState area. Future loss or conversion of 

limited brood rearing habitat on private 

lands in the Bodie PMU is a significant 

threat to the population. The threat of 

future wildfire and subsequent habitat 

loss of conversion to annual grassland is 

of great concern. Threats from existing 

and future infrastructure, grazing, 

mineral extraction, and conifer 

encroachment are also present but 

believed to have a relatively lower 

impact. The most significant threat in 

the South Mono PMU involves impacts 

associated with human activity in the 

forms of urbanization and recreation. 

Other threats in this PMU include 

existing and future infrastructure, 

mining activities, and wildfire, but pose 

a relatively lower risk to habitat and the 

DPS. 

Information on threats in White 

Mountains PMU is limited. The area is 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14001 

remote and difficult to access and most 

data are in the form of random 

observations. Threats to the habitat in 

this PMU are low due to the remote 

location. Activities such as grazing, 

recreation, and invasive species may be 

influencing the population but this is 

speculation. Potential future actions in 

the form of transmission line, road, and 

mineral developments are threats that 

could lead to the loss of the remote but 

contiguous nature of the habitat. 

Predicting the impact of global 

climate change on sage-grouse 

populations is challenging due to the 

relatively small spatial extent of the BiState area. It is likely that vegetation 

communities will not remain static and 

the amount of sagebrush shrub habitat 

will decrease. Further, increased 

variation in drought cycles due to 

climate change will likely place 

additional stress on sage-grouse habitat 

and populations. While greater sagegrouse evolved with drought, drought 

has been correlated with population 

declines and shown to be a limiting 

factor to population growth in areas 

where habitats have been compromised. 

Taken cumulatively, the habitat-based 

threats in all PMUs will likely act to 

fragment and isolate populations of the 

DPS in the Bi-State area. Over the short 

term (10 years) the persistence of the 

Pine Nut PMU is not likely. Populations 

occurring in the Desert Creek–Fales and 

Mount Grant PMUs are under 

significant pressure and continued 

threats to habitat will likely increase 

likelihood of extirpation. The Bodie and 

South Mono PMUs are larger and more 

stable and should continue to persist. 

While the South Mono PMU appears to 

be an isolated entity, the Bodie PMU 

interacts with the Mount Grant and the 

Desert Creek–Fales PMUs, and the 

continued loss of habitat in these other 

locations will likely influence the 

population dynamics and possibly the 

persistence of the breeding population 

occurring in the Bodie PMU. The White 

Mountain PMU is likely already an 

isolated population and does not 

currently or would in the future 

contribute to the South Mono PMU. 

Therefore, based on our review of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, we conclude threats from the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of greater 

sage-grouse habitat or range are 

significant to the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse. 

Factor B: Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Hunting 

The only known assessment of 

hunting effects specific to the Bi-State 

area is an analysis conducted by Gibson 

(1998) for the Bodie Hills and Long 

Valley lek complexes. This assessment 

indicated that populations in the South 

Mono PMU (Long Valley area) were 

depressed by hunting from the late 

1960’s to 2000 but the Bodie Hills 

population was not. The results of 

Gibson (1998) influenced the CDFG 

management of the Long Valley 

population through the limitation of 

allocated hunting permits (Gardner 

2008, pers. comm.). 

Prior to 1983, California had no limit 

on hunting permits in the area which 

covers the Bodie Hills portion of the 

Bodie PMU (North Mono Hunt Area) 

and the Long Valley portion of the 

South Mono PMU (South Mono Hunt 

Area). In 1983, CDFG closed the hunting 

season (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 73–74); 

however, it was reopened in 1987 when 

CDFG instituted a permit system that 

resulted in limiting the number of 

permits (hundreds) issued annually. In 

1998, the number of permits issued was 

significantly reduced (Bi-State Plan 

2004, pp. 74–75; Gardner 2008, pers. 

comm.). 

From 1998 to the present, the number 

of hunting permits issued by the CDFG 

has ranged from 10 to 35 per year for the 

North Mono and South Mono Hunt 

Areas (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 173; CDFG 

2008). In 2008, 25 single bird harvest 

permits were issued for the North Mono 

Hunt Area, and 35 single bird harvest 

permits were issued for the South Mono 

Hunt Area (CDFG 2008). Assuming all 

permits were filled, and comparing 

these estimated harvest levels to the low 

spring population estimates for the 

Bodie and South Mono PMUs for 2008, 

there was an estimated loss of about 4 

percent for each population (25 of 573 

and 35 of 838 for Bodie PMU and South 

Mono PMU, respectively). These harvest 

levels are within the harvest rate of 10 

percent or less recommended by 

Connelly et al. (2000a, p. 976). The 

CDFG evaluated the effect of their 

greater sage-grouse hunting season for 

California as part of an overall 

assessment of the effects of their 

resident game bird hunting seasons 

(CDFG 2002). They concluded that the 

removal of individual animals from 

resident game bird populations 

statewide (including greater sagegrouse) will not significantly reduce 

those populations and will therefore not 

have a significant environmental impact 

on resident game birds (CDFG 2002, p. 

7). 

Hunting (gun) has been closed in the 

Nevada portion of the Bi-State area 

since 1999 (NDOW 2006, p. 2). The 

falconry season in this area was closed 

in 2003 (Espinosa 2006b, pers. comm.). 

The Washoe Tribe has authority over 

hunting on tribal allotments in the Pine 

Nut PMU. There are anecdotal reports of 

harvest by Tribal members but currently 

the Washoe Tribe Hunting and Fishing 

Commission does not issue harvest 

permits for greater sage-grouse nor are 

historical harvest records available (J. 

Warpea 2009, pers. comm.). 

Neither the CDFG nor NDOW had any 

information on poaching of greater sagegrouse or the accidental taking of this 

species by hunters pursuing other 

upland game birds with open seasons 

for the Bi-State area. Gibson (2001, p. 4) 

does mention that a low level of known 

poaching occurred in Long Valley. 

Hunting has suppressed some 

populations in the Bi-State area 

historically. Harvest has been estimated 

to be as much as 4 percent of the 

population in Bodie and South Mono 

PMUs. While this may be considered to 

be at levels considered compensatory 

and within harvest guidelines, in Long 

Valley it likely continues to impact 

population growth. 

Recreational, Scientific, and Religious 

Use 

The CDFG and NDOW provide public 

direction to leks and guidelines to 

minimize viewing disturbance on a 

case-by-case basis. Overall, lek locations 

in the Bi-State area are well known and 

some are frequently visited. Disturbance 

is possible; however, we have no data to 

suggest that non-consumptive 

recreational uses of greater sage-grouse 

are impacting local populations in the 

Bi-State area (Gardner 2008, pers. 

comm.; Espinosa 2008, pers. comm.). 

We are not aware of any studies of lek 

viewing or other forms of nonconsumptive recreational uses related to 

greater sage-grouse population trends. 

We have no information that this type 

of recreational activity is having a 

negative impact on local populations or 

contributing to declining population 

trends of greater sage-grouse in the BiState area. 

Regarding possible effects from 

scientific studies of greater sage-grouse, 

in the past 5 years, approximately 200 

greater sage-grouse have been captured 

and handled by researchers. Casazza et 

al. (2009, p. 45) indicates that, in 3 years 

of study of radio-marked greater sagegrouse, the deaths of four birds in the 

Bi-State area were attributed to 

researchers. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14002 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Summary of Factor B 

Overall in the Bi-State area hunting is 

limited to such a degree that it is not 

apparently restrictive to overall 

population growth. However, hunting 

was shown to limit the population of 

greater sage-grouse occurring within the 

South Mono PMU historically and even 

at its current reduced level still likely 

suppresses this population. While 

hunting in the Bodie PMU appears to be 

compensatory, given this PMU’s 

connection with the neighboring and 

non-hunted Mount Grant PMU and the 

current declines apparent in the Mount 

Grant population, additional evaluation 

of this hunting across jurisdictional 

boundaries is warranted. We have no 

information indicating poaching, nonconsumptive uses, or scientific use 

significantly impact Bi-State greater 

sage-grouse populations, either 

separately of collectively. Therefore, 

based on our review of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

we find that overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is not a significant 

threat to the Bi-State DPS of the greater 

sage-grouse. 

Factor C: Disease and Predation 

Disease 

West Nile virus (WNv) is the only 

identified disease that warrants concern 

for greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State 

area. Small populations, such as those 

in the Bi-State area, are at higher risk of 

extirpation due to their low numbers 

and the additive mortality WNv causes 

(see Disease discussion under Factor C 

in the GSG finding, above). Larger 

populations may be better able ‘‘absorb’’ 

losses due to WNv simply due to their 

size (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 25). 

The documented loss of four greater 

sage-grouse to WNv in the Bodie (n=3) 

and Desert Creek–Fales (n=1) PMUs 

(Casazza et al. 2009, p. 45) has 

heightened our concern about the 

impact of this disease in the Bi-State 

area, especially given the small 

population sizes. These mortalities 

represented four percent of the total 

greater sage-grouse mortalities observed, 

but additional reported mortality due to 

predation could have been due in part 

to disease-weakened individuals. 

Mortality caused by disease acts in a 

density independent, or additive, 

manner. While four percent may not 

appear substantial, the fact that it can 

act independently of habitat and has the 

potential to suppress a population 

below carrying capacity makes disease 

of a greater concern. 

Annual and spatial variations in 

temperature and precipitation influence 

WNv outbreaks. Much of the Bi-State 

area occurs at relatively high elevations 

with short summers, and these 

conditions likely limit the extent of 

mosquito and WNv occurrence, or at 

least may limit outbreaks to the years 

with above-average temperatures. The 

Bi-State area represents the highest 

known elevation at which greater sagegrouse have been infected with WNv, 

about 2,300 m (7,545 ft; Walker and 

Naugle in press, p. 12). Casazza et al. 

(2009) captured birds in the White 

Mountains, South Mono, Bodie, and 

California portion of the Desert Creek– 

Fales PMUs, and mortality rates at these 

locations may not be representative of 

the remainder of the Bi-State area, 

which occurs at lower elevations on 

average. The WNv was first documented 

in the State of California in 2003 (Reisen 

et al. 2004, p. 1369), thus, the impact of 

the virus during the 2003–2005 study 

years may be an underrepresentation of 

current conditions. From 2004 to 2008, 

the U.S. Geological Survey reported 79 

cases of WNv in birds (species 

undefined) from Mono, Douglas, Lyon, 

and Mineral Counties (http:// 

diseasemaps.usgs.gov), accessed 

February 27, 2009). 

The extent that WNv influences 

greater sage-grouse population 

dynamics in the Bi-State area is 

uncertain, and barring a severe 

outbreak, natural variations in survival 

and reproductive rates that drive 

population growth may be masking the 

true impact of the disease. However, the 

dramatic fluctuations in recent lek 

counts in the Desert Creek–Fales and 

Mount Grant PMUs may indicate past 

outbreaks. Based on our current 

knowledge of the virus, the relatively 

high elevations and cold temperatures 

common in much of the Bi-State area 

likely reduce the chance of a 

population-wide outbreak. However, 

there may be localized areas of 

significant outbreaks that could 

influence individual populations. West 

Nile virus is a relatively new source of 

mortality for greater sage-grouse and to 

date has been limited in its impact in 

the Bi-State area. Although predicting 

precisely when and where further 

outbreaks will occur is not possible, the 

best scientific data available support a 

conclusion that outbreaks are very likely 

to continue to occur. However, the loss 

of individual populations from WNv 

outbreaks, which is particularly a risk 

for smaller populations, may influence 

the persistence of the Bi-State DPS 

through the loss of redundancy to the 

overall population and the associated 

challenges of recolonizing extirpated 

sites through natural emigration. 

Predation 

Range-wide, annual mortality of 

breeding-age greater sage-grouse varies 

from 55 to 75 percent for females and 

38 to 60 percent for males, with the 

majority of mortality attributable to 

predation (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, 

p. 25). Although not delineated by sex, 

the best data available for the Bi-State 

population reports apparent annual 

adult mortality due to predation of 

between 58 and 64 percent (Casazza et 

al. 2009, p. 45). This loss of radiocollared greater sage-grouse in the BiState area to predators is well within 

normal levels across the range of the 

species. However, estimates of adult 

survival vary substantially across the BiState area and in several locations adult 

survival in the Bi-State area is below 

that considered sustainable by some 

researchers (Farinha et al. 2008, 

unpublished data; Sedinger et al. 

unpublished data., p. 12). Where goodquality habitat is not a limiting factor, 

research suggests it is unlikely that 

predation influences the persistence of 

the species (see Predation under the 

Greater sage-grouse finding above). 

Thus, we consider the low estimates of 

adult survival in the northern half of the 

Bi-State area to be a manifestation of 

habitat degradation or other 

anthropogenic factors that can alter 

natural predator–prey dynamics such as 

introduced nonnative predators or 

human-subsidized native predators. 

Nest success across the Bi-State area 

is within the normal range, with some 

locations even higher than previously 

documented (Kolada 2007, p. 52). The 

lowest estimates occur in Long Valley 

(21 percent; Kolada 2007, p. 66). The 

low estimates in Long Valley are of 

concern as this population represents 

the stronghold for the species in the BiState area and is also the population 

most likely exposed to the greatest 

predation (Coates 2008, pers. comm.). 

Although significantly more birds were 

present in the past, the Long Valley 

population appears stable. The negative 

impact from reduced nesting success is 

presumably being offset by other 

demographic statistics such as high 

chick or adult survival. 

Summary of Factor C 

We have a poor understanding of the 

effects of disease on Bi-State greater 

sage-grouse populations, and we are 

concerned about the potential threat, 

especially in light of recent documented 

presence of WNv and the potential 

impacts this disease can have on 

population growth. WNv is a substantial 

mortality factor for greater sage-grouse 

populations when outbreaks occur. We 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14003 

will continue to monitor future 

infections and observe population 

response. Predation is the primary cause 

of mortality in the Bi-State area (Casazza 

et al. 2009, p. 45), as it is for greater 

sage-grouse throughout its range (see 

discussion of predation related to the 

greater sage-grouse rangewide, above). 

In several locations in the northern BiState area (Bodie Hills, Desert Creek, 

Fales), adult survival is below what 

some researchers consider to be 

sustainable (Farinha et al. 2008, 

unpublished data; Sedinger et al. 

unpublished data., p. 12). Low (21 

percent) nest success in at least one area 

(Long Valley) may be associated with 

higher local densities of predators 

(Coates 2008, pers. comm.). Studies 

suggest predator influence is more 

pronounced in areas of poor habitat 

conditions. The ultimate cause of 

reduced population growth and survival 

appears to stem from impacts from 

degraded habitat quality. The impacts 

from roads, powerlines, and other 

anthropogenic features (landfills, 

airports, and urbanization) degrade 

habitat quality and increase the 

densities of native and nonnative 

predators which results in negative 

effects to greater sage-grouse population 

dynamics. Therefore, after reviewing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available we have determined that 

disease and predation are threats to the 

Bi-State DPS, although the impact of 

these threats is relatively low and 

localized at this time compared to other 

threats. 

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

As discussed in Factor D of the GSG 

finding above, existing regulatory 

mechanisms that could provide some 

protection for greater sage-grouse 

include: (1) local land use laws, 

processes, and ordinances; (2) State 

laws and regulations; and (3) Federal 

laws and regulations. Actions adopted 

by local groups, states, or federal 

entities that are discretionary, including 

conservation strategies and guidance, 

are not regulatory mechanisms. 

Local Laws and Regulations 

Approximately 8 percent of the land 

in the Bi-State area is privately owned 

(Bi-State Plan 2004). We are not aware 

of any existing county or city 

ordinances that provide protection 

specifically for the greater sage-grouse 

or their habitats on private lands. 

State Laws and Regulations 

In the Bi-State area, greater sagegrouse are managed by two state 

wildlife agencies (NDOW and CDFG) as 

resident native game birds. The game 

bird classification allows the direct 

human taking of greater sage-grouse 

during hunting seasons authorized and 

conducted under state laws and 

regulations. Currently, harvest of greater 

sage-grouse is authorized in two hunt 

units in California, covering 

approximately the Long Valley and 

Bodie Hills populations (CDFG 2008). 

Greater sage-grouse hunting is 

prohibited in the Nevada portion of the 

Bi-State area, where the season has been 

closed since 1999 (Greater Sage-Grouse 

Conservation Plan for Nevada and 

Eastern California 2004, pp. 59-61). 

Each State bases its hunting 

regulations on local population 

information and peer-reviewed 

scientific literature regarding the 

impacts of hunting on the greater sagegrouse. Hunting seasons or closures are 

reviewed annually, and States 

implement adaptive management based 

on harvest and population data 

(Espinosa 2008, pers. com.; Gardner 

2008, pers. com.). Based on the best data 

available, we can not determine whether 

or how hunting mortality, is affecting 

the populations. Therefore, we do not 

have information to indicate how 

regulated hunting is affecting the DPS. 

State agencies directly manage 

approximately 1 percent of the total 

landscape dominated by sagebrush in 

the Bi-State area, and various State laws 

and regulations identify the need to 

conserve wildlife habitat (Bi-State Plan 

2004). Laws and regulations in both 

California and Nevada allow for 

acquisition of funding to acquire and 

conserve wildlife habitats, including 

land purchases and entering into 

easements with landowners. California 

recently purchased approximately 470 

ha (1,160 ac) in the Desert Creek–Fales 

PMU largely for the conservation of 

greater sage-grouse (Taylor 2008, pers. 

com.). However, any acquisitions 

authorized are discretionary on the part 

of the agencies and cannot be 

considered an adequate mechanism that 

alleviates threats to the DPS or its 

habitat. 

The Bi-State Plan (2004) represents 

more than 2 years of collaborative 

analysis by numerous local biologists, 

land managers, and land users who 

share a common concern for the greater 

sage-grouse occurring in western 

Nevada and eastern California. The 

intent of the plan was to identify factors 

that negatively affect greater sage-grouse 

populations in the Bi-State area as well 

as conservation measures likely to 

ameliorate these threats and maintain 

these populations. These efforts are in 

addition to current research and 

monitoring efforts conducted by the 

States. These voluntary recommended 

conservation measures are in various 

stages of development and depend on 

the cooperation and participation of 

interested parties and agencies. The BiState Plan does not include any 

prohibitions against actions that harm 

greater sage-grouse or their habitat. 

Since development of the Bi-State Plan, 

the NDOW has committed 

approximately $250,000 toward 

conservation efforts, some of which 

have been implemented while others are 

pending. Other support has come from 

various federal, state, and local 

agencies. For example, a partnership 

between the NDOW and the USFS 

resulted in a recently completed 

pinyon–juniper removal project in the 

Sweetwater Range in the Desert Creek– 

Fales PMU encompassing about 1,300 

ha (3,200 ac) of important greater sagegrouse habitat (NDOW 2008, p. 24). 

Additional efforts are also being 

developed to target restoration of 

important nesting, brood rearing, and 

wintering habitat components across the 

Bi-State area. However, the Bi-State Plan 

is not a regulation and its 

implementation depends on voluntary 

efforts. Thus the Bi-State Plan can not 

be considered to be an adequate 

regulatory mechanism. 

The California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 

sections 21000–21177), requires full 

disclosure of the potential 

environmental impacts of projects 

proposed by state and local agencies. 

The public agency with primary 

authority or jurisdiction over the project 

is responsible for conducting an 

environmental review of the project, 

and consulting with the other agencies 

concerned with the resources affected 

by the project. Section 15065 of the 

CEQA guidelines requires a finding of 

significance if a project has the potential 

to ‘‘reduce the number or restrict the 

range of a rare or endangered plant or 

animal.’’ Species that are eligible for 

listing as rare, threatened, or 

endangered but are not so listed are 

given the same protection as those 

species that are officially listed with the 

State. However, once significant effects 

are identified, the lead agency has the 

option to mitigate the effects through 

changes in the project, or decide that 

overriding considerations, such as social 

or economic considerations, make 

mitigation infeasible (CEQA section 

21002). In the latter case, projects may 

be approved that cause significant 

environmental damage, such as 

destruction of endangered species, and 

their habitat. Protection of listed species 

through CEQA is dependent upon the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

discretion of the agency involved. 

Therefore, CEQA may not act as a 

regulatory mechanism for the protection 

of the DPS. 

Federal Laws and Regulations 

Federally owned and managed land 

make up the majority of the landscape 

within the DPS’s range. For a 

comprehensive discussion and analysis 

of federal laws and regulations please 

see this section under Factor D of the 

GSG finding. 

Approximately 50 percent of the land 

base in the Bi-State area occurs on lands 

managed by the BLM. As stated in the 

GSG finding, FLPMA is the primary 

federal law governing most land uses on 

BLM-administered lands. Under 

FLPMA, the BLM has authority over 

livestock grazing, recreation, OHV travel 

and human disturbance, infrastructure 

development, fire management, and 

either in combination with or under the 

MLA and other mineral and mining 

laws, energy development and mining 

on its lands. In Nevada and California, 

the BLM manages for many of these 

activities within their jurisdiction. In 

Nevada and California, the BLM has 

designated the greater sage-grouse a 

sensitive species. BLM’s management of 

lands in the Bi-State area is conducted 

consistent with its management of its 

lands across the greater sage-grouse 

range. Therefore, we refer the reader to 

the GSG finding above for a detailed 

discussion and analysis BLM’s 

management of sage-grouse habitat on 

its lands. 

The USFS manages approximately 35 

percent of the land base in the Bi-State 

area. As stated in the GSG finding, 

management of activities on lands under 

USFS jurisdiction is guided principally 

by NFMA through associated LRMPs for 

each forest unit. Under NFMA and other 

federal laws, the USFS has authority to 

regulate recreation, OHV travel and 

other human disturbance, livestock 

grazing, fire management, energy 

development, and mining on lands 

within its jurisdiction. Please see the 

GSG finding for general information and 

analysis. All of the LRMPs that 

currently guide the management of sagegrouse habitats on USFS lands were 

developed using the 1982 implementing 

regulations for land and resource 

management planning (1982 Rule, 36 

CFR 219), including two existing USFS 

LRMPs (USFS 1986, 1988) within 

greater sage-grouse habitat in the BiState area. 

The greater sage-grouse is designated 

as a USFS Sensitive Species in the 

Intermountain Region (R4) and Pacific 

Southwest Region (R5), which include 

the Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest’s 

Bridgeport Ranger District and the Inyo 

National Forest in the Bi-State area. The 

specifics of how sensitive species status 

has conferred protection to sage-grouse 

on USFS lands varies significantly 

across the range, and is largely 

dependent on LRMPs and site-specific 

project analysis and implementation. 

The Inyo National Forest identifies sagegrouse as a Management Indicator 

Species. This identification requires the 

USFS to establish objectives for the 

maintenance and improvement of 

habitat for the species during all 

planning processes, to the degree 

consistent with overall multiple use 

objectives (1982 rule, 36 CFR 219.19(a)). 

As part of the USFS Travel 

Management planning effort, both the 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and 

the Inyo National Forest are revising 

road designations in their jurisdictions. 

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 

released its Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement in July, 2009. The Inyo 

National Forest completed and released 

its Final Environmental Impact 

Statement and Record of Decision in 

August 2009 for Motorized Travel 

Management. The ROD calls for the 

permanent prohibition on cross country 

travel off designated authorized roads. 

However, since this prohibition is not 

specific to sage-grouse habitat and we 

cannot assess how this will be enforced, 

we cannot consider the policy to be a 

regulatory mechanism that can protect 

the DPS. 

Additional federally managed lands 

in the Bi-State area include the DOD 

Hawthorne Army Depot, which 

represents less than 1 percent of the 

total land base. However, these lands 

provide relatively high quality habitat 

(Nachlinger 2003, p. 38) and likely 

provide some of the best greater sagegrouse habitat remaining in the Mount 

Grant PMU because of the exclusion of 

livestock and the public (Bi-State Plan 

2004, p. 149). There are no National 

Parks or National Wildlife Refuges in 

any of the PMUs in the Bi-State area, 

and we are unaware of any private lands 

in the area that are enrolled in the 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Conservation Reserve Program. 

Summary of Factor D 

As described above, habitat 

destruction and modification in the BiState area is a threat to the DPS. Federal 

agencies’ abilities to adequately address 

several issues such as wildfire, invasive 

species, and disease across the Bi-State 

area are limited. For other stressors such 

as grazing, the regulatory mechanisms 

in place could be adequate to protect 

sage-grouse habitats; however, the 

application of these mechanisms varies. 

In some locations rangelands are not 

meeting habitat standards necessary for 

sage-grouse persistence, however, 

overall population estimates, while 

variable from year-to-year, show no 

discernable trend attributable to grazing. 

The statutes, regulations, and policies 

guiding renewable energy development 

and associated infrastructure 

development, and mineral extraction for 

the greater sage-grouse range-wide 

generally are implemented similarly in 

the Bi-State area as they are across the 

range of the greater sage-grouse, and it 

is our conclusion that this indicates that 

current measures do not ameliorate 

associated impacts to the DPS. 

The existing state and federal 

regulatory mechanisms to protect 

greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State area 

afford sufficient discretion to decision 

makers as to render them inadequate to 

ameliorate threats to the Bi-State DPS. 

We do not suggest that all resource 

decisions impacting sage-grouse have 

failed to adequately address sage-grouse 

needs and in fact commend the 

individuals and agencies working in the 

Bi-State area. However, the flexibility 

built into the regulatory process greatly 

reduces the adequacy of these 

mechanisms. Because of this, the 

available regulatory mechanisms are not 

sufficiently reliable to provide for 

conservation of the species in light of 

the alternative resource demands. 

Therefore, after a review of the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, we find that the existing 

regulatory mechanisms are inadequate 

to ameliorate the threats to the Bi-State 

DPS of the greater sage-grouse. 

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ 

Continued Existence 

Recreational Activities 

A variety of recreational activities are 

pursued across the Bi-State area, 

including traditional activities such as 

fishing, hiking, horseback riding, and 

camping as well as more recently 

popularized activities, such as off-roadvehicle travel and mountain biking. As 

discussed under Recreational Activities 

under Factor E in the GSG finding 

above, these activities can degrade 

habitat and affect sage-grouse 

reproduction and survival by causing 

disturbance in these areas. 

The Bi-State Plan (2004) discusses the 

risk associated with off-road vehicles in 

the Pine Nut and the Mount Grant 

PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 27, 137– 

138). Additionally, for the Bodie and 

South Mono PMUs, the Bi-State Plan 

(2004, pp. 91–92, 170–171) discusses 

off-road vehicles in the context of all 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14005 

types of recreational activities 

(motorized and non-motorized). We are 

not aware of any scientific reports that 

document direct mortality of greater 

sage-grouse through collision with offroad vehicles (70 FR 2278), although 

mortality from collision with vehicles 

on U.S. 395 near Mammoth Lakes is 

known (Wiechmann 2008, p. 3). Offroad vehicle use has indirect impacts to 

greater sage-grouse habitat; it is known 

to reduce or eliminate sagebrush canopy 

cover through repeated trips in an area, 

degrade meadow habitat, increase 

sediment production, and decrease soil 

infiltration rates through compaction 

(70 FR 2278). 

Potential disturbance caused by 

nonmotorized forms of recreation 

(fishing, camping, hiking, big game 

hunting, dog training) are most 

prevalent in the South Mono and Bodie 

PMUs. These PMUs are also exposed to 

tourism-associated activity centered 

around Mono Lake and the towns of 

Mammoth Lakes and Bodie. The exact 

amount of recreational activity or user 

days occurring in the area is not known, 

however, the number of people in the 

area is increasing annually (Nelson 

2008, pers. comm.; Taylor 2008, pers. 

comm.). Additionally, with the recent 

reestablishment of commercial air 

service to the Mammoth Yosemite 

Airport during the winter, greater sagegrouse in the South Mono PMU will be 

exposed to more flights during leking 

and the early nesting season than 

previously experienced. The early 

nesting season (in addition to the 

already busy summer months) will 

present the most significant new overlap 

between birds and human activity in the 

area. Leu et al. (2008, p. 1133) reported 

that slight increases in human densities 

in ecosystems with low biological 

productivity (such as sagebrush) may 

have a disproportional negative impact 

on these ecosystems due to reduced 

resiliency to anthropogenic 

disturbances. The greatest concern is the 

relatively concentrated recreational 

activity occurring in the South Mono 

PMU, which overlaps with the single 

most abundant greater sage-grouse 

population in the Bi-State area. 

We are unaware of instances where 

off-road vehicle (including snowmobile) 

activity precluded greater sage-grouse 

use, or affected survival in the Bi-State 

area. There are areas where concerns 

may arise though, especially in brood 

rearing and wintering habitats, which 

are extremely limited in the Bi-State 

area. For example, during heavy snow 

years, essentially the entire population 

of birds in Long Valley has congregated 

in a very small area (Gardner 2008, pers. 

comm.). Off-road vehicle or snowmobile 

use in occupied winter areas could 

displace them to less optimal habitats 

(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 91). Given the 

likelihood of a continuing influx of 

people into Mono County, especially in 

proximity to Long Valley, with access to 

recreational opportunities on public 

lands, we anticipate effects from 

recreational activity will increase. 

Life History Traits Affecting Population 

Viability 

Greater sage-grouse have 

comparatively slower potential 

population growth rates than other 

species of grouse and display a high 

degree of site fidelity to seasonal 

habitats (see this section under Factor E 

in the GSG finding above for further 

discussion and analysis). While these 

natural history characteristics would not 

limit greater sage-grouse populations 

across large geographic scales under 

historical conditions of extensive 

habitat, they may contribute to local 

declines where humans alter habitats, or 

when natural mortality rates are high in 

small, isolated populations such as in 

the case of the Bi-State DPS. 

Isolated populations are typically at 

greater risk of extinction due to genetic 

and demographic concerns such as 

inbreeding depression, loss of genetic 

diversity, and Allee effect (the difficulty 

of individuals finding one another), 

particularly where populations are 

small (Lande 1988, pp. 1456–1457; 

Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186; Frankham 

et al. 2002, pp. 312–317). The best 

estimates for the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse place the spring 

breeding population between 2,000 and 

5,000 individuals annually (Gardner 

2008, pers. comm.; Espinosa 2008, pers. 

comm.). Based on radio-telemetry and 

genetic data, the local populations of 

greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State area 

appear to be isolated to varying degrees 

from one another (Farinha 2008, pers. 

comm.). Birds occurring in the White 

Mountains PMU as well as those 

occurring in the Long Valley and Parker 

Meadows area of the South Mono PMU 

are isolated from the remainder of the 

Bi-State populations, and apparently 

from one another (Casazza et al. 2009, 

pp. 34, 41; Oyler–McCance 2009, pers. 

comm.). The isolation of populations 

occurring to the north of Mono Lake is 

less clear. Birds occurring in the Bodie 

and Mount Grant PMUs mix during 

parts of the year, as do birds occurring 

in the California and Nevada portions of 

the Desert Creek–Fales PMUs (Casazza 

et al. 2009, pp. 13, 21). Within the 

Mount Grant PMU, populations 

occurring on and around Mount Grant 

do not interact with populations in the 

remainder of the PMU. However, 

movement of birds between Mount 

Grant and Desert Creek–Fales or Bodie 

and Desert Creek–Fales PMUs appears 

less consistent. The interaction among 

birds occurring in the Pine Nut PMU 

with PMUs to the south is unknown. 

Based on about 150 marked individuals, 

no dispersal events were documented 

among any of the PMUs, suggesting that 

even though some populations were 

mixing during certain times of the year, 

there was no documented integration 

among breeding individuals (Farinha 

2008, pers. comm.). While adults are 

unlikely to switch breeding populations, 

it is likely that genetic material is 

transferred among these northern 

populations through the natural 

movements of chicks or young of the 

year, as long as there are established 

populations available to emigrate into. 

We have concern regarding viability 

of populations within PMUs in the BiState area due to their small size (Table 

12) and isolation from one another. 

Although there is disagreement among 

scientists and considerable uncertainty 

as to the population size adequate for 

long-term persistence of wildlife 

populations, there is agreement that 

population viability is more likely to be 

ensured viability if population sizes are 

in the thousands of individuals rather 

than hundreds (Allendorf and Ryman 

2002, p. 76; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, 

p. 30; Reed 2005, p. 565; Traill et al., 

2009 entire). For example, Traill et al. 

(2009, pp. 30, 32-33) concluded that, in 

general, both evolutionary and 

demographic constraints on wildlife 

populations require sizes to be at least 

5,000 adult individuals. 

The Bi-State population of greater 

sage-grouse is small and both 

geographically and genetically isolated 

from the remainder of the greater sagegrouse distribution, which increases risk 

of genetic, demographic, stochastic 

events. To date, however, available 

genetic data suggest genetic diversity in 

the Bi-State area is as high as or higher 

than most other populations of greater 

sage-grouse occurring in the West 

(Oyler–McCance and Quinn in press, p. 

18). Thus, we currently do not have 

clear indications that genetic factors 

such as inbreeding depression, 

hybridization, or loss of genetic 

diversity place this DPS at risk. 

However, recent genetic analysis shows 

that greater sage-grouse occupying the 

White Mountains display a unique 

allelic frequency in comparison to other 

populations in the Bi-State area 

suggesting greater isolation (Oyler– 

McCance 2009, pers. comm.). 

Additionally, recent field studies in the 

Parker Meadows area (a single isolated 

lek system located in the South Mono 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

PMU) documented a disproportionally 

high degree of nest failures due to 

nonviable eggs (Gardner 2009, pers. 

comm.). 

In addition to the potential negative 

effects to small populations due to 

genetic considerations, small 

populations such as those found in the 

Bi-State area are at greater risk than 

larger populations from stochastic 

events, such as environmental 

catastrophes or random fluctuations in 

birth and death rates, as well disease 

epidemics, predation, fluctuations in 

habitat available, and various other 

factors (see Traill et al., p. 29.). 

Interactions between climate change, 

drought, wildfire, WNv, and the limited 

potential to recover from population 

downturns or extirpations place 

significant impediments to the 

persistence of the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse. 

Summary of Factor E 

Our analysis shows certain 

recreational activities have the potential 

to directly and indirectly affect sagegrouse and their habitats. However, 

based on the information available, it 

does not appear that current 

disturbances are occurring at such a 

scale that would adversely affect sagegrouse populations in the Bi-State area. 

While this determination is highly 

constrained by lack of data, populations 

in the South Mono PMU, which are 

arguably exposed to the greatest degree 

of recreational activity, appear relatively 

stable at present. When issues such as 

recreation and changes in habitat are 

considered in conjunction with other 

threats, it is likely that populations in 

the northern half of the Bi-State area 

will be extirpated. Reintroduction 

efforts involving greater sage-grouse 

have had very limited success 

elsewhere, and natural recolonization of 

these areas will be slow or impossible 

due to their isolation and the limited 

number of birds in surrounding PMUs, 

as well as the constraints inferred by the 

species’ life history characteristics. 

Therefore, based on our evaluation of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, we find threats from other 

natural or manmade factors are 

significant to the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse. 

Finding 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats to the Bi-State DPS of the greater 

sage-grouse. We have reviewed the 

petition, information available in our 

files, and other published and 

unpublished information, and consulted 

with recognized greater sage-grouse and 

sagebrush experts. 

Threats identified under Factors A, C, 

D, and E are a threat to the Bi-State DPS 

of the greater sage-grouse. These threats 

are exacerbated by the small population 

sizes, isolated nature, and limited 

availability of important seasonal 

habitats for many Bi-State area 

populations. The major threat is current 

and future destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitats in the Bi-State 

area due to urbanization, infrastructure, 

mining, energy development, grazing, 

invasive and exotic species, pinyon– 

juniper encroachment, recreation, 

wildfire, and the likely effects of climate 

change. Individually, any one of these 

threats appears unlikely to severely 

affect persistence across the entire BiState DPS of the greater sage-grouse. 

Cumulatively, however, these threats 

interact in such a way as to fragment 

and isolate, and will likely contribute to 

the loss of populations in the Pine Nut 

and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs and will 

result in a significant range contraction 

for the Bi-State DPS. The Bodie and 

South Mono PMUs currently comprise 

approximately 65 percent of the entire 

DPS and will likely become smaller but 

persist barring catastrophic events. In 

light of on-going threats, the northern 

extent of the Bi-State area including the 

Pine Nut, Desert Creek–Fales, and 

Mount Grant PMUs are and will be most 

at risk. We anticipate loss of 

populations and contraction of others 

which would leave them susceptible to 

extirpation from stochastic events, such 

as wildfire, drought, and disease. 

While sport hunting is currently 

limited and within harvest guidelines, if 

hunting continues it may add to the 

overall decline of adult populations in 

the Bodie and South Mono PMUs. 

Overall in the Bi-State area hunting is 

limited to such a degree that it is not 

apparently restrictive to overall 

population growth. We have no 

information indicating poaching, nonconsumptive uses, or scientific use 

significantly impact Bi-State greater 

sage-grouse populations. Therefore, we 

find that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not a significant threat to 

the Bi-State area DPS. 

West Nile virus is a threat to the 

greater sage-grouse, and its occurrence 

and impacts are likely underestimated 

due to lack of monitoring. While the 

impact of this disease is currently 

limited by ambient temperatures that do 

not allow consistent vector and virus 

maturation, predicted temperature 

increases associated with climate 

change may result in this threat 

becoming more consistently prevalent. 

Predation facilitated by habitat 

fragmentation due to infrastructure 

(fences, powerlines and roads) and other 

human activities may be altering natural 

population dynamics in localized areas 

such as Long Valley. We find that 

disease and predation are threats to the 

Bi-State area DPS, although the impact 

of these threats is relatively low and 

localized at this time compared to other 

threats. 

An examination of regulatory 

mechanisms for both the Bi-State DPS of 

the greater sage-grouse and sagebrush 

habitats revealed that while some 

mechanisms exist, it appears that they 

are being implemented in a manner that 

is not consistent with our current 

understanding of the species’ life 

history requirements, reaction to 

disturbances, and currently understood 

conservation needs. Therefore, we find 

the existing regulatory mechanisms are 

ineffective at ameliorating habitat-based 

threats. Furthermore, certain threats 

(disease, drought, fire) may not be able 

to be adequately addressed by existing 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Our analysis under Factor E indicates 

the current level of recreational 

activities do not appear to be adversely 

affecting sage-grouse populations in the 

Bi-State area. Populations in the South 

Mono PMU, which are arguably exposed 

to the greatest degree of recreational 

activity, appear relatively stable at 

present. 

The relatively low number of local 

populations of greater sage-grouse, their 

small size, and relative isolation is 

problematic. The Bi-State area is 

composed of approximately 35 active 

leks representing 4 to 8 individual 

populations. Research has shown fitness 

and population size are strongly 

correlated and smaller populations are 

more subject to environmental and 

demographic stochasticity. When 

coupled with mortality stressors related 

to human activity and significant 

fluctuations in annual population size, 

long-term persistence of small 

populations is always problematic. 

Given the species’ relatively low rate 

of growth and strong site fidelity, 

recovery and repopulation of extirpated 

areas will be slow and infrequent. 

Translocation of this species is difficult 

and to date has not been successful, and 

given the limited number of source 

individuals, translocation efforts, if 

needed, are unlikely. 

Within 30 years it is likely that greater 

sage-grouse in the Bi-State area will 

only persist in one or two populations 

located in the South Mono PMU (Long 

Valley) and the Bodie Hills PMU. These 

populations will likely be isolated from 

one another and due to decreased 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14007 

population numbers, each will be at 

greater risk to stochastic events. 

As required by the Act, we have 

reviewed and taken into account efforts 

being made to protect the greater sagegrouse in the Bi-State area. Although 

some local conservation efforts have 

been implemented and are effective in 

small areas, they are neither 

individually nor collectively at a scale 

that is sufficient to ameliorate threats to 

the DPS as a whole, or to local 

populations. Other conservation efforts 

are being planned but there is 

substantial uncertainty as to whether, 

where, and when they will be 

implemented, and whether they will be 

effective. 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the present and 

future threats to the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse. We have reviewed 

the petitions, information available in 

our files, and other published and 

unpublished information, and consulted 

with recognized greater sage-grouse and 

sagebrush experts. We have considered 

and taken into account efforts being 

made to protect the species. On the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that listing of the Bi-State DPS of 

the greater sage-grouse is warranted 

across its range. However, listing this 

DPS is precluded by higher priority 

listing actions at this time, as discussed 

in the Preclusion and Expeditious 

Progress section below. 

We have reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the BiState DPS of the greater sage-grouse at 

risk of extinction now such that issuing 

an emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species as per section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act is warranted. We have 

determined that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the BiState DPS is not warranted at this time 

(see discussion of listing priority for this 

DPS, below). However, if at any time we 

determine that issuing an emergency 

regulation temporarily listing the BiState DPS is warranted, we will initiate 

this action at that time. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

competing demands for those resources. 

Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 

multiple factors dictate whether it will 

be possible to undertake work on a 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higherpriority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: proposed and final listing rules; 

90–day and 12–month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual determinations on 

prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ petition 

findings as required under section 

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

petition findings; proposed and final 

rules designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. For example, during the 

past several years, the cost (excluding 

publication costs) for preparing a 12– 

month finding, without a proposed rule, 

has ranged from approximately $11,000 

for one species with a restricted range 

and involving a relatively 

uncomplicated analysis, to $305,000 for 

another species that is wide-ranging and 

involved a complex analysis. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

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

addition, in FY 1998 and for each FY 

since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Recognizing that designation of 

critical habitat for species already listed 

would consume most of the overall 

Listing Program appropriation, Congress 

also put a critical habitat subcap in 

place in FY 2002, and has retained it 

each subsequent year to ensure that 

some funds are available for other work 

in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical 

habitat designation subcap will ensure 

that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

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

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

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat. Consequently, none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2009, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations, so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have, in effect, 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already-listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding, when making a 12– 

month petition finding, whether we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97-304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines for listing and the warrantedbut-precluded finding requirements that 

are currently contained in the Act, states 

(in a discussion on 90–day petition 

findings that by its own terms also 

covers 12–month findings) that the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

deadlines were ‘‘not intended to allow 

the Secretary to delay commencing the 

rulemaking process for any reason other 

than that the existence of pending or 

imminent proposals to list species 

subject to a greater degree of threat 

would make allocation of resources to 

such a petition [i.e., for a lower-ranking 

species] unwise.’’ 

In FY 2010, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

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

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). However these funds are 

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

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

our critical habitat subcap funds in 

order to work on all of our required 

petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

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

process is to make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

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

is being used to fund work in the 

following categories: compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

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

candidate species. In 2009, the 

responsibility for listing foreign species 

under the Act was transferred from the 

Division of Scientific Authority, 

International Affairs Program, to the 

Endangered Species Program. Starting 

in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is 

being used to work on the actions 

described above as they apply to listing 

actions for foreign species. This has the 

potential to further reduce funding 

available for domestic listing actions, 

although there are currently no foreign 

species issues included in our high 

priority listing actions at this time. The 

allocations for each specific listing 

action are identified in the Service’s FY 

2010 Allocation Table (part of our 

administrative record). 

In FY 2007, we had more than 120 

species with a Listing Priority Number 

(LPN) of 2, based on our September 21, 

1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for 

each candidate species (48 FR 43098). 

Using this guidance, we assign each 

candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending 

on the magnitude of threats (high vs. 

moderate to low), immediacy of threats 

(imminent or nonimminent), and 

taxonomic status of the species (in order 

of priority: monotypic genus (a species 

that is the sole member of a genus); 

species; or part of a species (subspecies, 

DPS, or significant portion of the 

range)). The lower the listing priority 

number, the higher the listing priority 

(that is, a species with an LPN of 1 

would have the highest listing priority). 

Because of the large number of highpriority species, we further ranked the 

candidate species with an LPN of 2 by 

using the following extinction-risk type 

criteria: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, comprised a group of 

approximately 40 candidate species 

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

have had the highest priority to receive 

funding to work on a proposed listing 

determination. As we work on proposed 

and final listing rules for these 40 

candidates, we are applying the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with LPNs of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. There currently are 56 

candidate species with an LPN of 2 that 

have not received funding for 

preparation of proposed listing rules. 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, as we work on proposed rules 

for these species in the next several 

years, we are preparing multi-species 

proposals when appropriate, and these 

may include species with lower priority 

if they overlap geographically or face 

the same threats as a species with an 

LPN of 2. In addition, available staff 

resources also are a factor in 

determining high-priority species 

provided with funding. Finally, 

proposed rules for reclassification of 

threatened species to endangered are 

lower priority, since as listed species, 

they are already afforded the protection 

of the Act and implementing 

regulations. 

We assigned the greater sage-grouse 

an LPN of 8 based on our finding that 

the species faces threats that are of 

moderate magnitude and are imminent. 

These threats include the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat, and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms to address such threats. 

Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, the 

magnitude of threat is the first criterion 

we look at when establishing a listing 

priority. The guidance indicates that 

species with the highest magnitude of 

threat are those species facing the 

greatest threats to their continued 

existence. These species receive the 

highest listing priority. We consider the 

threats that the greater sage-grouse faces 

to be moderate in magnitude because 

the threats do not occur everywhere 

across the range of the species at this 

time, and where they are occurring, they 

are not of uniform intensity or of such 

magnitude that the species requires 

listing immediately to ensure its 

continued existence. Although many of 

the factors we analyzed (e.g, disease, 

fire, urbanization, invasive species) are 

present throughout the range, they are 

not to the level that they are causing a 

significant threat to greater sage-grouse 

in some areas. Other threats are of high 

magnitude in some areas but are of low 

magnitude or nonexistent in other areas 

such that overall across the species’ 

range, they are of moderate magnitude. 

Examples of this include: oil and gas 

development, which is extensive in the 

eastern part of the range but limited in 

the western portion; pinyon-juniper 

encroachment, which is substantial in 

some parts of the west but is of less 

concern in Wyoming and Montana; and 

agricultural development which is 

extensive in the Columbia Basin, Snake 

River Plain, and eastern Montana, but 

more limited elsewhere. While sagegrouse habitat has been lost or altered in 

many portions of the species’ range, 

substantial habitat still remains to 

support the species in many areas of its 

range (Connelly et al. in press c, p. 23), 

such as higher elevation sagebrush, and 

areas with a low human footprint 

(activities sustaining human 

development) such as the Northern and 

Southern Great Basin (Leu and Hanser 

in press, p. 14) indicating that threats 

currently are not high in these areas. 

The species has a wide distribution 

across 11 western states. In addition, 

two strongholds of contiguous 

sagebrush habitat (the southwest 

Wyoming Basin and the Great Basin 

area straddling the States of Oregon, 

Nevada, and Idaho) contain the highest 

densities of males in the range of the 

species (Wisdom et al. in press, pp. 24- 

25; Knick and Hanser (in press, p. 17). 

We believe that the ability of these 

strongholds to maintain high densities 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14009 

in the presence of several threat factors 

is an indication that the magnitude of 

threats is moderate overall. 

We also lack data on the actual future 

location of where some potential threats 

will occur (e.g., wind energy 

development exact location, location of 

the next wildfire). If these threats occur 

within unoccupied habitat, the 

magnitude of the threat to greater sagegrouse is greatly reduced. The 

likelihood that some occupied habitat 

will not be affected by threats in the 

foreseeable future leads us to consider 

the magnitude of threats to the greater 

sage-grouse as moderate. This likelihood 

is evidenced by our expectation that two 

strongholds of contiguous habitat will 

still remain in fifty years even though 

the threats discussed above will 

continue there. 

Under our LPN Guidance, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. We 

consider the threats imminent because 

we have factual information that the 

threats are identifiable and that the 

species is currently facing them in many 

portions of its range. These actual, 

identifiable threats are covered in great 

detail in factor A of this finding and 

include habitat fragmentation from 

agricultural activities, urbanization, 

increased fire frequency, invasive 

plants, and energy development. 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. The greater 

sage-grouse is a valid taxon at the 

species level, and therefore receives a 

higher priority than subspecies or DPSs, 

but a lower priority than species in a 

monotypic genus. 

We will continue to monitor the 

threats to the greater sage-grouse, and 

the species’ status on an annual basis, 

and should the magnitude or the 

imminence of the threats change, we 

will re-visit our assessment of LPN. 

Because we assigned the greater sagegrouse an LPN of 8, work on a proposed 

listing determination for the greater 

sage-grouse is precluded by work on 

higher priority candidate species (i.e., 

entities with LPN of 7 or lower); listing 

actions with absolute statutory, court 

ordered, or court-approved deadlines; 

and final listing determinations for 

those species that were proposed for 

listing with funds from FY 2009. This 

work includes all the actions listed in 

the tables below under expeditious 

progress (see Tables 13 and 14). 

We also have assigned a listing 

priority number to the Bi-State DPS of 

the greater sage-grouse. As described 

above, under the Service’s LPN 

Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the 

first criterion we look at when 

establishing a listing priority. The 

guidance indicates that species with the 

highest magnitude of threat are those 

species facing the greatest threats to 

their continued existence. These species 

receive a higher listing priority. Many of 

the threats to the Bi-State DPS that we 

analyzed are present throughout the 

range and currently impact the DPS to 

varying degrees (e.g. urbanization, 

invasive grasses, habitat fragmentation 

from existing infrastructure), and will 

continue into the future. The northern 

extent of the Bi-State area including the 

Pine Nut, Desert Creek–Fales, and 

Mount Grant PMUs are now and will 

continue to be most at risk. We 

anticipate loss of some local 

populations, and contraction of the 

range of others which would leave them 

susceptible to extirpation from 

stochastic events, such as wildfire, 

drought, and disease. Occupied habitat 

will continue to be affected by threats in 

the future and we expect that only two 

isolated populations in the Bodie and 

South Mono PMUs may remain in thirty 

years. The threats that are of high 

magnitude include: the present or 

threatened destruction, modification or 

curtailment of its habitat and range; the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; and other natural or 

manmade factors affecting the DPS’s 

continued existence, such as the small 

size of the DPS (in terms of both the 

number of individual populations and 

their size) which increases the risk of 

extinction, particularly for the smaller 

local populations. Also the small 

number and size and isolation of the 

populations may magnify the impact of 

the other threats. We consider disease 

and predation to be relatively low 

magnitude threats compared to other 

existing threats. 

The Bi-State DPS of the greater sagegrouse is composed of approximately 35 

active leks representing 4 to 8 

individual local populations, based on 

current information on genetics and 

connectivity. While some of the threats 

do not occur everywhere across the 

range of the DPS at this time (e.g. 

habitat-based impacts from wildfire, 

WNv infections), where threats are 

occurring, the risk they pose to the DPS 

may be exacerbated and magnified due 

to the small number and size and 

isolation of local populations within the 

DPS. We acknowledge that we lack data 

on the precise future location of where 

some impacts will manifest on the 

landscape (e.g., effects of climate 

change, location of the next wildfire). 

To the extent to which these impacts 

occur within unoccupied habitat, the 

magnitude of the threat to the Bi-State 

DPS is reduced. However, to the extent 

these impacts occur within habitat used 

by greater sage-grouse, due to the low 

number of populations and small size of 

most of them, the effects to the DPS may 

be greatly magnified. Due to the scope 

and scale of the high magnitude threats 

and current and anticipated future loss 

of habitat and isolation of already small 

populations, leads us to determine that 

the magnitude of threats to the Bi-State 

DPS of the greater sage-grouse is high. 

Under our LPN Guidance, the second 

criterion we consider in assigning a 

listing priority is the immediacy of 

threats. This criterion is intended to 

ensure that the species facing actual, 

identifiable threats are given priority 

over those for which threats are only 

potential or that are intrinsically 

vulnerable but are not known to be 

presently facing such threats. We have 

factual information the threats 

imminent because we have factual 

information that the threats are 

identifiable and that the DPS is 

currently facing them in many areas of 

its range. In particular these actual, 

identifiable threats are covered in great 

detail in factor A of this finding and 

include habitat fragmentation and 

destruction due to urbanization, 

infrastructure (e.g. fences, powerlines, 

and roads), mining, energy 

development, grazing, invasive and 

exotic species, pinyon–juniper 

encroachment, recreation, and wildfire. 

Therefore, based on our LPN Policy the 

threats are imminent (ongoing). 

The third criterion in our LPN 

guidance is intended to devote 

resources to those species representing 

highly distinctive or isolated gene pools 

as reflected by taxonomy. We have 

determined the Bi-State greater sagegrouse population to be a valid DPS 

according to our DPS Policy. Therefore 

under our LPN guidance, the Bi-State 

DPS of the greater sage-grouse is 

assigned a lower priority than a species 

in a monotypic genus or a full species 

that faces the same magnitude and 

imminence of threats. 

Therefore, we assigned the Bi-State 

DPS of the greater sage-grouse an LPN 

of 3 based on our determination that the 

DPS faces threats that are overall of high 

magnitude and are imminent (i.e. 

ongoing). We will continue to monitor 

the threats to the Bi-State DPS of the 

greater sage-grouse, and the DPS’ status 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

on an annual basis, and should the 

magnitude or the imminence of the 

threats change, we will re-visit our 

assessment of LPN. 

Because we assigned the Bi-State DPS 

of the greater sage-grouse an LPN of 3, 

work on a proposed listing 

determination for this DPS is precluded 

by work on higher priority candidate 

species (i.e., entities with LPN of 2 or 

lower); listing actions with absolute 

statutory, court ordered, or courtapproved deadlines; and completion of 

listing determinations for those species 

for which work already has been 

initiated but is not yet completed. This 

work includes all the actions listed in 

the tables below under expeditious 

progress (see Tables 13 and 14). 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

also must demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species to and from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. (Although we do not discuss 

it in detail here, we also are making 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the list under the Recovery 

Program, which is funded by a separate 

line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. As 

explained above in our description of 

the statutory cap on Listing Program 

funds, the Recovery Program funds and 

actions supported by them cannot be 

considered in determining expeditious 

progress made in the Listing Program.) 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists is a function of the 

resources available and the competing 

demands for those funds. Given that 

limitation, we find that we are making 

progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 

Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations (Table 13): 

TABLE 13—FISCAL YEAR 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS. 

Publication 

Date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot 

Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species 

Throughout Its Range 

Final Listing Threatened 74 FR 52013-52064 

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American 

Dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial 

74 FR 55177-55180 

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus 

arcticus) in the Upper Missouri River System 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review 

74 FR 55524-55525 

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population 

Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under 

the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule. 

Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56757-56770 

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as 

Threatened Throughout Its Range with Special 

Rule 

Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56770-56791 

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus minimus) 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review 

74 FR 61100-61102 

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Blacktailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 12 month petition finding, Not 

warranted 

74 FR 63343-63366 

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit 

as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

74 FR 63337-63343 

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species 

of Mussels From Texas as Threatened or 

Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

74 FR 66260-66271 

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 

Species in the Southwestern United States as 

Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat; 

Proposed Rule 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial and Substantial 

74 FR 66865-66905 

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Change the 

Final Listing of the Distinct Population Segment 

of the Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico 

Notice of 12 month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

74 FR 66937-66950 

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as 

Endangered Throughout Their Range 

Proposed ListingEndangered 75 FR 605-649 

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range 

Proposed ListingEndangered 75 FR 286-310 

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

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and 

Heinroth’s Shearwater as Threatened 

Throughout Their Ranges 

Final Listing Threatened 75 FR 235-250 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14011 

TABLE 13—FISCAL YEAR 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS.—Continued 

Publication 

Date Title Actions FR Pages 

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

and Solanum conocarpum 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review 

75 FR 3190-3191 

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the 

American Pika as Threatened or Endangered; 

Proposed Rule 

Notice of 12 month petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 6437-6471 

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

Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a 

Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population 

Segment 

Notice of 12 month petition finding, Not 

warranted 

75 FR 8601-8621 

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the 

Southwestern Washington/Columbia River Distinct 

Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List 75 FR 8621-8644 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010, and for which work 

is ongoing but not yet completed to 

date. These actions are listed below 

(Table 14). Actions in the top section of 

the table are being conducted under a 

deadline set by a court. Actions in the 

middle section of the table are being 

conducted to meet statutory timelines, 

that is, timelines required under the 

Act. Actions in the bottom section of the 

table are high-priority listing actions. 

These actions include work primarily 

on species with an LPN of 2, and 

selection of these species is partially 

based on available staff resources, and 

when appropriate, include species with 

a lower priority if they overlap 

geographically or have the same threats 

as the species with the high priority. 

Including these species together in the 

same proposed rule results in 

considerable savings in time and 

funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

TABLE 14—LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED. 

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination 

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination 

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination 

Sacramento splittail Proposed listing determination 

Mono basin sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Greater sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Big Lost River whitefish 12–month petition finding 

White-tailed prairie dog 12–month petition finding 

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Wolverine 12–month petition finding 

Arctic grayling 12–month petition finding 

Agave eggergsiana 12–month petition finding 

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding 

Mountain plover 12–month petition finding 

Hermes copper butterfly 90–day petition finding 

Thorne’s hairstreak butterfly 90–day petition finding 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

48 Kauai species Final listing determination 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 14—LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.—Continued 

Species Action 

Casey’s June beetle Final listing determination 

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

2 Hawaiian damselflies Final listing determination 

African penguin Final listing determination 

3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo, Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia 

forest thrush) 

Final listing determination 

5 Penguin species Final listing determination 

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination 

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination 

Salmon crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination 

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Least chub1 12–month petition finding 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding 

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding 

Delta smelt (uplisting) 12–month petition finding 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding 

Tucson shovel-nosed snake1 12–month petition finding 

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding 

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding 

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding 

Susan’s purse-making caddisfly 12–month petition finding 

White-sided jackrabbit 12–month petition finding 

Jemez Mountains salamander 12–month petition finding 

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding 

Eagle Lake trout1 12–month petition finding 

29 of 206 species 12–month petition finding 

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding 

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding 

Amargosa toad 12–month petition finding 

Wyoming pocket gopher 12–month petition finding 

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding 

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding 

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14013 

TABLE 14—LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.—Continued 

Species Action 

9 Southwest mussel species 12–month petition finding 

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding 

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

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding 

Berry Cave salamander1 90–day petition finding 

Ozark chinquapin1 90–day petition finding 

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding 

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding 

Mojave ground squirrel1 90–day petition finding 

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding 

Calopogon oklahomensis1 90–day petition finding 

Striped newt1 90–day petition finding 

Southern hickorynut1 90–day petition finding 

42 snail species 90–day petition finding 

White-bark pine 90–day petition finding 

Puerto Rico harlequin 90–day petition finding 

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mtns. population 90–day petition finding 

Puerto Rico harlequin butterfly1 90–day petition finding 

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

HI yellow-faced bees 90–day petition finding 

Red knot roselaari subspecies 90–day petition finding 

Honduran emerald 90–day petition finding 

Peary caribou 90–day petition finding 

Western gull-billed tern 90–day petition finding 

Plain bison 90–day petition finding 

Giant Palouse earthworm 90–day petition finding 

Mexican gray wolf 90–day petition finding 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90–day petition finding 

Spring pygmy sunfish 90–day petition finding 

San Francisco manzanita 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3
14014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 14—LISTING ACTIONS FUNDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED.—Continued 

Species Action 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90–day petition finding 

High Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species3 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 

2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) 

Proposed listing 

17 Maui-Nui candidate species3 (14 plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with 

LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) 

Proposed listing 

Sand dune lizard3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

2 Arizona springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis (LPN = 2)) 

Proposed listing 

2 New Mexico springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2), 

Pyrgulopsis thermalis (LPN = 11)) 

Proposed listing 

2 mussels3 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) Proposed listing 

2 mussels3 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) Proposed listing 

Ozark hellbender2 (LPN = 3) Proposed listing 

Altamaha spinymussel3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

5 southeast fish3 (rush darter (LPN = 2), chucky madtom (LPN = 2), 

yellowcheek darter (LPN = 2), Cumberland darter (LPN = 5), laurel 

dace (LPN = 5)) 

Proposed listing 

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

ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern 

sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 

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

Proposed listing 

3 Colorado plants3 (Pagosa skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) (LPN = 

2), Parachute beardtongue (Penstemon debilis) (LPN = 2), 

Debeque phacelia (Phacelia submutica) (LPN = 8)) 

Proposed listing 

1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species 

were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 

2008. 3 Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant laws and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, the 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The greater sage-grouse and the BiState DPS of the greater sage-grouse will 

each be added to the list of candidate 

species upon publication of these 12– 

month findings. We will continue to 

monitor their status as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. We acknowledge we must 

reevaluate the status of the Columbia 

Basin population as it relates to the 

greater sage-grouse; we will conduct this 

analysis as our priorities allow. Other 

populations of the greater sage-grouse, 

as appropriate, will be evaluated to 

determine if they meet the distinct 

population segment (DPS) policy prior 

to a listing action, if necessary and 

appropriate. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the greater sage-grouse or BiState DPS of the greater sage-grouse will 

be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we 

will continue to accept additional 

information and comments from all 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning these 

findings. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and upon request 

from the Wyoming Ecological Services 

Office (see ADDRESS section). 

Author 

The primary authors of this notice are 

the staff members of the Wyoming, 

Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon 

Ecological Services Offices. 

Authority: The authority for this section 

is section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

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

Dated: March 3, 2010 

Daniel M Ashe, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FR Doc. 2010–5132 Filed 3–22– 10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3