[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 28, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59804-59863]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23430]



[[Page 59803]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination for the 
Gunnison Sage-grouse as a Threatened or Endangered Species; Proposed 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 59804]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[DOCKET NO. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0080]
MO 92210-0-0008


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination for 
the Gunnison Sage-grouse as a Threatened or Endangered Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of the results of a status review.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 
12-month finding on whether to list the Gunnison sage-grouse 
(Centrocercus minimus) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After reviewing the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the 
species is warranted for listing. Currently, however, listing the 
Gunnison sage-grouse is precluded by higher priority actions to amend 
the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 
publication of this 12-month finding, we will add the Gunnison sage-
grouse to our candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule 
to list this species as our priorities allow. We will make any 
determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed 
listing rule.

DATES: The determination announced in this document was made on 
September 28, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2009-0080. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Ecological Services Field 
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon Drive, Building B, 
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946. Please submit any new information, 
materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding to the above 
address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Pfister, Western Colorado 
Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section); by telephone at (970) 243-2778 ext. 
29; or by facsimile at (970) 245-6933. If you use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make 
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In 
this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or 
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the 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 Actions

    On January 18, 2000, we designated the Gunnison sage-grouse as a 
candidate species under the Act, with a listing priority number of 5. 
However, Candidate Notices of Review (CNOR) are only published 
annually; therefore, the Federal Register notice regarding this 
decision was not published until December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82310). 
Candidate species are plants and animals for which the Service has 
sufficient information on their biological status and threats to 
propose them as endangered or threatened under the Act, but for which 
the development of a proposed listing regulation is precluded by other 
higher priority listing activities. A listing priority of 5 is assigned 
to species with high magnitude threats that are non-imminent.
    On January 26, 2000, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity Legal 
Foundation, and others petitioned the Service to list the Gunnison 
sage-grouse (Webb 2000, pp. 94-95). In 2003, the U.S. District Court 
ruled that the species was designated as a candidate by the Service 
prior to receipt of the petition, and that the determination that a 
species should be on the candidate list is equivalent to a 12-month 
finding (American Lands Alliance v. Gale A. Norton, C.A. No. 00-2339, 
D. D.C.). Therefore, we did not need to respond to the petition.
    In the 2003 CNOR, we elevated the listing priority number for 
Gunnison sage-grouse from 5 to 2 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004), as the 
imminence of the threats had increased. In the subsequent CNOR (70 FR 
24870; May 11, 2005), we maintained the listing priority number for 
Gunnison sage-grouse as a 2. A listing priority number of 2 is assigned 
to species with high magnitude threats that are imminent.
    Plaintiffs amended their complaint in May 2004, to allege that the 
Service's warranted but precluded finding and decision not to emergency 
list the Gunnison sage-grouse were in violation of the Act. The parties 
filed a stipulated settlement agreement with the court on November 14, 
2005, which included a provision that the Service would make a proposed 
listing determination by March 31, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the 
plaintiffs agreed to a one-week extension (April 7, 2006) for this 
determination.
    In April 2005, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) applied to 
the Service for an Enhancement of Survival Permit for the Gunnison 
sage-grouse pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. The permit 
application included a proposed Candidate Conservation Agreement with 
Assurances (CCAA) between CDOW and the Service. The standard that a 
CCAA must meet is that the ``benefits of the conservation measures 
implemented under a CCAA, when combined with those benefits that would 
be achieved if it is assumed that conservation measures were also to be 
implemented on other necessary properties, would preclude or remove any 
need to list the species.'' The CCAA, the permit application, and the 
Environmental Assessment were made available for public comment on July 
6, 2005 (70 FR 38977). The CCAA and Environmental Assessment were 
finalized in October 2006, and the associated permit was issued on 
October 23, 2006. Landowners with eligible property in southwestern 
Colorado who wish to participate can voluntarily sign up under the CCAA 
and associated permit through a Certificate of Inclusion by providing 
habitat protection or enhancement measures on their lands. If the 
Gunnison sage-grouse is listed under the Act, the permit authorizes 
incidental take of Gunnison sage-grouse due to otherwise lawful 
activities in accordance with the terms of the CCAA (e.g., crop 
cultivation, crop harvesting, livestock grazing, farm equipment 
operation, commercial/residential development, etc.), as long as the 
participating landowner is performing

[[Page 59805]]

activities identified in the Certificate of Inclusion. Four 
Certificates of Inclusion have been issued by the CDOW and Service to 
private landowners to date.
    On April 11, 2006, the Service determined that listing the Gunnison 
sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered species was not warranted and 
published the final listing determination in the Federal Register on 
April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19954). Consequently, we removed Gunnison sage-
grouse from the candidate species list at the time of the final listing 
determination. On November 14, 2006, Plaintiffs (the County of San 
Miguel, Colorado; Center for Biological Diversity; WildEarth Guardians; 
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility; National Audubon 
Society; The Larch Company; Center for Native Ecosystems; Sinapu; 
Sagebrush Sea Campaign; Black Canyon Audubon Society; and Sheep 
Mountain Alliance) filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 
relief, pursuant to the Act, and on October 24, 2007, filed an amended 
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive relief, alleging that the 12-
month finding on the Gunnison sage-grouse violated the Act. On August 
18, 2009, a stipulated settlement agreement and Order was filed with 
the court, with a June 30, 2010, date by which the Service shall submit 
to the Federal Register a 12-month finding, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. Sec.  
1533(b)(3)(B), that listing the Gunnison sage-grouse under the Act is 
(a) warranted; (b) not warranted; or (c) warranted but precluded by 
higher priority listing actions. We published a notice of intent to 
conduct a status review of Gunnison sage-grouse on November 23, 2009 
(74 Fr 61100). The Court approved an extension of the June 30, 2010, 
deadline for the 12-month finding to September 15, 2010.
Additional Special Status Considerations
    The Gunnison sage-grouse has an International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Category of ``endangered'' 
(Birdlife International 2009). NatureServe currently ranks the Gunnison 
sage-grouse as G1--Critically Imperiled (Nature Serve 2010, entire). 
The Gunnison sage-grouse is on the National Audubon Society's WatchList 
2007 Red Category which is ``for species that are declining rapidly or 
have very small populations or limited ranges, and face major 
conservation threats.''

Biology and Ecology of Gunnison Sage-grouse

Gunnison Sage-grouse Species Description

    Sage-grouse are the largest grouse in North America. Sage-grouse 
(both greater and Gunnison) are most easily identified by their large 
size, dark brown color, distinctive black bellies, long pointed tails, 
and association with sagebrush habitats. They are dimorphic in size, 
with females being smaller. Both sexes have yellow-green eye combs, 
which are less prominent in females. Sage-grouse are known for their 
elaborate mating ritual where males congregate on strutting grounds 
called leks and ``dance'' to attract a mate. During the breeding 
season, males have conspicuous filoplumes (specialized erectile 
feathers on the neck), and exhibit yellow-green apteria (fleshy bare 
patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2, 18). 
Gunnison sage-grouse are smaller in size, have more white barring in 
their tail feathers, and have more filoplumes than greater sage-grouse.
    Since Gunnison and greater sage-grouse were only recognized as 
separate species in 2000, the vast majority of the research relative to 
the biology and management of the two species has been conducted on 
greater sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse have 
similar life histories and habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. 44). In 
this finding, we use information specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse 
where available but still apply scientific management principles found 
relevant for greater sage-grouse to Gunnison sage-grouse management 
needs and strategies, a practice followed by the wildlife agencies that 
have responsibility for management of both species and their habitat.

Taxonomy

    Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse are members of the 
Phasianidae family. For many years, sage-grouse were considered a 
single species. Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) were 
identified as a distinct species based on morphological (Hupp and Braun 
1991, pp. 257-259; Young et al. 2000, pp. 447-448), genetic (Kahn et 
al. 1999, pp. 820-821; Oyler-McCance et al. 1999, pp. 1460-1462), and 
behavioral (Barber 1991, pp. 6-9; Young 1994; Young et al. 2000, p. 
449-451) differences and geographical isolation (Young et al. 2000, pp. 
447-451). Based on these differences, the American Ornithologist's 
Union (2000, pp. 849-850) accepted the Gunnison sage-grouse as a 
distinct species. The current ranges of the two species do not overlap 
(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). Due to the several lines of evidence 
separating the two species cited above, we determined that the best 
available information indicates that the Gunnison sage-grouse is a 
valid taxonomic species and a listable entity under the Act.

Life History Characteristics

    Gunnison and 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 (Patterson 1952, p. 42; Braun et 
al. 1976, p. 168; Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 4-5; Connelly et al. 
2000a, pp. 970-972; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-1, Miller et al. in 
press, p. 10). Dietary requirements of the two species are also 
similar, being composed of nearly 100 percent sagebrush in the winter, 
and forbs and insects as well as sagebrush in the remainder of the year 
(Wallestad et al. 1975, p. 21; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5; Young et 
al. 2000, p. 452). Gunnison and greater sage-grouse do not possess 
muscular gizzards and, therefore, lack the ability to grind and digest 
seeds (Leach and Hensley 1954, p. 389).
    In addition to serving as a primary year-round food source, 
sagebrush also provides cover for nests (Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 
970-971). Thus, sage-grouse distribution is strongly correlated with 
the distribution of sagebrush habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364). 
Connelly et al. (2000a, p. 970-972) segregated habitat requirements 
into four seasons: (1) breeding (2) summer - late brood-rearing (3) 
fall and (4) winter. Depending on habitat availability and proximity, 
some seasonal habitats may be indistinguishable. The Gunnison Sage-
grouse Rangewide Steering Committee (GSRSC) (2005, p. 27-31) segregated 
habitat requirements into three seasons: (1) breeding (2) summer-late 
fall and (3) winter. For purposes of this finding, the seasons 
referenced in GSRSC (2005) are used because that publication deals 
specifically with Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity (loyalty to a particular 
area) to seasonal habitats, which includes breeding, nesting, brood 
rearing, and wintering areas, even when the area is no longer of value 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-1). Adult sage-grouse rarely switch among 
these habitats once they have been selected, limiting their 
adaptability to changes. Sage-grouse distribution is associated with 
sagebrush (Schroeder et al. 2004 p. 364), although sagebrush is more 
widely distributed than sage-grouse because sagebrush does not

[[Page 59806]]

always provide suitable habitat due to fragmentation and degradation 
(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 369, 372). Very little of the extant 
sagebrush in North America is undisturbed, with up to 50 to 60 percent 
having altered understories (forb and grass vegetative composition 
under the sagebrush) or having been lost to direct conversion (Knick et 
al. 2003, p. 612 and references therein). Mapping altered and depleted 
understories is challenging, 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 and references therein). As such, variations 
in the quality of sagebrush habitats for sage-grouse (from either 
abiotic or anthropogenic events) are better reflected by sage-grouse 
distribution and densities, rather than by broad geographic scale maps 
of the distribution of sagebrush.
    Sage-grouse exhibit a polygamous mating system where a male mates 
with several females. Males perform courtship displays and defend their 
leks (Patterson 1952, p. 83). Lek displaying occurs from mid-March 
through late May, depending on elevation (Rogers 1964, p. 21; Young et 
al. 2000, p. 448). 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, an average of 45.9 
percent (range 14.3 to 54.5 percent) of genetically identified males in 
a population fathered offspring in a given year (Bush 2009, p. 106). 
This more recent work suggests that males and females likely engage in 
off-lek copulations. Males do not incubate eggs or assist in chick 
rearing.
    Lek sites can be located on areas of bare soil, wind-swept ridges, 
exposed knolls, low sagebrush, meadows, and other relatively open sites 
with good visibility and low vegetation structure (Connelly et al. 
1981, pp. 153-154; Gates 1985, pp. 219-221; Klott and Lindzey 1989, pp. 
276-277; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 3-7 and references therein). In 
addition, leks are usually located on flat to gently sloping areas of 
less than 15 percent grade (Patterson 1952, p. 83; Giezentanner and 
Clark 1974, p. 218; Wallestad 1975, p. 17; Autenrieth 1981, p. 13). 
Leks are often surrounded by denser shrub-steppe cover, which is used 
for escape, and thermal and feeding cover. Leks can be formed 
opportunistically at any appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting 
habitat (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). Lek habitat availability is 
not considered to be a limiting factor for sage-grouse (Schroeder 1997, 
p. 939). However, adult male sage-grouse demonstrate strong yearly 
fidelity to lek sites (Patterson 1952, p. 91; Dalke 1963 et al., pp. 
817-818), and some Gunnison sage-grouse leks have been used since the 
1950s (Rogers 1964, pp. 35-40).
    The pre-laying period is from late-March to April. Pre-laying 
habitats for sage-grouse need to provide a diversity of vegetation 
including forbs that are rich in calcium, phosphorous, and protein to 
meet the nutritional needs of females during the egg development period 
(Barnett and Crawford 1994, p. 117; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). 
During the pre-egg laying period, female sage-grouse select forbs that 
generally have higher amounts of calcium and crude protein than 
sagebrush (Barnett and Crawford 1994, p. 117).
    Nesting occurs from mid-April to June. Average earliest nest 
initiation was April 30, and the average latest nest initiation was May 
19, in the western portion of the Gunnison Basin (Childers 2009, p. 3). 
Radio-tracked Gunnison sage-grouse nest an average of 4.3 kilometers 
(km ) (2.7 miles (mi)) from the lek nearest to their capture site, with 
almost half nesting within 3 km (2 mi) of their capture site (Young 
1994, p. 37). 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. Eighty-
seven percent of all Gunnison sage-grouse nests were located less than 
6 km (4 mi) from the lek of capture (Apa 2004, p. 21). While earlier 
studies indicated that most greater sage-grouse hens nest within 3 km 
(2 mi) of a lek, more recent research indicated that many hens actually 
move much further from leks to nest based on nesting habitat quality 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). Female greater sage-grouse have been 
documented to travel more than 20 km (13 mi) to their nest site after 
mating (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). Female Gunnison sage-grouse 
exhibit strong fidelity to nesting locations (Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon 
2000, p. 20, Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-5; Holloran and Anderson 2005, 
p. 747). The degree of fidelity to a specific nesting area appears to 
diminish if the female's first nest attempt in that area was 
unsuccessful (Young 1994, p. 42). However, there is no statistical 
indication that movement to new nesting areas results in increased 
nesting success (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-6; Holloran and Anderson 
2005, p. 748).
    Gunnison sage-grouse typically select nest sites under sagebrush 
cover with some forb and grass cover (Young 1994, p. 38), and 
successful nests were found in higher shrub density and greater forb 
and grass cover than unsuccessful nests (Young 1994, p. 39). The 
understory of productive sage-grouse nesting areas contains 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 (Schroeder 
et al. 1999, p. 11; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971; Connelly et al. 
2004, pp. 4-5-4-8). Shrub canopy and grass cover provide concealment 
for sage-grouse nests and young, and are critical for reproductive 
success (Barnett and Crawford 1994, pp. 116-117; Gregg et al. 1994, pp. 
164-165; DeLong et al. 1995, pp. 90-91; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). 
Few herbaceous plants are growing in April when nesting begins, so 
residual herbaceous cover from the previous growing season is critical 
for nest concealment in most areas (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 977).
    Nesting success for Gunnison sage-grouse is highest in areas where 
forb and grass covers are found below a sagebrush canopy cover of 15 to 
30 percent (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). These numbers are comparable to 
those reported for the greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 
971). Nest success for greater sage-grouse is greatest where grass 
cover is present (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). Because of the 
similarities between these two species, we believe that increased nest 
success in areas of forb and grass cover below the appropriate 
sagebrush canopy cover is likely the case for Gunnison sage-grouse as 
well.
    Mean clutch size for Gunnison sage-grouse is 6.8 <plus-minus> 0.7 
eggs (Young 1994, p. 37). The mean clutch size for Gunnison sage-grouse 
in the Gunnison Basin was 6.3, with 94 percent of eggs in successful 
nests hatching (Childers 2009, p. 3). Despite average clutch sizes of 7 
eggs (Connelly et al. in press, p. 15), little evidence exists that 
populations of sage-grouse produce large annual surpluses (Connelly et 
al. in press, p. 15, 24). The inability of sage-grouse to produce large 
annual surpluses limits their ability to respond under favorable 
environmental conditions to make up for population declines. Re-nesting 
rates following the loss of the original nest appear very low in 
Gunnison sage-grouse, with one study reporting re-nesting rates of 4.8 
percent (Young 1994, p. 37). Only one instance of re-nesting was 
observed over a 5-year period during which a total of 91 nesting 
Gunnison sage-grouse hens were monitored (Childers 2009, p. 3).
    Most sage-grouse eggs hatch in June, with a peak between June 10 
and June

[[Page 59807]]

20 (GSRSC, 2005, p. 24). Chicks are precocial (mobile upon hatching) 
and leave the nest with the hen shortly after hatching. Forbs and 
insects are essential nutritional components for sage-grouse chicks 
(Klebenow and Gray 1968, pp. 81-83; Peterson 1970, pp. 149-151; Johnson 
and Boyce 1991, p. 90; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-3). Therefore, early 
brood-rearing habitat for females with chicks must provide adequate 
cover adjacent to areas rich in forbs and insects to assure chick 
survival during this period (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971; Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 4-11). Gunnison sage-grouse chick dietary requirements of 
insects and forbs also are expected to be similar to greater sage-
grouse and other grouse species (Apa 2005, pers. comm.).
    The availability of food and cover are key factors that affect 
chick and juvenile survival. During the first 3 weeks after hatching, 
insects are the primary food of chicks (Patterson 1952, p. 201; 
Klebenow and Gray 1968, p. 81; Peterson 1970, pp. 150-151; Johnson and 
Boyce 1990, pp. 90-91; Johnson and Boyce 1991, p. 92; Drut et al. 
1994b, p. 93; Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 320; Fischer et al. 1996a, p. 
194). Diets of 4- to 8-week-old greater sage-grouse chicks were found 
to have more plant material as the chicks matured (Peterson 1970, p. 
151). Succulent forbs are predominant in the diet until chicks exceed 3 
months of age, at which time sagebrush becomes a major dietary 
component (Klebenow 1969, pp. 665-656; Connelly and Markham 1983, pp. 
171-173; Fischer et al. 1996b, p. 871; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5).
    Early brood-rearing habitat is found close to nest sites (Connelly 
et al. 2000a, p. 971), although individual females with broods may move 
large distances (Connelly 1982, as cited in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 
971). Young (1994, pp. 41-42) found that Gunnison sage-grouse with 
broods used areas with lower slopes than nesting areas, high grass and 
forb cover, and relatively low sagebrush cover and density. Broods 
frequently used the edges of hay meadows, but were often flushed from 
areas found in interfaces of wet meadows and habitats providing more 
cover, such as sagebrush or willow-alder (Salix-Alnus).
    By late summer and into the early fall, individuals become more 
social, and flocks are more concentrated (Patterson 1952, p. 187). 
Intermixing of broods and flocks of adult birds is common, and the 
birds move from riparian areas to sagebrush-dominated landscapes that 
continue to provide green forbs. During this period, Gunnison sage-
grouse can be observed in atypical habitat such as agricultural fields 
(Commons 1997, pp. 79-81). However, broods in the Gunnison Basin 
typically do not use hay meadows further away than 50 meters (m) (165 
feet (ft)) of the edge of sagebrush stands (Colorado Sage Grouse 
Working Group (CSGWG) 1997, p. 13).
    As fall approaches, sage-grouse move from riparian to upland areas 
and start to shift to a winter diet (GSRSC 2005, p. 25). Movements to 
winter ranges are slow and meandering (Connelly et al. 1988, p. 119). 
The extent of movement varies with severity of winter weather, 
topography, and vegetation cover. Sage-grouse may travel short 
distances or many miles between seasonal ranges. In response to severe 
winters, Gunnison sage-grouse move as far as 27 km (17 mi) (Root 2002, 
p. 14). Flock size in winter is variable (15 to 100+), and flocks 
frequently consist of a single sex (Beck 1977, p. 21).
    From late autumn through early spring, greater and Gunnison sage-
grouse diet is almost exclusively sagebrush (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, 
p. 855; Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 20; Patterson 1952, pp. 197-198; 
Wallestad et al. 1975, pp. 628-629; Young et al. 2000, p. 452). Many 
species of sagebrush can be consumed (Remington and Braun 1985, pp. 
1056-1057; Welch et al. 1988, p. 276, 1991; Myers 1992, p. 55). 
Characteristics of sage-grouse winter habitats are also similar through 
the range of both species (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 972). In winter, 
Gunnison sage-grouse are restricted to areas of 15 to 30 percent 
sagebrush cover, similar to the greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 
2000a, p. 972; Young et al. 2000, p. 451). However, they may also use 
areas with more deciduous shrubs during the winter (Young et al. 2000, 
p. 451).
    Sagebrush stand selection in winter is influenced by snow depth 
(Patterson 1952, pp. 188-189; Connelly 1982 as cited in Connelly et al. 
2000a, p. 980) and in some areas, topography (Beck 1977, p. 22; 
Crawford et al. 2004, p. 5). Winter areas are typically characterized 
by canopy cover greater than 25 percent and sagebrush greater than 30 
to 41 cm (12 to 16 in) tall (Shoenberg 1982, p. 40) associated with 
drainages, ridges, or southwest aspects with slopes less than 15 
percent (Beck 1977, p. 22). Lower flat areas and shorter sagebrush 
along ridge tops provide roosting areas. In extreme winter conditions, 
greater sage-grouse will spend nights and portions of the day burrowed 
into ``snow burrows'' (Back et al. 1987, p. 488).
    Hupp and Braun (1989, p. 825) found that most Gunnison sage-grouse 
feeding activity in the winter occurred in drainages and on slopes with 
south or west aspects in the Gunnison Basin. During a severe winter in 
the Gunnison Basin in 1984, less than 10 percent of the sagebrush was 
exposed above the snow and available to sage-grouse (Hupp, 1987, pp. 
45-46). In these conditions, the tall and vigorous sagebrush typical in 
drainages was an especially important food source.
    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). Adult female Gunnison sage-grouse apparent survival 
rates from April through September averaged 57 percent, and adult male 
survival averaged 45 percent (Childers 2009, p. 2). From October 
through March, adult female Gunnison sage-grouse apparent survival 
rates averaged 79 percent, and adult male survival averaged 96 percent 
(Childers 2009, p.2). In one study, Gunnison sage-grouse survival from 
April 2002 through March 2003 was 48 (<plus-minus> 7) percent for males 
and 57 (<plus-minus> 7) percent for females (Apa 2004, p. 22). 
Preliminary results from the Gunnison and San Miguel populations 
indicate potential important temporal and spatial variation in 
demographic parameters, with apparent annual adult survival rates 
ranging from approximately 65 to 80 percent (CDOW 2009a, p. 8). 
Gunnison sage-grouse female survival in small isolated populations was 
52 (<plus-minus> 8) percent, compared to 71 (<plus-minus> 11) percent 
survival in the Gunnison Basin, the only population with greater than 
500 individuals (Apa 2004, p. 22). Higher adult survival has been 
observed in a lower elevation and warmer area (Dry Creek Basin of the 
San Miguel population - 90 percent) than in a higher elevation and 
colder, snowier, area (Miramonte portion of the San Miguel population - 
65 percent) (CDOW 2009a, p.8). Other factors affecting survival rates 
include climatic differences between years and age (Zablan 1993, pp. 5-
6).
    Apparent chick survival from hatch to the beginning of fall (30 
September) averaged 7 percent over a 5-year period in the western 
portion of the Gunnison Basin (Childers 2009, pp. 4-6). Apparent chick 
survival to 90 days of age has ranged from approximately 15 to 30 
percent in the Gunnison Basin, with no juvenile recruitment observed 
over several years in the San Miguel population (CDOW 2009a, p. 8). 
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 survival rates may be associated with sex, weather, harvest 
rates (no harvesting of Gunnison sage-grouse is currently permitted), 
age of brood female (broods with adult females have higher

[[Page 59808]]

survival), and with habitat quality (rates decrease in poor habitats) 
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14; Connelly et al., in press, p. 20).
    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, p. 10; Pyke in press, p. 7; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 
4). However, little information is available regarding minimum 
sagebrush patch sizes required to support populations of greater or 
Gunnison sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse have not been observed to 
undertake the large seasonal and annual movements observed in greater 
sage-grouse. However, movements of up to 24 km (15 mi) have been 
observed in individual Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin 
population only (Phillips 2010, pers. comm.).
    Sage-grouse typically occupy large expanses of sagebrush-dominated 
habitats composed of a diversity of sagebrush species and subspecies. 
Use of other habitats intermixed with sagebrush, such as riparian 
meadows, agricultural lands, steppe dominated by native grasses and 
forbs, scrub willow (Salix spp.), and sagebrush habitats with some 
conifer or quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), is not uncommon 
(Connelly et al 2004, p. 4-18 and references therein). Sage-grouse have 
been observed using human-altered habitats throughout their range.
    However, the use of non-sagebrush habitats by sage-grouse is 
dependent on the presence of sagebrush habitats in close proximity 
(Connelly et a.lal 2004, p. 4-18 and references therein).

Historic Range and Distribution of Gunnison Sage-grouse

    Based on historical records, museum specimens, and potential 
habitat distribution, Gunnison sage-grouse historically occurred in 
southwestern Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, 
and southeastern Utah (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 370-371). Accounts of 
Gunnison sage-grouse in Kansas and Oklahoma, as suggested by Young et 
al. (2000, pp. 446-447), are not supported with museum specimens, and 
Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 371) found inconsistencies with the 
historical records and the sagebrush habitat currently available in 
those areas. Applegate (2001, p. 241) found that none of the sagebrush 
species closely associated with sage-grouse occurred in Kansas. He 
attributed historical, anecdotal reports as mistaken locations or 
misidentification of lesser prairie chickens. For these reasons, 
southwestern Kansas and western Oklahoma are not considered within the 
historic range of Gunnison sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371).
    The GSRSC (2005) modified the historic range from Schroeder et al. 
(2004), based on more complete information on historic and current 
habitat and the distribution of the species (GSRSC 2005, pp. 34-35). 
Based on this information, the maximum Gunnison sage-grouse historical 
(presettlement) range is estimated to have been 55,350 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (21,370 square miles (mi\2\)) (GSRSC 2005, p. 32). 
To be clear, only a portion of the historical range would have been 
occupied at any one time, while all of the current range is considered 
occupied. Also, we do not know what portion of the historical range was 
simultaneously occupied, or what the total population was.
    Much of what was once Gunnison sage-grouse sagebrush habitat was 
already lost prior to 1958. A qualitative decrease in sagebrush was 
attributed to overgrazing from the 1870s until about 1934 (Rogers 1964, 
p. 13). Additional adverse effects occurred as a result of newer range 
management techniques implemented to support livestock by the Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM), Soil Conservation Service, and U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) (Rogers 1964, p. 13). In the 1950s, large areas of 
sagebrush within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse were eradicated by 
herbicide spraying or burning (Rogers 1964, pp. 12-13, 22-23, 26).
    About 155,673 hectares (ha) (384,676 ac) of sagebrush habitat was 
lost from 1958 to 1993 within southwestern Colorado (Oyler-McCance et 
al. 2001, p. 327). Sagebrush loss was lower in the Gunnison Basin (11 
percent) compared to all other areas in southwestern Colorado (28 
percent) (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 328). Considerable 
fragmentation of sagebrush vegetation was also quantitatively 
documented during that same time period (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 
329). Sage-grouse habitat in southwestern Colorado (the majority of the 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse) has been more severely impacted than 
sagebrush habitat elsewhere in Colorado.
    The Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) resulted in construction 
of three reservoirs within the Gunnison Basin in the mid-late 1960s 
(Blue Mesa and Morrow) and mid-1970s (Crystal). Several projects 
associated with CRSP were constructed in this same general timeframe to 
provide additional water storage and resulted in the loss of an 
unquantified, but likely small, amount of sagebrush habitat. These 
projects provide water storage and, to a certain extent, facilitate 
agricultural activities that maintain the fragmentation and habitat 
lost historically throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse.
    In summary, a substantial amount of sagebrush habitat within the 
range of the Gunnison sage-grouse had been lost prior to 1960. The 
majority of the remaining habitat is highly fragmented, although to a 
lesser extent in the Gunnison Basin than in the remainder of the 
species habitat.

Current Distribution and Population Estimates

    The historic and current geographic ranges of Gunnison's and 
greater sage-grouse were quantitatively analyzed to determine the 
species' response to habitat loss and detrimental land uses (Wisdom et 
al., in press, 2009, entire). A broad spectrum of biotic, abiotic, and 
anthropogenic conditions were found to be significantly different 
between extirpated and occupied ranges (Wisdom et al., in press, 2009, 
p. 1.). Sagebrush area is one of the best landscape predictors of sage-
grouse persistence (Wisdom et al., in press, 2009, p. 17 and references 
therein). Because of the loss and fragmentation of habitat within its 
range, no expansive, contiguous areas that could be considered 
strongholds (areas of occupied range where the risk of extirpation 
appears low) are evident for Gunnison sage-grouse (Wisdom et al., in 
press, 2009, p. 24). We do not know the minimum amount of sagebrush 
habitat needed by Gunnison sage-grouse to ensure long-term persistence. 
However, based on Wisdom et al., in press, we do know that landscapes 
containing large and contiguous sagebrush patches and sagebrush patches 
in close proximity increase the likelihood of sage-grouse persistence.
    Gunnison sage-grouse currently occur in seven widely scattered and 
isolated populations in Colorado and Utah, occu2pying 3,795 km\2\ 
(1,511mi\2\) (GSRSC 2005, pp. 36-37; CDOW 2009b, p. 1). The seven 
populations are Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, Monticello-Dove 
Creek, Pinon Mesa, Crawford, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and 
Poncha Pass (Figure 1). A comparative summary of the land ownership and 
recent population estimates among these seven populations is presented 
in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Population trends over the last 
nine years indicate that six of the populations are in decline. The 
Gunnison Basin population, while showing variation over the years, has 
been relatively stable through the period (CDOW 2009a p. 2). Six of the

[[Page 59809]]

populations are very small and fragmented (all with less than 40,500 ha 
(100,000 acres) of habitat likely used by grouse and less than 50 males 
counted on leks) (CDOW 2009a, p. 5). The San Miguel population, the 
second largest, comprises six fragmented subpopulations.
    Figure 1. Locations of Current Gunnison Sage-grouse Populations.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28SE10.000
    

       Table 1. Percent surface ownership of total Gunnison sage-grouse occupied\a\ habitat (from GSRSC\b\ 2005, pp. D-3-D-6; CDOW\c\ 2009b, p. 1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Management and Ownership
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Population                      hectares      acres      BLM\d\    NPS\e\    USFS\f\    CDOW    CO State  State of   Private
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Land       UT    ----------
                                                                                                                    Board  ----------
                                                                              %         %         %         %    ----------               %
                                                                                                                      %         %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison Basin                                      239,953      592,936        51         2        14         3        <1         0        29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Basin                                     41,022      101,368     36\g\         0         1        11      3\g\         0     49\g\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monticello-Dove Creek (Combined)                     45,275      111,877         7         0         0         3         0        <1        90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Dove Creek                                        16,706       41,282        11         0         0         8         0         0        81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Monticello                                        28,569       70,595         4         0         0         0         0         1        95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pi[ntilde]on Mesa                                    15,744       38,904        28         0         2        19         0         0        51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa                      15,039       37,161        13        <1         0        11         0         0        76
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford                                             14,170       35,015        63        12         0         2         0         0        23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59810]]

 
Poncha Pass                                           8,262       20,415        48         0        26         0         2         0        23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangewide                                           379,464      937,676        42         2        10         5        <1        <1        41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by Gunnison sage-grouse within the last 10 years from
  the date of mapping, and areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which have no barriers to grouse movement from known use areas
  (GSRSC 2005, p. 54).
\b\Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee
\c\Colorado Division of Wildlife
\d\Bureau of Land Management
\e\National Park Service
\f\United States Forest Service
\g\Estimates reported in San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (2009 p. 28) vary by up to 2 percent in these categories from those
  reported here. We consider these differences insignificant.


  Table 2. Gunnison Sage-grouse population estimates by year derived from the formula presented in the Gunnison sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan
                                  (GSRSC\a\ 2005, pp. 44-45) applied to high male counts on leks (CDOW\b\ 2009a, p. 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Estimated Population
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Year
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            2001         2002        2003       2004       2005       2006       2007       2008       2009       2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison Basin                                3,493        3,027      2,453      2,443      4,700      5,205      4,616      3,669      3,817      3,655
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Basin                                392          383        250        255        334        378        324        216        162        123
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monticello-Dove Creek (Combined)                363          270        186        162        196        191        245        245        191     n/a\c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Monticello                                    231          172        147        152        162        118        216        216        182     n/a\c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dove Creek                                    132           98         39         10         34         74         29         29         10         44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pi[ntilde]on Mesa                               152          132        123        142        167        152        123        108         78         74
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa                  59           39         29         39         25         49         34         10         39          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford                                        137          206        118        128        191        201        113        103         78         20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poncha Pass                                      25           44         34         39         44         44         25         25         20         15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals                                        4,621        4,101      3,194      3,208      5,656      6,220      5,480      4,376      4,386     n/a\c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee
\b\Colorado Division of Wildlife
\c\2010 lek count data for the Monticello group was not available at the time of publication

    Gunnison Basin Population - The Gunnison Basin is an intermontane 
basin that includes parts of Gunnison and Saguache Counties, Colorado. 
The current Gunnison Basin population is distributed across 
approximately 240,000 ha (593,000 ac), roughly centered on the town of 
Gunnison. Elevations in the area range from 2,300 to 2,900 m (7,500 to 
9,500 ft). Approximately 70 percent of the land area is managed by 
Federal agencies (67 percent) and CDOW (3 percent), and the remaining 
30 percent comprises primarily private lands. Big sagebrush (Artemesia 
tridentata) dominates the upland vegetation and has a highly variable 
growth form depending on local site conditions. In 2009, 83 leks were 
surveyed for breeding activity in the Gunnison Basin, and 42 of these 
leks were active (at least two males in attendance during at least two 
of four 10-day count periods), 6 inactive

[[Page 59811]]

(inactive for at least 5 consecutive years), 9 historic (inactive for 
at least 10 consecutive years), and 26 were of unknown status 
(variability in counts resulted in lek not meeting requirements for 
active, inactive, or historic) (CDOW 2009d, pp. 28-30). Approximately 
45 percent of leks in the Gunnison Basin occur on private land and 55 
percent on public land, primarily BLM (GSRSC 2005, p. 75). The 2010 
population estimate for the Gunnison Basin was 3,655 (CDOW 2010a, p. 
2). Rogers (1964, p. 20) stated that Gunnison County was one of five 
counties containing the majority of sage-grouse in Colorado in 1961. 
The vast majority (87 percent) of Gunnison sage-grouse are now found 
only in the Gunnison Basin population.
    San Miguel Basin Population - The San Miguel Basin population is in 
Montrose and San Miguel Counties in Colorado, and is composed of six 
small subpopulations using different areas--(Dry Creek Basin, Hamilton 
Mesa, Miramonte Reservoir, Gurley Reservoir, Beaver Mesa, and Iron 
Springs) occupying a total of approximately 41,000 ha (101,000 ac). 
Some of these six areas are used year-round by sage-grouse, and others 
are used seasonally. The overall acreage figure for this population is 
heavily skewed by the large percentage (approximately 62 percent) of 
land in the Dry Creek Basin (San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse 
Working Group 2009, p. 28). The Dry Creek Basin area contains some of 
the poorest habitat and smallest grouse populations in the San Miguel 
population (San Miguel Basin Gunnison sage-grouse Conservation Plan 
2009, pp. 28, 36). Gunnison sage-grouse in the San Miguel Basin move 
widely between these areas (Apa 2004, p. 29; Stiver and Gibson 2005, p. 
12). The area encompassed by this population is believed to have once 
served as critical migration corridors between populations to the north 
(Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa) and to the south (Monticello-Dove 
Creek) (San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group 2009, p. 
9).
    Sagebrush habitat in the Dry Creek Basin area is patchily 
distributed, and the understory is either lacking in grass and forb 
diversity or nonexistent. Where irrigation is possible, private lands 
in the southeast portion of Dry Creek Basin are cultivated. Sagebrush 
habitat on private land has been heavily thinned or removed entirely 
(GSRSC 2005, p. 96). Gunnison sage-grouse use the Hamilton Mesa area 
(1,940 ha (4,800 ac)) in the summer, but use of Hamilton Mesa during 
other seasons is unknown. Gunnison sage-grouse occupy approximately 
4,700 ha (11,600 ac) around Miramonte Reservoir (GSRSC 2005, p. 96). 
Sagebrush stands there are generally contiguous with a mixed grass and 
forb understory. Occupied habitat at the Gurley Reservoir area (3,305 
ha (7,500 ac)) is heavily fragmented by urban development, and the 
understory is a mixed grass and forb community. Farming attempts in the 
early 20th century led to the removal of much of the sagebrush, 
although agricultural activities are now restricted primarily to the 
seasonally irrigated crops (hay meadows), and sagebrush has 
reestablished in most of the failed pastures. However, grazing pressure 
and competition from introduced grasses have kept the overall sagebrush 
representation low (GSRSC 2005, pp. 96-97). Sagebrush stands in the 
Iron Springs and Beaver Mesa areas (2,590 ha and 3,560 ha (6,400 ac and 
8,800 ac respectively)) are contiguous with a mixed grass understory. 
The Beaver Mesa area has numerous scattered patches of oakbrush 
(Quercus gambelii). Rogers (1964, p. 9) reported that all big 
sagebrush-dominated habitats in San Miguel and Montrose Counties were 
historically used by Gunnison sage-grouse.
    The 2010 population estimate for the entire San Miguel Basin was 
123 individuals on nine leks (CDOW 20010, p. 3). With the exception of 
2007, CDOW has been translocating Gunnison sage-grouse from the 
Gunnison Basin to Dry Creek Basin on a yearly basis since the spring of 
2006 (CDOW 2009a, p. 133). In the spring of 2006, six individuals were 
released near the Desert Lek. An additional two individuals were 
released in the fall. Nine individuals were translocated in the spring 
of 2008. An additional 30 individuals were translocated in the fall of 
2009. A 40 to 50 percent mortality rate has been observed within the 
first year after release, compared to an average annual mortality rate 
of approximately 20 percent for radiomarked adult sage-grouse (CDOWa 
2009, p. 9).
    Monticello-Dove Creek Population - This population is divided into 
two disjunct subpopulations of Gunnison sage-grouse. Currently, the 
largest group is near the town of Monticello, in San Juan County, Utah. 
Gunnison sage-grouse in this subpopulation inhabit a broad plateau on 
the northeast side of the Abajo Mountains, with fragmented patches of 
sagebrush interspersed with large grass pastures and agricultural 
fields. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) estimated 
population numbers between 583 and 1,050 individuals in 1972 and 
between 178 and 308 individuals in 2002 (UDWR 2009, 29.21 p. 1). The 
UDWR estimates that Gunnison sage-grouse currently occupy about 24,000 
ha (60,000 ac) in the Monticello area. The 2009 population estimate for 
Monticello was 182 individuals with three active and one inactive leks 
(UDWR 2009, p. 5).
    The Dove Creek subpoulation is located primarily in western Dolores 
County, Colorado, north and west of Dove Creek, although a small 
portion of occupied habitat extends north into San Miguel County. 
Habitat north of Dove Creek is characterized as mountain shrub habitat, 
dominated by oakbrush interspersed with sagebrush. The area west of 
Dove Creek is dominated by sagebrush, but the habitat is highly 
fragmented. Lek counts in the Dove Creek area were over 50 males in 
1999, suggesting a population of about 245 birds, but declined to 2 
males in 2009 (CDOW 2009a, p. 71), suggesting a population of 10 birds. 
A new lek was found in 2010, and the 2010 population estimate was 44 
individuals on 2 leks (CDOW 2010, p. 1). Low sagebrush canopy cover, as 
well as low grass height, exacerbated by drought, may have led to nest 
failure and subsequent population declines (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 
974; Apa 2004, p. 30). Rogers (1964, p. 9) reported that all sagebrush-
dominated habitats in Dolores and Montezuma Counties within Gunnison 
sage-grouse range in Colorado were historically used by Gunnison sage-
grouse.
    Pinon Mesa Population - The Pinon Mesa population occurs on the 
northwest end of the Uncompahgre Plateau in Mesa County, about 35 km 
(22 mi) southwest of Grand Junction, Colorado. The 2010 population 
estimate for Pinon Mesa was 74 (CDOW 2010, p. 2). Of the ten known 
leks, only four were active in 2009 (CDOW, 2009a, p. 3). The Pinon Mesa 
area may have additional leks, but the high percentage of private land, 
a lack of roads, and heavy snow cover during spring make locating 
additional leks difficult. Gunnison sage-grouse likely occurred 
historically in all suitable sagebrush habitat in the Pinon Mesa area, 
including the Dominguez Canyon area of the Uncompaghre Plateau, 
southeast of Pinon Mesa proper (Rogers 1964, p. 114). Their current 
distribution has been substantially reduced from historic levels to 
15,744 ha (38,904 ac) (GSRSC 2005, p. 87).
    Crawford Population - The Crawford population of Gunnison sage-
grouse is in Montrose County, Colorado, about 13 km (8 mi) southwest of 
the town of Crawford and north of the Gunnison River. Basin big 
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata tridentata) and black

[[Page 59812]]

sagebrush (A. nova) dominate the mid-elevation uplands (GSRSC 2005, p. 
62). The 2010 population estimate for Crawford was 20 individuals (CDOW 
2010, p. 1) in 14,170 ha (35,015 ac) of occupied habitat. Four active 
leks are currently in the Crawford population on BLM lands in sagebrush 
habitat adjacent to an 11-km (7-mi) stretch of road. This area 
represents the largest contiguous sagebrush-dominated habitat within 
the Crawford boundary (GSRSC 2005, p. 64).
    Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa Population - This population is 
divided into two geographically separated subpopulations, both in 
Montrose County, Colorado. The Cerro Summit-Cimarron subpopulation is 
centered about 24 km (15 mi) east of Montrose. The habitat consists of 
15,039 ha (37,161 ac) of patches of sagebrush habitat fragmented by 
oakbrush and irrigated pastures. Five leks are currently known in the 
Cerro Summit-Cimarron group, but only one individual was observed on 
one lek in 2010 resulting in a population estimate of 5 individuals for 
the population (CDOW 2010, p. 1). Rogers (1964, p. 115) noted a small 
population of sage-grouse in the Cimarron River drainage, but did not 
report population numbers. He noted that lek counts at Cerro Summit in 
1959 listed four individuals.
    The Sims Mesa area, about 11 km (7 mi) south of Montrose, consists 
of small patches of sagebrush that are heavily fragmented by pinyon-
juniper, residential and recreational development, and agriculture. The 
one known lek in Sims Mesa has lacked Gunnison sage-grouse attendance 
for the last six years, which indicates this population is likely 
extirpated (CDOW 2009a, p. 43). In 2000, the CDOW translocated six 
Gunnison sage-grouse from the Gunnison Basin to Sims Mesa (Nehring and 
Apa 2000, p. 12). Rogers (1964, p. 95) recorded eight males in a lek 
count at Sims Mesa in 1960. We do not know if sage-grouse move between 
the Cerro Summit-Cimarron and Sims Mesa subpopulations.
    Poncha Pass Population - The Poncha Pass Gunnison sage-grouse 
population is located in Saguache County, approximately 16 km (10 mi) 
northwest of Villa Grove, Colorado. This population was established 
through the reintroduction of 30 birds from the Gunnison Basin in 1971 
and 1972 during efforts to reintroduce the species to the San Luis 
Valley (GSRSC 2005, p. 94). The known population distribution is in 
8,262 ha (20,415 ac) of sagebrush habitat from the summit of Poncha 
Pass extending south for about 13 km (8 mi) on either side of U.S. 
Highway 285. Sagebrush in this area is continuous with little 
fragmentation; sagebrush habitat quality throughout the area is 
adequate to support the species (Nehring and Apa 2000 p. 25). San Luis 
Creek runs through the area, providing a year-round water source and 
lush, wet meadow riparian habitat for brood-rearing.
    A high male count of 3 males was made in 2010 (CDOW 2009a, p. 121), 
resulting in an estimated population size of 15 for the Poncha Pass 
population (CDOW 2010, p. 3). The only current lek is located on BLM-
administered land. In 1992, a CDOW effort to simplify hunting 
restrictions inadvertently opened the Poncha Pass area to sage-grouse 
hunting, and at least 30 grouse were harvested from this population. 
Due to declining population numbers since the 1992 hunt, CDOW 
translocated 24 additional birds from the Gunnison Basin (Nehring and 
Apa 2000, p. 11). In 2001 and 2002, an additional 20 and 7 birds, 
respectively, were moved to Poncha Pass by the CDOW (GSRSC 2005, p. 
94). Translocated females have bred successfully (Apa 2004, pers. 
comm.), and display activity resumed on the historic lek in spring 
2001.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424), set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or 
threatened based on any of the following five factors: (1) The present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, 
or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy 
of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. In making this finding, 
information pertaining to the Gunnison sage-grouse, in relation to the 
five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, is discussed 
below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we attempt 
to determine how significant a threat it is. The threat is significant 
if it drives, or contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species 
such that the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as 
those terms are defined in the Act.
    The Gunnison Basin contains 87 percent of the current rangewide 
Gunnison sage-grouse population and 62 percent of the area occupied by 
the species. The remaining six populations cumulatively and 
individually have substantially smaller population sizes and occupy 
substantially less habitat than the Gunnison Basin population (see 
Table 2).

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Sagebrush habitats within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse are 
becoming increasingly fragmented as a result of various changes in land 
uses and the expansion in the density and distribution of invasive 
plant species (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, pp. 329-330; Schroeder et al. 
2004, p. 372). 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 non-contiguous 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; or activities that prevent animals from using 
suitable habitat patches due to behavioral avoidance.
    A variety of human developments including roads, energy 
development, and other factors that cause habitat fragmentation have 
contributed to or been associated with Gunnison and greater sage-grouse 
extirpation (Wisdom et al. in press, p. 18). Based on a quantitative 
analysis of environmental factors most closely associated with 
extirpation, no strongholds (areas where the risk of Gunnison sage-
grouse extirpation is low) exist (Wisdom et al. in press, p. 26). 
Estimating the impact of habitat fragmentation on sage-grouse is 
complicated by time lags in response to habitat changes (Garton et al., 
in press, p. 71), particularly since these relatively 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 (Rogers 1964, pp. 35-40; Wiens and 
Rotenberry 1985, p. 666; Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon

[[Page 59813]]

2000, p. 20, Connelly et al. 2004, p. 45; Holloran and Anderson 2005, 
p. 747).
    Habitat fragmentation can have an adverse effect on Gunnison sage-
grouse populations. Many of the factors that result in fragmentation 
may be exacerbated by the effects of climate change, which may 
influence long-term habitat and population trends. The following 
sections examine factors that can contribute to habitat fragmentation 
to determine whether they threaten Gunnison sage-grouse and their 
habitat.

Historic Modification of Gunnison Sage-grouse Habitat

    The historic and current distribution of the Gunnison sage-grouse 
closely matches the distribution of sagebrush. Potential Gunnison sage-
grouse range is estimated to have been 5,536,358 ha (13,680,640 ac) 
historically (GSRSC 2005, p. 32). Gunnison sage-grouse currently occupy 
approximately 379,464 ha (937,676 ac) in southwestern Colorado and 
southeastern Utah (CDOW 2009b, p. 1; GSRSC 2005, p. 81), an area that 
represents approximately 7 percent of the species' potential historic 
range. The following describes the factors affecting Gunnison sage-
grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat within the current range of the 
species.
    The onset of EuroAmerican settlement in the late 1800s resulted in 
significant alterations to sagebrush ecosystems throughout North 
America (West and Young 2000, pp. 263-265; Miller et al. in press, p. 
6), primarily as a result of urbanization, agricultural conversion, and 
irrigation projects. Areas that supported basin big sagebrush 
(Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) were among the first sagebrush 
community types converted to agriculture because their typical soils 
and topography are well suited for agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13).
    In southwestern Colorado, Oyler-McCance et al. (2001, p. 326) found 
that, between 1958 and 1993, 20 percent (155,673 ha (384,676 ac)) of 
sagebrush was lost in Colorado, and 37 percent of sagebrush plots 
examined were fragmented. In another analysis, it was estimated that 
approximately 342,000 ha (845,000 ac) of sagebrush, or 13 percent of 
the pre-EuroAmerican settlement sagebrush extent, were lost in 
Colorado, which includes both greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3-3). However, the authors 
noted that the estimate of historic sagebrush area used in their 
analyses was conservative, possibly resulting in a substantial 
underestimate of historic sagebrush losses (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 
3-4). Within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, the principal areas of 
sagebrush loss were in the Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, and areas 
near Dove Creek, Colorado. The authors point out that the rate of loss 
in the Gunnison Basin was lower than other areas of sagebrush 
distribution in Colorado. The Gunnison Basin contains approximately 
250,000 ha (617,000 ac) of sagebrush; this area partially comprises 
other habitat types such as riparian areas and patches of non-sagebrush 
vegetation types, including aspen forest, mixed-conifer forest, and 
oakbrush (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3-3). Within the portion of the 
Gunnison Basin currently occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse, 170,000 ha 
(420,000 ac) comprises exclusively sagebrush vegetation types, as 
derived from Southwest Regional Gap Analsis Project (SWReGAP) landcover 
data (multi-season satellite imagery acquired between 1999 and 2001) 
(USGS 2004, entire).

Conversion to Agriculture

    While sage-grouse may forage on agricultural croplands, they avoid 
landscapes dominated by agriculture (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 991). 
Influences resulting from agricultural activities extend into adjoining 
sagebrush, and include increased predation and reduced nest success due 
to predators associated with agriculture (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-
23). Agricultural conversion can provide some limited benefits for 
sage-grouse. Some crops, such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and young 
bean sprouts (Phaseolus spp.), are eaten or used for cover by Gunnison 
sage-grouse (Braun 1998, pers. comm.). However, crop monocultures do 
not provide adequate year-round food or cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22-30).
    Current Agriculture in All Gunnison Sage-grouse Population Areas - 
The following estimates of land area dedicated to agriculture 
(including grass/forb pasture) were derived from SWReGAP landcover data 
(USGS 2004, entire). Habitat conversion to agriculture is most 
prevalent in the Monticello-Dove Creek population area where 
approximately 23,220 ha (57,377 ac) or 51 percent of Gunnison sage-
grouse occupied range is currently in agricultural production. In the 
Gunnison Basin, approximately 20,754 ha (51,285 ac) or 9 percent of the 
occupied range is currently in agricultural production. Approximately 
6,287 ha (15,535 ac) or 15 percent of the occupied range in the San 
Miguel Basin is currently in agricultural production. In the Cerro 
Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population, approximately 14 percent (5,133 
ha (2,077 ac)) of the occupied range is currently in agricultural 
production. Habitat conversion due to agricultural activities is 
limited in the Crawford, Pinon Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations, with 
3 percent or less of the occupied range currently in agricultural 
production in each of the population areas.
    Other than in Gunnison County, total area of harvested cropland has 
declined over the past two decades in all counties within the occupied 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse (USDA NASS 2010, entire). Information on 
the amount of land area devoted to cropland was not available for 
Gunnison County, most likely because the majority of agricultural land 
use in the county is for hay production. However, total area in hay 
production has correspondingly declined in Gunnison County over the 
past two decades (USDA NASS 2009, p. 1). Because of this long-term 
trend in reduced land area devoted to agriculture, we do not expect a 
significant amount of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat to be converted to 
agricultural purposes in the future.
    Conservation Reserve Program - The loss of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat to conversion to agriculture has been mitigated somewhat by the 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The CRP is administered by the 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency 
(FSA) and provides incentives to agricultural landowners to convert 
certain cropland to more natural vegetative conditions. Except in 
emergency situations, CRP-enrolled lands are not hayed or grazed.
    Lands within the occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse enrolled 
into the CRP are limited to Dolores and San Miguel counties in 
Colorado, and San Juan County in Utah (USDA FSA 2010, entire). From 
2000 to 2008, CRP-enrollment averaged 10,622 ha (26,247 ac) in Dolores 
County, 1,350 ha (3,337 ac) in San Miguel County, and 14,698 ha (36,320 
ac) in San Juan County (USDA FSA 2010, entire). These CRP enrolled 
areas potentially constitute approximately 56 percent of the 
Monticello-Dove Creek population and 3 percent of the San Miguel 
population; however, we are unsure of the proportion of these CRP lands 
that are within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Approximately 735 ha 
(1,816 ac) of leases on these CRP-enrolled lands expired on September 
30, 2009, and 10,431 ha (25,778 ac) are due to expire on September 30, 
2010 (UDWR 2009, p. 7).
    In San Juan County, Gunnison sage-grouse use CRP lands in 
proportion to their availability (Lupis et al. 2006, p. 959). The CRP 
areas are used by grouse primarily as brood-rearing habitat, but

[[Page 59814]]

these areas vary greatly in plant diversity and forb abundance, and 
generally lack any shrub cover (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959-960). In 
response to a severe drought, four CRP parcels totaling 1,487 ha (3,674 
ac) in San Juan County, UT, were emergency grazed for a duration of 1 
to 2 months in the summer of 2002 (Lupis 2006, p. 959).
    Largely as a result of agricultural conversion, sagebrush patches 
in the Monticello-Dove Creek subpopulation area have progressively 
become smaller and more fragmented, which has limited the amount of 
available nesting and winter habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 82, 276). 
Overall, the CRP has protected a portion of the Monticello-Dove Creek 
population from more intensive agricultural use and development. 
However, the overall value of CRP lands is limited because they largely 
lack sagebrush cover required by Gunnison sage-sage grouse throughout 
most of the year. The CRP was renewed under the Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008. A new CRP sign-up for individual landowners is not 
anticipated until 2012 and the extent to which existing CRP lands will 
be re-enrolled is unknown (UDWR 2009, p. 4).
Summary of Conversion to Agriculture
    Throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse there is a declining 
trend in the amount of land area devoted to agriculture. Therefore, 
although we expect a large proportion of land currently in agricultural 
production to remain so indefinitely, we do not expect significant 
additional, future habitat conversion to agriculture within the range 
of Gunnison sage-grouse. The loss of sagebrush habitat from 1958 to 
1993 was estimated to be approximately 20 percent throughout the range 
of Gunnison sage-grouse (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 326). The 
exception is the Monticello-Dove Creek population where more than half 
of the occupied range is currently in agriculture or other land uses 
incompatible with Gunnison sage-grouse conservation. This habitat loss 
is being somewhat mitigated by the current enrollment of lands in the 
CRP. Even so, this relative scarcity of sagebrush cover indicates a 
high risk of population extirpation (Wisdom et al. in press, p. 19) for 
this population. Because of its limited extent, we do not consider the 
conversion of sagebrush habitats to agriculture alone to be a current 
or future significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. 
However, we recognize lands already converted to agriculture are 
located throughout all Gunnison sage-grouse populations and are, 
therefore, contributing to the fragmentation of remaining habitat.

Water Development

    Water Development in All Population Areas - Irrigation projects 
have resulted in loss of sage-grouse habitat (Braun 1998, p. 6). 
Reservoir development in the Gunnison Basin flooded 3,700 ha (9,200 
ac), or 1.5 percent of likely sage-grouse habitat (McCall 2005, pers. 
comm.). Three other reservoirs inundated approximately 2 percent of 
habitat in the San Miguel Basin population area (Garner 2005, pers. 
comm.). We are unaware of any plans for additional reservoir 
construction. Because of the small amount of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat lost to water development projects and the unlikelihood of 
future projects, we do not consider water development alone to be a 
current or future significant threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse. 
However, we expect these existing reservoirs to be maintained 
indefinitely, thus acting as another source of fragmentation of 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.

Residential Development

    Human population growth in the rural Rocky Mountains is driven by 
the availability of natural amenities, recreational opportunities, 
aesthetically desirable settings, grandiose viewscapes, and perceived 
remoteness (Riebsame 1996, p. 396, 402; Theobald 1996, p. 408; Gosnell 
and Travis 2005, pp. 192-197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6; Hansen et al. 
2005, pp. 1899-1901). This human population growth is occurring 
throughout much of the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. The human 
population in all counties within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse 
averaged a 70 percent increase since 1980 (Colorado Department of Local 
Affairs (CDOLA) 2009a, pp. 2-3). The year 2050 projected human 
population for the Gunnison River basin (an area that encompasses the 
majority of the current range of Gunnison sage-grouse) is expected to 
be 2.3 times greater than the 2005 population (CWCB 2009, p. 15). The 
population of Gunnison County, an area that supports over 80 percent of 
all Gunnison sage-grouse, is predicted to more than double to 
approximately 31,100 residents by 2050 (CWCB 2009, p. 53).
    The increase in residential and commercial development associated 
with the expanding human population is different from historic land use 
patterns (Theobald 2001, p. 548). The allocation of land for resource-
based activities such as agriculture and livestock production is 
decreasing as the relative economic importance of these activities 
diminishes (Theobald 1996, p. 413; Sammons 1998, p. 32; Gosnell and 
Travis 2005, pp. 191-192). Currently, agribusiness occupations 
constitute approximately 3 percent of the total job base in Gunnison 
County (CDOLAb 2009, p. 4). Recent conversion of farm and ranch lands 
to housing development has been significant in Colorado (Odell and 
Knight 2001, p. 1144). Many large private ranches in the Rocky 
Mountains, including the Gunnison Basin, are being subdivided into both 
high-density subdivisions and larger, scattered ranchettes with lots 
typically greater than 14 ha (35 ac), which encompass a large, isolated 
house (Riebsame 1996, p. 399; Theobald 1996, p. 408).
    The resulting pattern of residential development is less associated 
with existing town sites or existing subdivisions, and is increasingly 
exurban in nature (Theobald et al. 1996, pp. 408, 415; Theobald 2001, 
p. 546). Exurban development is described as low-density growth outside 
of urban and suburban areas (Clark et al. 2009, p. 178; Theobald 2004, 
p.140) with less than one housing unit per 1 ha (2.5 ac) (Theobald 
2003, p. 1627; Theobald 2004, p. 139). The resulting pattern is one of 
increased residential lot size and the diffuse scattering of 
residential lots in previously rural areas with a premium placed on 
adjacency to federal lands and isolated open spaces (Riebsame et al. 
1996, p. 396, 398; Theobald 1996, pp. 413, 417; Theobald 2001, p. 546; 
Brown et al. 2005, p. 1858). The residential subdivision that results 
from exurban development causes landscape fragmentation (Gosnell and 
Travis 2005, p. 196) primarily through the accumulation of roads, 
buildings, (Theobald 1996, p. 410; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 3) and 
other associated infrastructure such as power lines, and pipelines. In 
the East River Valley of Gunnison County, residential development in 
the early 1990s increased road density by 17 percent (Theobald et al. 
1996, p. 410). The habitat fragmentation resulting from this 
development pattern is especially detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse 
because of their dependence 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).
    Residential Development in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - 
Nearly three quarters (approximately 71 percent) of the Gunnison Basin 
population of Gunnison sage-grouse occurs within Gunnison County, with 
the remainder occurring in Saguache

[[Page 59815]]

County. Within Gunnison County, approximately 30 percent of the 
occupied range of this species occurs on private lands. We performed a 
GIS analysis of parcel ownership data that was focused on the spatial 
and temporal pattern of human development within occupied Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat. Some of our analyses were limited to the portion 
of occupied habitat in Gunnison County because parcel data was only 
available for Gunnison County and not for Saguache County. The 
cumulative number of human developments has increased dramatically in 
Gunnison County, especially since the early 1970s (USFWS 2010a, p. 1). 
The number of new developments averaged approximately 70 per year from 
the late 1800s to 1969, increasing to approximately 450 per year from 
1970 to 2008 (USFWS 2010a, pp. 2-5). Furthermore, there has been an 
increasing trend toward development away from major roadways (primary 
and secondary paved roads) into areas that had previously undergone 
very limited development in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 
(USFWS 2010b, p. 7). Between 1889 and 1968, there were approximately 51 
human developments located more than 1.6 km (1 mi) from a major road in 
currently occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Between 1969 and 2008, 
this number increased to approximately 476 developments (USFWS 2010b, 
p. 7).
    In order to assess the impacts of existing residential development, 
we relied on two evaluations of Gunnison sage-grouse response and 
habitat availability in relation to development. The first was a 
landscape-scale spatial model predicting Gunnison sage-grouse nesting 
probability in the Gunnison Basin (Aldridge et al. 2010, entire). The 
model indicated that Gunnison sage-grouse select nest sites in areas 
with moderate shrub cover, and avoid residential development within a 
radius of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) (Aldridge et al. 2010, p. 18). The model was 
applied to the entire Gunnison Basin population area to predict the 
likelihood of Gunnison sage-grouse nesting based on data from the 
western portion (Aldridge et al. 2010, p. 16). We used Aldridge et al. 
(2010)'s radius of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) avoidance distance to calculate the 
indirect effects likely from the current level of development within 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison County. We found that 
49 percent of the land area within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse 
has at least one housing unit within a radius of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) (USFWS 
2010b, p. 7). This residential development is currently compromising 
the likelihood of use by Gunnison sage-grouse for nesting habitat in 
these areas.
    Furthermore, since early brood-rearing habitat is often in close 
proximity to nest sites (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971), the functional 
loss of nesting habitat is closely linked with the loss of early brood-
rearing habitat. Limitations in the quality and quantity of nesting and 
early brood-rearing habitat are particularly problematic because 
Gunnison sage-grouse population dynamics are most sensitive during 
these life-history stages (GSRSC 2005, p. G-15). We recognize that the 
potential percentages of habitat loss mentioned above, whether direct 
or functional, will not necessarily correspond to the same percentage 
loss in sage-grouse numbers. The recent efforts to conserve Gunnison 
sage-grouse and their habitat within the Basin provide protection for 
the foreseeable future for several areas of high-quality habitat (see 
discussion in Factor D). Nonetheless, given the large landscape-level 
needs of this species, we expect this current level of habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation, from residential development, as 
described above, to substantially limit the probability of persistence 
of Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin.
    We also calculated a ``lower'' development impact scenario using 
the smaller impact footprint hypothesized by the GSRSC (2005, pp. 160-
161). This analysis assumed that residential density in excess of one 
housing unit per 1.3 km\2\ (0.5 mi\2\) could cause declines in Gunnison 
sage-grouse populations. Within Gunnison County, 18 percent of the land 
area within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse currently has a 
residential density greater than one housing unit per 1.3 km\2\ (0.5 
mi\2\) (USFWS 2010b, p. 8). Therefore, according to the GSRSC estimate 
of potential residential impacts, human residential densities in the 
Gunnison Basin population area are such that we expect they are 
limiting the Gunnison sage-grouse population in at least 18 percent of 
the population area.
    We expect the density and distribution of human residences to 
expand in the future. Based on our GIS analysis, we estimate that 
approximately 20,236 ha (50,004 ac) of private lands on approximately 
1,190 parcels not subject to conservation easements currently lack 
human development in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison 
County (USFWS 2010b, p. 11). These lands are scattered throughout 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin. We used 
the 20,236 ha (50,004 ac) as an initial basis to assess the potential 
impacts of future development. A lack of parcel data availability from 
surrounding counties precluded expanding this analysis beyond Gunnison 
County; however, the analysis area constitutes 71 percent of the 
Gunnison Basin population area. Approximately 93 percent of occupied 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison County consists of parcels 
greater than 14.2 ha (35 ac), allowing exemptions from some county land 
development regulations. Applying a 1.7 percent average annual 
population increase under a ``middle'' growth scenario (CWCB 2009, p. 
56) and an average 2.29 persons per household (CDOLA 2009b, p. 6) to 
the 2008 Gunnison County human population estimate results in the 
potential addition of nearly 7,000 housing units to the county by 2050.
    Currently, approximately two-thirds of the human population in 
Gunnison County occurs within the currently mapped occupied range of 
Gunnison sage-grouse. Assuming this pattern will continue, two-thirds 
of the population increase will occur within occupied Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat. The above projection could potentially result in the 
addition of approximately 4,630 housing units and the potential for 
25,829 ha (63,824 ac) of new habitat loss, whether direct or 
functional, on parcels that currently have no development. Based on the 
estimated area of impact determined by Aldridge et al. (2010), this 
potential functional habitat loss constitutes an additional impact of 
15 percent of the current extent of the Gunnison Basin population area 
(USFWS 2010b, p. 14). When combined with the existing loss, whether 
direct or functional, of 49 percent of Gunnison sage-grouse nesting 
habitat, the total amount of habitat subject to the indirect effects of 
residential development now and in the foreseeable future increases to 
64 percent.
    Using the same methodology as discussed above, but applying the 
estimated area of impact determined by GSRSC (2005, p. F-3), results in 
a future potential functional habitat loss of 9 percent. When combined 
with the existing loss, whether direct or functional, of 18 percent of 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, an estimated 27 percent of habitat will 
be functionally lost for Gunnison sage-grouse under this minimum impact 
scenario. We believe that impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse implicit in 
even the lower or more conservative estimates of direct and

[[Page 59816]]

functional habitat loss are limiting the persistence of the species.
    We also anticipate increased housing density in many areas of 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat because the anticipated number of 
new housing units will exceed the number of undeveloped parcels by 
nearly four times (USFWS 2010b, p. 16). Some of this anticipated 
development and subsequent functional habitat loss will undoubtedly 
occur on parcels that currently have existing human development, which 
could lessen the effects to Gunnison sage-grouse. However, the above 
calculation of an increase in future housing units is likely an 
underestimate because it does not take into account the expected 
increase in second home development (CDOLA 2009b, p. 7), which could 
increase negative effects to Gunnison sage-grouse. The U.S. Census 
Bureau only tallies the inhabitants of primary residences in population 
totals. This methodology results in an underestimate of the population, 
particularly in amenity communities, because of the increased number of 
part-time residents inhabiting second homes and vacation homes in these 
areas (Riebsame 1996, p. 397; Theobald 2001, p. 550, Theobald 2004, p. 
143). In Gunnison County, approximately 90 percent of vacant housing 
units were seasonal-use units (CDOLA 2009c, p. 1). The housing vacancy 
rate, which is computed by dividing the number of vacant housing units 
by the total housing units, was 42.5 percent in Gunnison County over 
the last two decades (CDOLA 2009d, p. 2).
    We expect some development to be moderated by the establishment of 
additional voluntary landowner conservation easements such as those 
currently facilitated by the CDOW and land trust organizations. While 
conservation easements can minimize the overall impacts to Gunnison 
sage-grouse, because less than 5 percent of occupied Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin has been placed in conservation 
easements to date, we do not expect the amount of land potentially 
placed in future easements will significantly offset the overall 
affects of human development.
    Our analyses, based on the evaluations of impacts to Gunnison sage-
grouse discussed above, result in estimates of existing functional 
habitat loss of 18 to 49 percent of the Gunnison Basin population area. 
Future estimates of functional habitat loss result in an increase of 9 
to 15 percent, for a cumulative total of 27 and 64 percent loss of the 
Gunnison Basin population area. We believe that impacts within these 
ranges limit the persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Residential Development in All Other Population Areas - In 2004, 
within the Crawford Population area, approximately 951 ha (2,350 ac), 
or 7 percent of the occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, was 
subdivided into 48 parcels ranging in size from 14.2 ha (35 ac) to 28.3 
ha (70 ac) (CDOW 2009a, p. 59). Local landowners and the National Park 
Service (NPS) have ongoing efforts to protect portions of the 
subdivided area through conservation easements. Residential subdivision 
continues to occur in the northern part of the Poncha Pass population 
area, and the CDOW considers this to be the highest priority threat to 
this population (CDOW 2009a, p. 124). The rate of residential 
development in the San Miguel Basin population increased between 2005 
and 2008 but slowed in 2009 (CDOW 2009a, p. 135). However, a 429 ha 
(1,057 ac) parcel north of Miramonte Reservoir is currently being 
developed as a retreat. The CDOW reports that potential impacts to 
Gunnison sage-grouse resulting from the development may be reduced by 
possibly placing a portion of the property into a conservation easement 
and the relocation of a proposed major road to avoid occupied habitat 
(CDOW 2009a, p. 136). No recent or planned residential developments are 
known for the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area (CDOW 
2009a, p. 45), Monticello-Dove Creek population area (CDOW 2009a, p. 
73), or Pinon Mesa population area (CDOW 2009a, p. 109). The remaining 
limited amounts of habitat, the fragmented nature of this remaining 
habitat, and the anticipated increases in exurban development within 
each of the six smaller populations pose a significant threat to these 
six populations.
Summary of Residential Development
    Because Gunnison sage-grouse are dependent on expansive, contiguous 
areas of sagebrush habitat to meet their life-history needs, the 
development patterns described above have resulted in the direct and 
functional loss of sagebrush habitat and have negatively affected the 
species by limiting already scarce habitat, especially within the six 
smaller populations. The collective influences of fragmentation and 
disturbance from human activities around residences and associated 
roads reduce the effective habitat around these areas, making them 
inhospitable to Gunnison sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2010, pp. 24-25; 
Knick, et al. 2009, in press, p. 25 and references therein; Aldridge 
and Boyce 2007, p.520). Human population growth that results in a 
dispersed exurban development pattern throughout sagebrush habitats 
will reduce the likelihood of sage-grouse persistence in these areas. 
Human populations are increasing throughout the range of Gunnison sage-
grouse, and we expect this trend to continue. Given the current 
demographic trends described above, we believe the rate of residential 
development in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat will continue at least 
through 2050, and likely longer. The resulting habitat loss and 
fragmentation from residential development is a significant threat to 
Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the foreseeable future.

Fences

    The effects of fencing on sage-grouse include direct mortality 
through collisions, creation of raptor and corvid (Family Corvidae: 
crows, ravens, magpies, etc.) 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). Corvids are 
significant sage-grouse nest predators and were responsible for more 
than 50 percent of nest predations in Nevada (Coates 2007, pp. 26-30). 
Sage-grouse frequently fly low and fast across sagebrush flats, and 
fences can create a collision hazard resulting in direct mortality 
(Call and Maser 1985, p. 22). 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). This variability in fence mortality rate and the 
lack of systematic fence monitoring make it difficult to determine the 
magnitude of impacts to sage-grouse populations; however, in some cases 
the level of mortality is likely significant to localized areas within 
populations. Fences directly kill greater sage grouse (Call and Maser 
1985, p. 22; Christiansen 2009, pp. 1-2); we assume that Gunnison sage-
grouse are also killed by fences but do not have species-specific data. 
Although the effects of direct strike mortality on populations are not 
fully analyzed, fences are ubiquitous across the landscape. Fence 
collisions continue to be identified as a source of mortality for 
Gunnison and greater sage-grouse and we expect this source of mortality 
to continue into the foreseeable future (Braun 1998, p. 145;

[[Page 59817]]

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 below (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). Because of similarities in 
behavior and habitat use, we believe the response of Gunnison sage-
grouse is similar to that observed in greater sage-grouse.
    At least 1,540 km (960 mi) of fence are on BLM lands within the 
Gunnison Basin (Borthwick 2005a, pers. comm.; BLM 2005a, 2005e) and an 
unquantified amount of fence on land owned or managed by other 
landowners. Fences are present within all other Gunnison sage-grouse 
population areas, but we have no quantitative information on the amount 
or types of fencing in these areas.
Summary of Fences
    While fences contribute to habitat fragmentation and increase the 
potential for loss of individual grouse through collisions or enhanced 
predation, such effects have been ongoing since the first agricultural 
conversions occurred in sage-grouse habitat. We expect that the 
majority of existing fences will remain on the landscape indefinitely. 
However, because we do not expect a major increase in the number of 
fences, particularly 3-wire range fencing, we do not believe fencing, 
on its own, is a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse at the 
species level. In the smaller Gunnison sage-grouse populations, the 
impacts of fencing could become another source of mortality that 
cumulatively affects the species. We also recognize that fences are 
located throughout all Gunnison sage-grouse populations and are, 
therefore, contributing to the fragmentation of remaining habitat.

Roads

    Impacts from roads may include direct habitat loss, direct 
mortality, barriers to migration corridors or seasonal habitats, 
facilitation of predation and spread of invasive vegetative species, 
and other indirect influences such as noise (Forman and Alexander 1998, 
pp. 207-231). Greater sage-grouse mortality resulting from collisions 
with vehicles does occur, but mortalities are typically not monitored 
or recorded (Patterson 1952, p. 81). Therefore, we are unable to 
determine the importance of this factor on sage-grouse populations. We 
have no information on the number of direct mortalities of Gunnison 
sage-grouse resulting from vehicles or roads; however, because of 
similarities in their habitat and habitat use, we expect similar 
effects as those observed in greater sage-grouse. Roads within Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitats have been shown to impede movement of local 
populations between the resultant patches, with road avoidance 
presumably being a behavioral means to limit exposure to predation 
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 330).
    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). In 
addition, roads can provide corridors for predators to move into 
previously unoccupied areas. For some mammalian species known to prey 
on sage-grouse, such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyon 
lotor), and striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), dispersal along roads 
has greatly increased their distribution (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 
212; Forman 2000, p. 33; Frey and Conover 2006, pp. 1114-1115). 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). 
Corvids are significant sage-grouse nest predators and were responsible 
for more than 50 percent of nest predations in Nevada (Coates 2007, pp. 
26-30). Ravens were documented following roads in oil and gas fields 
while foraging (Bui 2009, p. 31).
    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 Gunnison sage-grouse through habitat losses and 
conversions (see further discussion below in Invasive Plants).
    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 
landscape-scale spatial model predicting Gunnison sage-grouse nest site 
selection showed strong avoidance of areas with high road densities of 
roads classed 1 through 4 (primary paved highways through primitive 
roads with 2-wheel drive sedan clearance) within 6.4 km (4 mi)) of nest 
sites (Aldridge et al. 2010 p. 18). The occurrence of Gunnison sage-
grouse nest sites also decreased with increased proximity to primary 
and secondary paved highways (roads classes 1 and 2) (Aldridge et al. 
2010, p. 27). Male greater 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).
    In a study on the Pinedale Anticline in Wyoming, greater 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 
that 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

[[Page 59818]]

development to sage-grouse, due to their persistence and continued use 
even after drilling and production have ceased. Lek abandonment 
patterns suggested that daily vehicular traffic along road networks for 
oil wells can impact greater sage-grouse breeding activities (Braun et 
al. 2002, p. 5). We believe the effects of vehicular traffic on 
Gunnison sage-grouse, regardless of its purpose (e.g., in support of 
energy production or local commuting and recreation), are similar to 
those observed in greater sage-grouse.
    Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) did not find road density to be an 
important factor affecting greater 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). Historic range where greater and 
Gunnison sage grouse have been extirpated has a 25 percent higher 
density of roads than occupied range (Wisdom et al. in press, p. 18). 
Wisdom et al.'s (in press) greater and Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide 
analysis supports the findings of numerous local studies showing that 
roads can have both direct and indirect impacts on sage-grouse 
distribution and individual fitness (reproduction and survival) (e.g., 
Lyon and Anderson 2003 p. 490 , Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 520).
    Recreational activities including off highway vehicles (OHV), all-
terrain vehicles (ATV), motorcycles, mountain biking and other 
mechanized methods of travel have been recognized as a potential direct 
and indirect threat to Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat (BLM 
2009, p. 36). In Colorado, the number of annual off highway vehicle 
(OHV) registrations has increased from 12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 in 
2007 (BLM 2009, p. 37). Four wheel drive, OHV, motorcycle, specialty 
vehicle, and mountain bike use is expected to increase in the future 
based on increased population in general and increased population 
density in the area (as discussed above). Numerous off-road routes and 
access points to habitat used by Gunnison sage-grouse combined with 
increasing capabilities for mechanized travel and increased human 
population further contribute to habitat fragmentation.
    Roads in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - On BLM lands in the 
Gunnison Basin there are currently 2,050 km (1,274 mi) of roads within 
6.4 km (4 mi) of Gunnison sage-grouse leks. Eighty-seven percent of all 
Gunnison sage-grouse nests were located less than 6.4 km (4 mi) from 
the lek of capture (Apa 2004, p. 21). However, the BLM proposes to 
reduce road length to 1,157 km (719 mi) (BLM 2010, p. 147). Currently, 
1,349 km (838 mi) of roads accessible to 2-wheel drive passenger cars 
exist in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin. 
Four-wheel-drive vehicle roads, as well as motorcycle, mountain bike, 
horse, and hiking trails are heavily distributed throughout the range 
of Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM 2009, pp. 27, 55, 86), which further 
increases the overall density of roads and their direct and indirect 
effects on Gunnison sage-grouse. User-created roads and trails have 
increased since 2004 (BLM 2009, p. 33), although we do not know the 
percentage increase.
    Using a spatial dataset of roads in the Gunnison Basin we performed 
GIS analyses on the potential effects of roads to Gunnison sage-grouse 
and their habitat. To account for secondary effects from invasive weed 
spread from roads (see discussion below in Invasive Plants), we applied 
a 0.7 km (0.4 mi) buffer (Bradley and Mustard 2006, p. 1146) to all 
roads in the Gunnison Basin. Results of these analyses indicate that 
approximately 85 percent of occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin has 
an increased likelihood of current or future road-related invasive weed 
invasion. When all roads in the Gunnison basin are buffered by 6.4 km 
(4 mi) or 9.6 km (6 mi) to account for nesting avoidance (Aldridge et 
al. 2010, p. 27) and secondary effects from mammal and corvid foraging 
areas (Knick et al in press, p. 113), respectively, all occupied 
habitat in the Gunnison Basin is indirectly affected by roads.
    Roads in All Other Population Areas - Approximately 140 km (87 mi), 
243 km (151 mi), and 217 km (135 mi) of roads (all road classes) occur 
on BLM lands within the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, Crawford, and 
San Miguel Basin population areas, respectively, all of which are 
managed by the BLM (BLM 2009, p. 71). We do not have information on the 
total length of roads within the Monticello-Dove Creek, Pinon Mesa, or 
Poncha Pass Gunnison sage-grouse populations. However, several maps 
provided by the BLM show that roads are widespread and common 
throughout these population areas (BLM 2009, pp. 27, 55, 86).
Summary of Roads
    As described above in the `Residential Development' section, the 
human population is increasing throughout the range of Gunnison sage-
grouse (CDOLA 2009a, pp. 2-3; CWCB 2009, p. 15), and we have no data 
indicating this trend will be reversed. Gunnison sage-grouse are 
dependent on large contiguous and unfragmented landscapes to meet their 
life-history needs (GSRSC 2005, pp. 26-30), and the existing road 
density throughout much of the range of Gunnison sage-grouse has 
negatively affected the species. The collective influences of 
fragmentation and disturbance from roads reduce the effective habitat 
around these areas making them inhospitable to sage-grouse (Aldridge et 
al. 2010, pp. 24-25; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 520; Knick et al. 
2009, in press, p. 25 and references therein). Given the current human 
demographic and economic trends described above in the Residential 
Development section, we believe that increased road use and increased 
road construction associated with residential development will continue 
at least through 2050, and likely longer. The resulting habitat loss, 
degradation, and fragmentation from roads is a significant threat to 
Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the foreseeable future.

Powerlines

    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). Proximity to powerlines is 
associated with Gunnison and greater sage-grouse extirpation (Wisdom et 
al. in press, p. 20). Due to the potential spread of invasive species 
and predators as a result of powerline construction and maintenance, 
the impact from a powerline is greater than its actual footprint. We 
believe the effects to Gunnison sage-grouse are similar to those 
observed in greater sage-grouse and that the impact from a powerline is 
greater than its footprint.
    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

[[Page 59819]]

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 (3-2 -
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 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 greater and Gunnison 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 
sage-grouse 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. Golden eagles are found throughout the 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse (USGS 2010, p. 1), and golden eagles were 
found to be the dominant species recorded perching on power poles in 
Utah in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Prather and Messmer 2009, p. 12).
    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, 
presumably resulting from increased raptor predation (Braun et al. 
2002, p. 10). Within their analysis area, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-
26) assumed 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 corvids and 
raptors, and estimated that the area potentially influenced by 
additional perches provided by powerlines was 672,644 to 837,390 km\2\ 
(259,641 to 323,317 mi\2\), or 32 to 40 percent of their assessment 
area. The actual impact on an area would depend on corvid and raptor 
densities within the area (see discussion in Factor C, below).
    The presence of a powerline may fragment sage-grouse habitats even 
if raptors are not present. The use of otherwise suitable habitat by 
sage-grouse near powerlines increased as distance from the powerline 
increased for up to 600 m (660 yd) (Braun 1998, p. 8). Based on those 
unpublished data, Braun (1998, p. 8) reported that the presence of 
powerlines may limit Gunnison and greater sage-grouse use within 1 km 
(0.6 mi) in otherwise suitable habitat. Similar results were recorded 
for other grouse species. For example, lesser and greater prairie-
chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus and T. cupido, respectively) 
avoided otherwise suitable habitat near powerlines (Pruett et al. 2009, 
p. 6). 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 present (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). No studies have been conducted specifically on sage-
grouse. Therefore, we do not know the impact to the Gunnison sage-
grouse from electromagnetic fields.
    Linear corridors through sagebrush habitats can facilitate the 
spread of invasive species, such as cheatgrass (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 in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - On approximately 
121,000 ha (300,000 ac) of BLM land in the Gunnison Basin, 36 rights-
of-way for power facilities, power lines, and transmission lines have 
resulted in the direct loss of 350 ha (858 ac) of occupied habitat 
(Borthwick 2005b, pers comm.). As discussed above, the impacts of these 
lines likely extend beyond their actual footprint. We performed a GIS 
analysis of transmission line location in relation to overall habitat 
area and Gunnison sage-grouse lek locations in the Gunnison Basin 
Population area to obtain an estimate of the potential effects in the 
Basin. Results of these analyses indicate that 68 percent of the 
Gunnison Basin population area is within 6.9 km (4.3 mi) of an 
electrical transmission line and is potentially influenced by avian 
predators utilizing the additional perches provided by transmission 
lines. This area contains 65 of 109 active leks (60 percent) in the 
Gunnison Basin population. These results suggest that potential 
increased predation resulting from transmission lines have the 
potential to affect a substantial portion of the Gunnison Basin 
population.
    Powerlines in All Other Population Areas - A transmission line runs 
through the Dry Creek Basin group in the San Miguel Basin population, 
and the Beaver Mesa group has two transmission lines. None of the 
transmission lines in the San Miguel Basin have raptor proofing, nor do 
most distribution lines (Ferguson 2005, pers comm.) so their use by 
raptors and corvids as perch sites for hunting and use for nest sites 
is not discouraged. One major electric transmission line runs east-west 
in the northern portion of the current range of the Monticello group 
(San Juan County Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group (GSWG) 2005, p. 
17). Powerlines do not appear to be present in sufficient density to 
pose a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse in the Pinon Mesa 
population at this time. One transmission line parallels Highway 92 in 
the Crawford population, and distribution lines run from there to homes 
on the periphery of the current range (Ferguson 2005, pers. comm.).
Summary of Powerlines
    The projected human population growth rate in and near most 
Gunnison sage-grouse populations is high (see discussion under 
Residential Development). As a result, we expect an associated increase 
in distribution powerlines. Powerlines are likely negatively affecting 
Gunnison sage-grouse as they contribute to habitat loss and 
fragmentation and facilitation of predators of Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Given the current demographic and economic trends described above, we 
believe that existing powerlines and anticipated distribution of 
powerlines associated with residential development will continue at 
least through 2050, and likely longer. The resulting habitat loss and 
fragmentation from powerlines, and the effects of avian predators that 
use them, is a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse now and in 
the foreseeable future.

Fire

    The nature of historical fire patterns in sagebrush communities, 
particularly in Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia

[[Page 59820]]

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). In general, mean 
fire return intervals in low-lying, xeric (dry) big sagebrush 
communities range from more than 100 to 350 years, and return intervals 
decrease from 50 to more than 200 years in more mesic (wet) 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).
    Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridenata var. vaseyana), the 
most important and widespread sagebrush species for Gunnison sage-
grouse, is killed by fire and can require decades to recover. In 
nesting and wintering sites, fire causes direct loss of habitat due to 
reduced cover and forage (Call and Maser 1985, p. 17). While there may 
be limited instances where burned habitat is beneficial, these gains 
are lost if alternative 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 Gunnison sage-
grouse females and chicks. The response of herbaceous understory 
vegetation to fire varies with differences in species composition, pre-
burn site condition, fire intensity, and pre- and post-fire patterns of 
precipitation. In general, when not considering the synergistic effects 
of invasive species, any beneficial 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).
    In addition to altering plant community structure, fires can 
influence invertebrate food sources (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). 
However, 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.
    A clear positive response of Gunnison or greater sage-grouse to 
fire has not been demonstrated (Braun 1998, p. 9). The few studies that 
have suggested fire may be beneficial for greater sage-grouse 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 type of 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, especially within the six small 
Gunnison sage-grouse populations where fire could further degrade and 
fragment the remaining habitat. Sagebrush loss as a result of fire is 
likely to have proportionally more individual bird and population level 
impacts as the amount of sagebrush declines within each of the 
remaining populations. As the amount of sagebrush remaining within a 
population declines, the greater the potential impact is to that 
population.
    The invasion of the exotic cheatgrass increases fire frequency 
within the sagebrush ecosystem (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et 
al. in press, p. 39). Cheatgrass 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, cheatgrass 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). The 
extensive distribution and highly invasive nature of cheatgrass 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 
cheatgrass increases from 12 to 45 percent or more. We do not have a 
reliable estimate of the amount of area occupied by cheatgrass in the 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse. However, cheatgrass is found at numerous 
locations throughout the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009, p. 60).
    Fire in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - Six prescribed burns 
have occurred on BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin since 1984, totaling 
approximately 409 ha (1,010 ac) (BLM 2009, p. 35). The fires created 
large sagebrush-free areas that were further degraded by poor post-burn 
livestock management (BLM 2005a, p. 13). As a result, these areas are 
no longer suitable as Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Approximately 8,470 
ha (20,930 ac) of prescribed burns occurred on Forest Service lands in 
the Gunnison Basin since 1983 (USFS 2009, p. 1). A small wildfire on 
BLM lands near Hartman Rocks burned 8 ha (20 ac) in 2007 (BLM 2009, p. 
35). The total area of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat burned in 
recent decades is approximately 8,887 ha (21,960 ac), which constitutes 
1.5 percent of the occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat area. 
Cumulatively, this equates to a relatively small amount of habitat 
burned over a period of nearly three decades. This information suggests 
that there has not been a demonstrated change in fire cycle in the 
Gunnison Basin population area to date.
    Fire in All Other Population Areas - Two prescribed burns conducted 
in 1986 (105 ha (260 ac)) and 1992 (140 ha (350 ac)) on BLM land in the 
San Miguel Basin on the north side of Dry Creek Basin had negative 
impacts on sage-grouse. The burns were conducted for big game forage 
improvement, but the sagebrush died and was largely replaced with weeds 
(BLM 2005b, pp. 7-8). The Burn Canyon fire in the Dry Creek Basin and 
Hamilton Mesa areas burned 890 ha (2,200 ac) in 2000. Three fires have 
occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat since 2004 on lands managed by 
the BLM in the Crawford, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and San 
Miguel Basin population areas. There have been no fires since 2004 on 
lands managed by the BLM within the Monticello-Dove Creek population. 
Because these fires were mostly small in size, we do not believe they 
resulted in substantial impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Several wildfires near or within the Pinon Mesa population area 
have occurred in the past 20 years. One fire burned a small amount of 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 1995, and several fires burned 
in potential Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Individual burned areas 
ranged from 3.6 ha (9 ac) to 2,160 ha (5,338 ac). A wildfire in 2009 
burned 1,053 ha (2,602 ac), predominantly within vacant or unknown 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is 
separated from occupied habitats that has not been adequately 
inventoried, or without recent documentation of grouse presence) near 
the Pinon Mesa population. Since 2004, a single 2.8 ha (7 ac) wildfire 
occurred in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area, and 
two prescribed fires, both less than 12 ha (30 ac), were implemented in 
the San Miguel population area. There was no fire activity within 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the last two decades in

[[Page 59821]]

the Poncha Pass population area (CDOW 2009a, pp. 125-126) or the 
Monticello-Dove Creek population area (CDOW 2009a, p. 75; UDWR 2009, p. 
5).
Summary of Fire
    Fires can cause the proliferation of weeds and can degrade suitable 
sage-grouse habitat, which may not recover to suitable conditions for 
decades, if at all (Pyke in press, pp. 18-19). Recent fires in Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat were mostly small in size and did not result in 
substantial impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse, and there has been no 
obvious change in fire cycle in any Gunnison sage-grouse population 
area. Therefore, we do not consider fire to be a significant threat to 
Gunnison sage-grouse or its habitat at this time. It is not currently 
possible to predict the extent or location of future fire events. 
However, existing data indicates that climate change has the potential 
to alter changes in the distribution and extent of cheatgrass and 
sagebrush and associated fire frequencies. The best available data 
indicates that fire frequency may increase in the foreseeable future 
(which we consider to be indefinite) because of increases in cover of 
cheatgrass (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, p. 39; 
Whisenant 1990, p. 4) and the projected effects of climate change 
(Miller et al. in press, p. 47; Prevey et al. 2009, p. 11) (see 
Invasive Plants and Climate Change discussions below). Therefore, fire 
is likely to become an increasingly significant threat to the Gunnison 
sage-grouse in the foreseeable future.

Invasive Plants

    For the purposes of this finding, we define invasive plants as 
those that are not native to an ecosystem and that have a negative 
impact on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Invasive plants alter native 
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 of them 
occur, eliminate vegetation that sage-grouse use for food and cover. 
Invasive plants 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.
    Along with replacing or removing vegetation essential to sage-
grouse, invasive plants 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). Cheatgrass is considered most invasive in 
Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis communities (Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 5-9). Other invasive plants found within the range of Gunnison 
sage-grouse that are reported to take over large areas include: spotted 
knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), 
oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), 
and field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (BLM 2009, p. 28, 36; 
Gunnison Watershed Weed Commission (GWWC) 2009, pp. 4-6). Although not 
yet reported to create large expanses in the range of Gunnison sage-
grouse, the following weeds are also known from the species' range and 
do cover large expanses in other parts of western North America: 
diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), whitetop (Cardaria draba), 
jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), and yellow starthistle 
(Centaurea solstitialis). Other invasive plant species present within 
the range of Gunnison sage-grouse that are problematic yet less likely 
to overtake large areas include: Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk 
thistle (Carduus nutans), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), houndstongue 
(Cynoglossum officinale), black henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), common 
tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and absinth wormwood (Artemisia biennis) 
(BLM 2009, p. 28, 36; GWWC 2009, pp. 4-6).
    Cheatgrass impacts sagebrush ecosystems by potentially shortening 
fire intervals from several decades, depending on the type of sagebrush 
plant community and site productivity, to as low as 3 to 5 years, 
perpetuating its own persistence and intensifying the role of fire 
(Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-5) suggested that 
cheatgrass shortens fire intervals to less than 10 years. As discussed 
under the discussion of climate change below, temperature increases may 
increase the competitive advantage of cheatgrass in higher elevation 
areas where its current distribution is limited (Miller et al. in 
press, p. 47). Decreased summer precipitation reduces the competitive 
advantage of summer perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush cover, and 
subsequently increases the likelihood of cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 
2009, pp. 202-204; Prevey et al. 2009, p. 11). This could increase the 
susceptibility of sagebrush areas in Utah and Colorado to cheatgrass 
invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 204).
    A variety of restoration and rehabilitation techniques are used to 
treat invasive plants, but they can be costly and are mostly unproven 
and experimental at a large scale. In the last approximately 100 years, 
no broad-scale cheatgrass eradication method has been developed. 
Habitat treatments that either disturb the soil surface or deposit a 
layer of litter increase cheatgrass establishment in the Gunnison Basin 
when a cheatgrass seed source is present (Sokolow 2005, p. 51). 
Therefore, researchers recommend using habitat treatment tools, such as 
brush mowers, with caution and suggest that treated sites should be 
monitored for increases in cheatgrass emergence (Sokolow 2005, p. 49).
    Invasive Plants in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - Quantifying 
the total amount of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat impacted by invasive 
plants is difficult 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). Cheatgrass has invaded areas in Gunnison sage-grouse 
range, supplanting sagebrush habitat in some areas. However, we do not 
have a reliable estimate of the amount of area occupied by cheatgrass 
in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. While not ubiquitous, cheatgrass 
is found at numerous locations throughout the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009, 
p. 60). Cheatgrass infestation within a particular area can range from 
a small number of individuals scattered sparsely throughout a site, to 
complete or near-complete understory domination of a site. Cheatgrass 
has increased throughout the Gunnison Basin in the last decade and is 
becoming increasingly detrimental to sagebrush community types (BLM 
2009, p. 7). Currently in the Gunnison Basin, cheatgrass attains site 
dominance most often along roadways; however, other highly disturbed 
areas have similar cheatgrass densities. Cheatgrass is currently 
present in almost every grazing allotment in Gunnison sage-grouse 
occupied habitat and other invasive plant species, such as Canada 
thistle, black henbane, spotted knapweed, Russian knapweed, Kochia, 
bull thistle, musk thistle, oxeye daisy, yellow toadflax and field 
bindweed, are found in riparian areas and roadsides

[[Page 59822]]

throughout the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009, p. 7).
    Although disturbed areas most often contain the highest cheatgrass 
densities, cheatgrass can readily spread into less disturbed and even 
undisturbed habitat. A strong indicator for future cheatgrass 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). Although we lack the information to 
make a detailed determination on the actual extent or rate of increase, 
given its invasive nature, we believe cheatgrass and its negative 
influence on Gunnison sage-grouse will increase in the Gunnison Basin 
in the future because of potential exacerbation from climate change 
interactions and the limited success of broad-scale control efforts.
    Invasive Plants in All Other Population Areas - Cheatgrass is 
present throughout much of the current range in the San Miguel Basin 
(BLM 2005c, p. 62005d), but is most abundant in the Dry Creek Basin 
group (CDOW 2005a, p. 101), which comprises 62 percent of the San 
Miguel Basin population. It is present in the five Gunnison sage-grouse 
subpopulations east of Dry Creek Basin although at much lower densities 
and does not currently pose a serious threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 
(CDOW 2005a, p. 101). Invasive species are present at low levels in the 
Monticello group (San Juan County GSGWG 2005, p. 20). However, there is 
no evidence that they are affecting the population. Cheatgrass 
dominates 10-15 percent of the sagebrush understory in the current 
range of the Pinon Mesa population (Lambeth 2005, pers comm.). It 
occurs in the lower elevation areas below Pinon Mesa that were formerly 
Gunnison sage-grouse range. Cheatgrass invaded two small prescribed 
burns in or near occupied habitat conducted in 1989 and 1998 (BLM 
2005d, p. 62005a), and continues to be a concern with new ground-
disturbing projects. Invasive plants, especially cheatgrass, occur 
primarily along roads, other disturbed areas, and isolated areas of 
untreated vegetation in the Crawford population. The threat of 
cheatgrass may be greater to sage-grouse than all other nonnative 
species combined and could be a significant limiting factor when and if 
disturbance is used to improve habitat conditions, unless mitigated 
(BLM 2005c, p. 6). No current estimates of the extent of weed invasion 
are available (BLM 2005c, p. 82005d).
    Within the Pinon Mesa Gunnison sage-grouse population area, 520 ha 
(1,284 ac) of BLM lands are currently mapped with cheatgrass as the 
dominant species (BLM 2009, p. 3). This is not a comprehensive 
inventory of cheatgrass occurrence, as it only includes areas where 
cheatgrass dominates the plant community and does not include areas 
where the species is present at lower densities. Cheatgrass 
distribution has not been comprehensively mapped for the Monticello-
Dove Creek population area; however, cheatgrass is beginning to be 
assessed on a site-specific and project-level basis. No significant 
invasive plant occurrences are currently known in the Poncha Pass 
population area.
Summary of Invasive Plants
    Invasive plants negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse primarily by 
reducing or eliminating native vegetation that sage-grouse require for 
food and cover, resulting in habitat loss and fragmentation. Although 
invasive plants, especially cheatgrass, have affected some Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat, the impacts do not currently appear to be 
threatening individual populations or the species rangewide. However, 
invasive plants continue to expand their range, facilitated by ground 
disturbances such as fire, grazing, and human infrastructure. Climate 
change will likely alter the range of individual invasive species, 
increasing fragmentation and habitat loss of sagebrush communities. 
Even with treatments, given the history of invasive plants on the 
landscape, and our continued inability to control such species, we 
anticipate invasive plants will persist and will likely continue to 
spread throughout the range of the species. Therefore, invasive plants 
and associated fire risk will be on the landscape for the foreseeable 
future. Although currently not a significant threat to the Gunnison 
sage-grouse at the species level, we anticipate invasive species to 
become an increasingly significant threat to the species in the 
foreseeable future, particularly when considered in conjunction with 
future climate projections and potential changes in sagebrush plant 
community composition and dynamics.

Pinon-Juniper Encroachment

    Pinon-juniper woodlands are a native habitat type dominated by 
Pinon pine (Pinus edulis) and various juniper species (Juniperus spp.) 
that can encroach upon, infill, and eventually replace sagebrush 
habitat. Pinon-juniper extent has increased 10-fold in the 
Intermountain West since EuroAmerican settlement, causing the loss of 
many bunchgrass and sagebrush-bunchgrass communities (Miller and Tausch 
2001, pp. 15-16). Pinon-juniper woodlands have also been expanding 
throughout portions of the range of Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM 2009, pp. 
14, 17, 25). Pinon-juniper 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). In addititon, 
Gambel oak invasion as a result of fire suppression also has been 
identified as a potential threat to Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOW 2002, p. 
139).
    Similar to powerlines, trees provide perches for raptors, and as a 
consequence, Gunnison sage-grouse avoid areas with Pinon-juniper 
(Commons et al. 1999, p. 239). The number of male Gunnison sage-grouse 
on leks in southwest Colorado doubled after Pinon-juniper removal and 
mechanical treatment of mountain sagebrush and deciduous brush (Commons 
et al. 1999, p. 238).
    Pinon-Juniper Encroachment in All Population Areas - We have no 
information indicating that the Gunnison Basin population area is 
currently undergoing significant Pinon-juniper encroachment. A 
significant portion of the Pinon Mesa population is undergoing Pinon-
juniper encroachment. Approximately 9 percent (1,140 ha [3,484 ac]) of 
occupied habitat in the Pinon Mesa population area have Pinon-juniper 
coverage, while 7 percent (4,414 ha [10,907 ac)] of vacant or unknown 
and 13 percent (7,239 ha [17,888 ac]) of potential habitat (unoccupied 
habitats that could be suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if 
practical restoration were applied) have encroachment (BLM 2009, p. 
17).
    Some areas on lands managed by the BLM are known to be undergoing 
Pinon-juniper invasion. However, the extent of the area affected has 
not been quantified (BLM 2009, p. 74; BLM 2009, p. 9). Approximately 9 
percent of the 1,300 ha (3,200 ac) of the current range in the Crawford 
population is classified as dominated by Pinon-juniper (GSRSC 2005, p. 
264). However, BLM (2005d, p. 8) estimates that as much as 20 percent 
of the population area is occupied by Pinon-juniper. Pinon and juniper 
trees have been encroaching in peripheral habitat on Sims Mesa, and to 
a lesser extent on Cerro Summit, but not to the point where it is a 
serious threat to the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area 
(CDOW 2009a, p. 47). Pinon and juniper trees are reported to be 
encroaching throughout the current

[[Page 59823]]

range in the Monticello group, based on a comparison of historical 
versus current aerial photos, but no quantification or mapping of the 
encroachment has occurred (San Juan County GSWG 2005, p. 20). A 
relatively recent invasion of Pinon and juniper trees between the Dove 
Creek and Monticello groups appears to be contributing to their 
isolation from each other (GSRSC 2005, p. 276).
    Within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, approximately 5,341 ha 
(13,197 ac) of Pinon-juniper have been treated with various methods 
designed to remove Pinon and juniper trees since 2005, and nearly half 
of which occurred in the Pinon Mesa population (CDOW 2009c, entire). 
Mechanical treatment of areas experiencing Pinon-juniper encroachment 
continues to be one of the most successful and economical habitat 
treatments for the benefit of Gunnison sage-grouse.
Summary of Pinon-Juniper Encroachment
    Most Gunnison sage-grouse population areas are experiencing low to 
moderate levels of Pinon-juniper encroachment; however, Pinon-juniper 
encroachment in the Pinon Mesa population has been significant. The 
encroachment of Pinon-juniper into sagebrush habitats contributes to 
the fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. However, Pinon-
juniper treatments, particularly when completed in the early stages of 
encroachment when the sagebrush and forb understory is still intact, 
have the potential to provide an immediate benefit to sage-grouse. 
Approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 ac) of Pinon-juniper encroachment within 
the range of Gunnison sage-grouse has been treated. We expect Pinon-
juniper encroachment and corresponding treatment efforts to continue 
into the foreseeable future, which we consider to be indefinite for 
this threat. Although Pinon-juniper encroachment is contributing to 
habitat fragmentation in a limited area, the level of encroachment is 
not sufficient to pose a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse at 
a population or rangewide level either now or in the foreseeable 
future. Pinon-juniper encroachment may become an increasingly 
significant threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse if mechanical treatment 
of areas experiencing Pinon-juniper encroachment declines, and if 
suitable habitat continues to be lost due to other threats such as 
residential and associated infrastructure development.

Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory

    At least 87 percent of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on 
Federal lands is currently grazed by domestic livestock (USFWS 2010c, 
entire). We lack information on the proportion of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat on private lands that is currently grazed. 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). Although current livestock stocking rates in the 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse are substantially lower than historical 
levels (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3), long-term effects from this 
overgrazing, including changes in plant communities and soils, persist 
today (Knick et al. 2003, p.116).
    Although livestock grazing and associated land treatments have 
likely altered plant composition, increased topsoil loss, and increased 
spread of exotic plants, the impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse are not 
clear. Few studies have directly addressed the effect of livestock 
grazing on sage-grouse (Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998-1000; Wamboldt 
et al. 2002, p. 7; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 11), and little direct 
experimental evidence links grazing practices to Gunnison sage-grouse 
population levels (Braun 1987, pp. 136-137, Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 
7-9). Rowland (2004, p. 17-18) conducted a literature review and found 
no experimental research that demonstrates grazing alone is responsible 
for reduction in sage-grouse numbers.
    Despite the obvious impacts of grazing on plant communities within 
the range of the species, the GSRSC (2005, p. 114) could not find a 
direct correlation between historic grazing and reduced Gunnison sage-
grouse numbers. While implications on population-level impacts from 
grazing can be made based on impacts of grazing on individuals, no 
studies have documented (positively or negatively) the actual impacts 
of grazing at the population level.
    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). In particular, nest success in Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat is related to greater grass and forb heights and shrub density 
(Young 1994, p. 38). 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 size and shape 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). Domestic livestock grazing reduces water infiltration rates and 
the cover of herbaceous plants and litter, compacts the soil, and 
increases soil erosion (Braun 1998, p. 147; Dobkin et al. 1998, p. 
213). These impacts change the proportion of shrub, grass, and forb 
components in the affected area, and facilitate 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 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), a primary source of nutrition for sage-grouse. A sage-
grouse 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 
Gunnison sage-grouse. For example, poor livestock management in mesic 
sites results in a reduction of forbs and grasses available to sage-
grouse chicks, thereby affecting chick survival (Aldridge and Brigham 
2003, p. 30). Chick survival is one of the most important factors in 
maintaining Gunnison sage-grouse population viability (GSRSC 2005, p. 
173).
    Livestock can trample sage-grouse and its 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

[[Page 59824]]

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. Visual predators 
like ravens likely 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, pp. 7-31). Trampling of soil by livestock can 
reduce or eliminate biological soil crusts making these areas 
susceptible to cheatgrass invasion (Mack 1981, pp. 148-149; Young and 
Allen 1997, p. 531).
    Livestock grazing may have positive effects on sage-grouse under 
some habitat conditions. 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. Greater 
sage-grouse sought out and used openings in meadows created by cattle 
grazing in northern Nevada (Klebenow 1981, p. 121). Also, both sheep 
and goats have been used to control invasive weeds (Mosley 1996 in 
Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 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 the ability of a site to support 
a specific plant community (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 historic species composition (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 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). 
Currently, there is little direct evidence linking grazing practices to 
population levels of Gunnison or greater sage-grouse. Although grazing 
has not been examined at large spatial scales, as discussed above, we 
do know that grazing can have negative impacts to individuals, nests, 
breeding productivity, and sagebrush and, consequently, to sage-grouse 
at local scales.
    Public Lands Grazing in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - Our 
analysis of grazing is focused on BLM lands because nearly all of the 
information available to us regarding current grazing management within 
the range of Gunnison sage-grouse was provided by the BLM. However, 
this information is pertinent to over 40 percent of the land area 
currently occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse. A summary of domestic 
livestock grazing management on BLM and USFS lands in occupied Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat is provided in Table 3. The BLM manages 
approximately 122,376 ha (301,267 ac), or 51 percent of the area 
currently occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin, and 
approximately 98 percent of this area is actively grazed. The USFS 
manages approximately 34,544 ha (85,361 ac) or 14 percent of the 
occupied portion of the Gunnison Basin population area. In 2009, within 
the occupied range in the Gunnison Basin population, 13 of 62 (21 
percent) active BLM grazing allotments and 3 of 35 (9 percent) of USFS 
grazing allotments had Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives 
incorporated into the allotment management plans or Records of Decision 
for permit renewals (USFWS 2010c, pp. 1-2). Habitat objectives for 
Gunnison sage-grouse within allotment management plans were designed 
such that they provide good habitat for the species when allotments are 
managed in accordance with the objectives. In 2009, 57 percent of the 
area of occupied habitat in active BLM grazing allotments (45 percent 
of the entire Gunnison Basin population area) had a recently completed 
land health assessment (LHA), and 94 percent of the area in occupied 
habitat in active allotments was deemed by the BLM as not meeting LHA 
objectives specific to Gunnison sage-grouse. The remainder of the LHA-
monitored allotments were deemed to be meeting objectives or as 
``unknown''. LHAs are assessments of the on-the-ground condition and 
represent the best available information on the status of the habitat. 
We are uncertain of habitat conditions on the remaining 55 percent of 
BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin. Based on the assumption that the same 
proportion of these lands are also not meeting LHA objectives results 
in an estimate of 94 percent of BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin not 
meeting LHA objectives specific to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. This 
analysis indicates that, without taking into account habitat conditions 
on private lands and other Federal and State lands, up to 48 percent of 
the entire Gunnison Basin population area is not providing optimal 
habitat conditions for Gunnison sage-grouse.
    The fact that most grazing allotments are not meeting LHA 
objectives indicates that grazing is a factor that is likely 
contributing to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat degradation. In addition, 
grazing has negatively impacted several Gunnison sage grouse treatments 
(projects aimed at improving habitat condition) in the Gunnison Basin 
(BLM 2009, p. 34). Although these areas are generally rested for 2 
years after treatment, several have been heavily used by cattle shortly 
after the treatment, and the effectiveness of the treatments decreased 
(BLM 2009, p. 34) and reduced the potential benefits of the treatments.

[[Page 59825]]



  Table 3. Summary of domestic livestock grazing management on BLM and USFS lands in occupied habitat for each of the Gunnison sage-grouse populations
                                       (from USFWS\a\ 2010c, compilation of data provided by BLM\b\ and USFS\c\).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                         Assessed BLM
                                          Number of Active USFS       Number of Active BLM     Active Allotments    BLM Allotments        Allotments
              Population                        Allotments                 Allotments            with GUSG\d\       with Completed        Meeting LHA
                                                                                                  Objectives            LHA\e\            Objectives
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison                                34                         62                                        21                  66                  22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Basin                        no data                    13                                         0                  77                  40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monticello-Dove Creek:                                                                                                                ..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Dove Creek                            n/a                        3                                          0                   0                   0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Monticello                            n/a\f\                     6                                        100                  83                  80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pi[ntilde]on Mesa                       no data                    15                                        53                  27                 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa         n/a\f\                     10                                        10                  50                  40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford\g\                             n/a\f\                     7                                         71                 100                  86
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poncha Pass                             no data                    8                                         13                 100                 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangewide Averages                                                                                           34                  63                  59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\United States Fish and Wildlife Service
\b\Bureau of Land Management
\c\United States Forest Service
\d\Gunnison sage-grouse
\e\Land Health Assessments
\f\No United States Forest Service Land in occupied habitat in this population area.
\f\Includes allotments on National Park Service lands but managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

    Public Lands Grazing in All Other Population Areas - The BLM 
manages approximately 36 percent of the area currently occupied by 
Gunnison sage-grouse in the San Miguel Basin, and approximately 79 
percent of this area is actively grazed. Within the occupied range in 
the San Miguel population, no active BLM grazing allotments have 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives incorporated into the allotment 
management plans or Records of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 
2010c, p. 9). In 2009, 10 of 15 (77 percent) active allotments had LHAs 
completed in the last 15 years; 4 of 10 allotments (40 percent) were 
deemed by the BLM to meet LHA objectives. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 
within the 60 percent of allotments not meeting LHA objectives and the 
5 allotments with no LHAs completed are likely being adversely impacted 
by grazing. Therefore, it appears that grazing in a large portion of 
this population area is a factor that is likely contributing to 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat degradation.
    The BLM manages 11 percent of the occupied habitat in the Dove 
Creek group, and 41 percent of this area is actively grazed. Within the 
occupied range in the Dove Creek group of the Monticello-Dove Creek 
population, no active BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat objectives incorporated into the allotment management plans or 
Records of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 2010c, p. 3). In 2009, 
no active allotments in occupied habitat had completed LHAs. Gunnison 
sage-grouse are not explicitly considered in grazing management 
planning, and the lack of habitat data limits our ability to determine 
the impact to the habitat on public lands.
    The BLM manages on 4 percent of the occupied habitat in the 
Monticello group, and 83 percent of this area is grazed. Within the 
occupied range in the Monticello group, 6 of 6 active BLM grazing 
allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives incorporated 
into the allotment management plans or Records of Decision for permit 
renewals (USFWS 2010c, p. 6). In 2009, 88 percent of the area of 
occupied habitat in active allotments had a recently completed LHA. 
Approximately 60 percent of the area in occupied habitat in active 
allotments were deemed by the BLM to meet LHA objectives. This 
information suggests that grazing the majority of lands managed by the 
BLM is not likely significantly contributing to Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat degradation in the Monticello population group.
    The BLM manages 28 percent of occupied habitat in the Pinon Mesa 
population area, and approximately 97 percent of this area is grazed. 
Over 50 percent of occupied habitat in this population area is 
privately owned and, while grazing certainly occurs on these lands, we 
have no information on its extent. Within the occupied range in the 
Pinon Mesa population, 8 of 15 (53 percent) active BLM grazing 
allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives incorporated 
into the allotment management plans or Records of Decision for permit 
renewals (USFWS 2010c, p. 5). In 2009, 23 percent of the area of 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in active allotments in the Pinon 
Mesa population area had LHAs completed in the last 15 years, and all 
of these were deemed by the BLM to meet LHA objectives. Therefore, for 
the portion of the Pinon Mesa population area for which we have 
information, it appears that grazing is not likely significantly 
contributing to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat degradation.
    The BLM manages on 13 percent of the occupied habitat in the Cerro 
Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area, and 83 percent of this area 
is grazed. Within the occupied

[[Page 59826]]

range in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population, 1 of 10 (10 
percent) active BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat objectives incorporated into the allotment management plans or 
Records of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 2010c, p. 7). In 2009, 5 
of the 10 active allotments had LHAs completed in the last 15 years and 
3 (60 percent) of these were deemed by the BLM as not meeting LHA 
objectives. Therefore, for the small portion of the Cerro Summit-
Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area for which we have information, it 
appears that grazing is a factor that is likely contributing to some 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat degradation.
    Lands administered by the BLM and NPS comprise over 75 percent of 
occupied habitat in the Crawford population, and 96 percent of this 
area is actively grazed. Grazing allotments on NPS lands in this area 
are administered by the BLM. Within occupied range in the Crawford 
population, 1 of 7 (14 percent) active BLM grazing allotments have 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives incorporated into the allotment 
management plans or Records of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 
2010c, p. 8). In 2009, all of the active allotments had LHAs completed 
in the last 15 years, and 86 percent were deemed by the BLM to meet LHA 
objectives. Seasonal forage utilization levels were below 30 percent in 
most Crawford Area allotments, although a small number of allotments 
had nearly 50 percent utilization (BLM 2009x, p. 68). Based on this 
information, it appears that grazing is not likely significantly 
contributing to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat degradation in the 
majority of the Crawford population area.
    The BLM manages nearly half of occupied habitat in the Poncha Pass 
population area, and approximately 98 percent of this area is actively 
grazed. Within the occupied range in the Poncha Pass population, 1 of 8 
(13 percent) active BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat objectives incorporated into the allotment management plans or 
Records of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 2010c, p. 4). In 2009, 
all active allotments in occupied habitat had completed LHAs, and all 
were meeting LHA objectives. Based on this information it appears that 
grazing is not likely significantly contributing to Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat degradation in the majority of the Poncha Pass 
population area.
    Non-federal Lands Grazing in All Population Areas -Livestock 
grazing on private and other non-federal lands, where present, has the 
potential to impact Gunnison sage-grouse, but we lack sufficient 
information to make an assessment. Table 1 summarizes the percentage of 
land area potentially available to grazing within each of the 
populations.
    As discussed earlier, some private lands are enrolled in the CRP 
program and provide some benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse. The CRP land 
in the Monticello group has provided a considerable amount of brood-
rearing habitat because of its forb component. Grazing of CRP land in 
Utah occurred in 2002 under emergency Farm Bill provisions due to 
drought and removed at least some of the grass and forb habitat 
component thus likely negatively affecting Gunnison sage-grouse chick 
survival. Radio-collared males and non-brood-rearing females exhibited 
temporary avoidance of grazed fields during and after grazing (Lupis et 
al. 2006, pp. 959-960), although one hen with a brood continued to use 
a grazed CRP field. This indicates that when CRP lands are grazed, 
negative impacts to their habitat and behavior may result. Since we 
have very little information on the status of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat on non-federal lands, we cannot assess whether the impacts that 
are occurring rise to the level of being a threat.
    Wild Ungulate Herbivory in All Population Areas - Overgrazing by 
deer and elk may cause local degradation of habitats by removal of 
forage and residual hiding and nesting cover. Hobbs et al. (1996, pp. 
210-213) documented a decline in available perennial grasses as elk 
densities increased. Such grazing could negatively impact nesting cover 
for sage-grouse. The winter range of deer and elk overlaps the year-
round range of the Gunnison sage-grouse. Excessive but localized deer 
and elk grazing has been documented in the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2005a, 
pp. 17-18; Jones 2005, pers. comm.).
    Grazing by deer and elk occurs in all Gunnison sage-grouse 
population areas. Although we have no information indicating that 
competition for resources is limiting Gunnison sage-grouse in the 
Gunnison Basin, BLM observed that certain mountain shrubs were being 
browsed heavily by wild ungulates (BLM 2009, p. 34). Subsequent results 
of monitoring in mountain shrub communities indicated that drought and 
big game were having large impacts on the survivability and size of 
mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus utahensis), bitterbrush (Purshia 
tridentata), and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) in the Gunnison 
Basin (Jupuntich et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). The authors raised concerns 
that observed reductions in shrub size and vigor will reduce drifting 
snow accumulation, resulting in decreased moisture availability to 
grasses and forbs during the spring melt. Reduced grass and forb growth 
could negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse nesting and early brood-
rearing habitat.
Grazing Summary
    Livestock management and domestic grazing have the potential to 
seriously degrade Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Grazing can adversely 
impact nesting and brood-rearing habitat by decreasing vegetation 
available for 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.
    The impacts of livestock operations on Gunnison sage-grouse depend 
upon stocking levels and season of use. We recognize that not all 
livestock grazing result in habitat degradation and many livestock 
operations within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse are employing 
innovative grazing strategies and conservation actions (Gunnison County 
Stockgrowers 2009, entire). However, available information suggests 
that LHA objectives specific to Gunnison sage-grouse are not being met 
on more than 50 percent of BLM-managed occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat in the Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, and the Cerro Summit-
Cimarron-Sims Mesa population areas. Cumulatively, the BLM-managed 
portion of these populations constitutes approximately 33 percent of 
the entire range of the species. Reduced habitat quality, as reflected 
in unmet LHA objectives is likely to negatively impact Gunnison sage-
grouse, particularly nesting and early brood-rearing habitat, and chick 
survival is one of the most important factors in maintaining Gunnison 
sage-grouse population viability (GSRSC 2005, p. 173).
    We know that grazing can have negative impacts to sagebrush and 
consequently to Gunnison sage-grouse at local scales. Available data 
indicates that impacts to sagebrush are occurring on a significant 
portion of the range of the species. Given the widespread nature of 
grazing within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, the potential for 
population-level impacts is highly likely. Further, we expect grazing 
to persist throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse for the 
foreseeable future. Effects of domestic livestock grazing are likely 
being exacerbated by intense browsing of

[[Page 59827]]

woody species by wild ungulates in portions of the Gunnison Basin. We 
conclude that habitat degradation that can result from improper grazing 
is a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the 
foreseeable future.

Nonrenewable Energy Development

    Energy development on Federal (BLM and USFS) lands is regulated by 
the BLM and can contain conservation measures for wildlife species (see 
Factor D for a more thorough discussion). The BLM (1999, p. 1) 
classified the area encompassing all Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for 
its gas and oil potential. Three of the populations have areas with 
high (San Miguel Basin, Monticello group) or medium (Crawford) oil and 
gas potential. San Miguel County, where much oil and gas activity has 
occurred in the last few years, ranked 9 out of 39 in Colorado counties 
producing natural gas in 2009 (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 
Commission 2010, p. 1) and 29 of 39 in oil production in 2009 (Colorado 
Oil and Gas Conservation commission 2010, p. 2).
    Energy development impacts sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats 
through direct habitat loss from well pad construction, seismic 
surveys, roads, powerlines and pipeline corridors, and indirectly from 
noise, gaseous emissions, changes in water availability and quality, 
and human presence. The interaction and intensity of effects could 
cumulatively or individually lead to habitat 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 et al.,, 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). Increased human presence resulting from oil and gas development 
can impact sage-grouse either through avoidance of suitable habitat, or 
disruption of breeding activities (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).
    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 2007, p. 2-110). Surveys 
for recoverable resources occur primarily through noisy seismic 
exploration activities. These surveys can result in the crushing of 
vegetation. 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, 
pp. 7-39; BLM 2007, pp. 2-123). Pads for compressor stations require 5-
7 ha (12.4-17.3 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-39).
    The amount of direct habitat loss within an area is ultimately 
determined by well densities and the associated loss from ancillary 
facilities. 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 greater sage-grouse 
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). Because of reasons discussed previously, we believe the 
effects to Gunnison sage-grouse are similar to those observed in 
greater sage-grouse. 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 greater effects on 
sage-grouse than the associated direct habitat losses. Energy 
development and associated infrastructure works cumulatively with other 
human activity or development to decrease available habitat and 
increase fragmentation. Greater sage-grouse 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 (Walker et al. 
2007a, p. 2652). These probabilities were even less in landscapes where 
energy development also was a factor.
    Nonrenewable Energy Development in All Population Areas - 
Approximately 33 percent of the Gunnison Basin population area ranked 
as low oil and gas potential with the remainder having no potential for 
oil and gas development (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). Forty-three gas wells 
occur on private lands within the occupied range of the Gunnison sage-
grouse. Of these, 27 wells occur in the San Miguel population, 8 in the 
Gunnison Basin population, 6 in the Dove Creek group of the Monticello-
Dove Creek population, and 1 in each of the Crawford and Cerro Summit-
Cimarron-Sims Mesa populations (derived from Colorado Oil and Gas 
Commission 2010, GIS dataset).
    No federally leased lands exist within the Gunnison Basin 
population area (BLM and USFS 2010). The Monticello group is in an area 
of high energy potential (GSRSC 2005, p. 130); however, less than two 
percent of the population area contains Federal leases upon which 
production is occurring, and no producing leases occur in currently 
occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (BLM Geocommunicator, 2010). No 
oil and gas wells or authorized Federal leases are within the Pinon 
Mesa population area (BLM 2009, p. 1; BLM Geocommunicator), and no 
potential for oil or gas exists in this area except for a small area on 
the eastern edge of the largest habitat block (BLM 1999, p. 1; GSRSC 
2005, p. 130). The Crawford population is in an area with high to 
medium potential for oil and gas development (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). A 
single authorized Federal lease (BLM Geocommunicator) constitutes less 
than 1 percent of the Crawford population area.
    Energy development is occurring primarily in the San Miguel Basin 
Gunnison sage-grouse population area in Colorado. The entire San Miguel 
Basin population area has high potential for oil and gas development 
(GSRSC 2005, p. 130). Approximately 13 percent of occupied habitat area 
within the San Miguel Basin population has authorized Federal leases; 
of that, production is occurring on approximately 5 percent (BLM 
National Integrated Lands System (NILS) p. 1). Currently, 25 gas wells 
are active within occupied habitat of the San Miguel Basin, and an 
additional 18 active wells occur immediately adjacent to occupied 
habitat (San Miguel County 2009, p. 1). All of these wells are in or 
near the Dry Creek group. The exact locations of any future drill sites 
are not known, but because the area is small, they will likely lie 
within 3 km (2 mi) of one of only three leks in this group (CDOW 2005a, 
p. 108).
    Although the BLM has deferred (temporarily withheld from recent 
lease sales) oil and gas parcels nominated for leasing in occupied 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in Colorado since 2005, we expect energy 
development in the San Miguel Basin on public and private lands to 
continue over the next 20 years based on the length of development and 
production projects described in existing project and management plans. 
Current impacts from gas development may exacerbate Gunnison sage-
grouse imperilment in the Dry Creek group

[[Page 59828]]

because this area contains some of the poorest habitat and smallest 
grouse populations within the San Miguel population (San Miguel Basin 
Gunnison sage-grouse Working Group, 2009 pp. 28 and 36).
    The San Miguel Basin population area is the only area within the 
Gunnison sage-grouse range with a high potential for oil and gas 
development. However, the immediate threat to Gunnison sage-grouse is 
limited because the BLM is deferring leases until they can be 
considered within Land Use Plans (BLM 2009, p. 78). We anticipate 
energy development activities to continue over the next 20 years. 
However, because nonrenewable energy activities are limited to a small 
portion of the range, primarily the Dry Creek portion of the San Miguel 
Basin population of Gunnison sage-grouse, we do not consider 
nonrenewable energy development to be a significant threat to the 
species.

Renewable Energy - Geothermal, Solar, Wind

    Geothermal energy production is similar to oil and gas development 
in 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 
drilling occurring on a continuous basis (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 source 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 coal- or gas-fired 
plant, resulting in further habitat destruction 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 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.
    Renewable Energy in the Gunnison Basin Population Area - 
Approximately 87 percent of the occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse 
is within a region of known geothermal potential (BLM Geocommunicator 
2010, p. 1). We were unable to find any information on the presence of 
active geothermal energy generation facilities; however, we are aware 
of three current applications for geothermal leases within the range of 
Gunnison sage-grouse. All of the applications are located in the same 
general vicinity on private, BLM, USFS, and Colorado State Land Board 
lands near Tomichi Dome and Waunita Hot Springs in southeastern 
Gunnison County. The cumulative area of the geothermal lease 
application parcels is approximately 4,061 ha (10,035 ac), of which 
approximately 3,802 ha (9,395 ac) is occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat, or approximately 2 percent of the Gunnison Basin population 
area. One active lek and two inactive leks are located within the lease 
application parcels. In addition, six active leks and four inactive 
leks are within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the lease application parcels 
indicating that over 80 percent of Gunnison sage-grouse seasonal use 
occurs within the area associated with these leks (GSRSC 2005, p. J-4). 
There are 74 active leks in the Gunnison Basin population, so 
approximately 10 percent of active leks may be affected. A significant 
amount of high-quality Gunnison sage-grouse nesting habitat exists on 
and near the lease application parcels (Aldridge et al. 2010, in 
press). This potential geothermal development would likely negatively 
impact Gunnison sage-grouse through the direct loss of habitat and the 
functional loss of habitat resulting from increased human activity in 
the area; however, we cannot determine the potential extent of the 
impact at this time because the size and location of potential 
geothermal energy generation infrastructure and potential resource 
protection conditions are unknown at this time.
    Renewable Energy in All Other Population Areas - We could find no 
information on the presence of existing, pending, or authorized wind 
energy sites, solar energy sites, nor any solar energy study areas 
within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. A 388-ha (960-ac) wind energy 
generation facility is authorized on BLM lands in San Juan County, UT. 
However, the authorized facility is approximately 12.9 km (8 mi) from 
the nearest lek in the Monticello group of the Monticello-Dove Creek 
Gunnison sage-grouse population. Therefore, we conclude that wind and 
solar energy development are not a significant threat to the Gunnison 
sage-grouse and we do not expect these activities to become significant 
threats in the foreseeable future.
    The only existing or proposed renewable energy project we are aware 
of is located in the Gunnison Basin. A portion of the Gunnison Basin 
population will likely be adversely affected by proposed geothermal 
development if it is implemented. Because of the current preliminary 
status of geothermal development, we lack the specific project details 
to evaluate the extent to which this activity will affect the 
population's overall viability. Therefore, we do not consider renewable 
energy development to be a threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse at this 
time. Geothermal energy development could become a future threat to the 
species, but we do not know to what extent future geothermal energy 
development will occur. Future geothermal development could be 
encouraged by a new Colorado State law, signed April 30, 2010, that 
will facilitate streamlining of the State permitting process.
Summary of Nonrenewable and Renewable Energy Development
    The San Miguel Basin population area is the only area within the 
Gunnison sage-grouse range with a high potential for oil and gas 
development. However, the immediate threat to Gunnison sage-grouse is 
limited because the BLM is temporarily deferring leases until they can 
be considered within Land Use Plans. We anticipate energy development 
activities to continue over the next 20 years. Although we recognize 
that the Dry Creek portion of the San Miguel Basin population may be 
impacted by nonrenewable energy development, we do not consider 
nonrenewable energy development to be a significant threat to the 
species now or in the foreseeable future, because its current and 
anticipated extent is limited throughout the range of Gunnison sage-
grouse. Similarly, we do not consider renewable energy development to 
be a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse now or in the 
foreseeable future. However, geothermal energy development could 
increase in the future and could (depending on the level of development 
and minimization and mitigation measures) substantially influence the 
overall long-term viability of the Gunnison Basin population.

Climate Change

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 
``Warming of the climate system in recent decades is unequivocal, as is 
now evident from observations of increases in global average air and 
ocean

[[Page 59829]]

temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global sea 
level'' (IPCC 2007, p. 1). Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures 
during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than 
during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the 
highest in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Over the 
past 50 years cold days, cold nights, and frosts have become less 
frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become 
more frequent. Heat waves have become more frequent over most land 
areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased 
over most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 30). For the southwestern region of the 
United States, including western Colorado, warming is occurring more 
rapidly than elsewhere in the country (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). 
Annual average temperature in west-central Colorado increased 3.6 
[deg]C (2 [deg]F) over the past 30 years, but high variability in 
annual precipitation precludes the detection of long-term trends (Ray 
et al. 2008, p. 5).
    Under high emission scenarios, future projections for the 
southwestern United States show increased probability of drought (Karl 
et al. 2009, pp. 129-134) and the number of days over 32 [deg]C (90 
[deg]F) could double by the end of the century (Karl et al. 2009, p. 
34). Climate models predict annual temperature increase of 
approximately 2.2 [deg]C (4 [deg]F) in the southwest by 2050, with 
summers warming more than winters (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). Projections 
also show declines in snowpack across the West, with the most dramatic 
declines at lower elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 ft)) (Ray et al., p. 
29).
    Localized climate projections are problematic for mountainous areas 
because current global climate models are unable to capture this 
topographic variability at local or regional scales (Ray et al. 2008, 
pp. 7, 20). To obtain climate projections specific to the range of 
Gunnison sage-grouse, we requested a statistically downscaled model 
from the National Center for Atmospheric Research for a region covering 
western Colorado. The resulting projections indicate the highest 
probability scenario is that average summer (June through September) 
temperature could increase by 2.8 [deg]C (5.1 [deg]F), and average 
winter (October through March) temperature could increase by 2.2 [deg]C 
(4.0 [deg]F) by 2050 (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 
(UCAR) 2009, pp. 1-15). Annual mean precipitation projections for 
Colorado are unclear; however, multi-model averages show a shift 
towards increased winter precipitation and decreased spring and summer 
precipitation (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl et al. 2009, p. 30). 
Similarly, the multi-model averages show the highest probability of a 
five percent increase in average winter precipitation and a five 
percent decrease in average spring-summer precipitation in 2050 (UCAR 
2009, p. 15).
    While it is unclear at this time whether or not the year 2050 
predicted changes in precipitation and temperature will be of 
significant magnitude to alter sagebrush plant community composition 
and dynamics, we believe climate change is likely to alter fire 
frequency, community assemblages, and the ability of nonnative species 
to proliferate. Increasing temperature as well as changes in the timing 
and amount of precipitation will alter the competitive advantage among 
plant species (Miller et al. in press, p. 44), and may shift individual 
species and ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al. 2001, p. 174). For 
sagebrush, spring and summer precipitation comprises the majority of 
the moisture available to the species; thus, the interaction between 
reduced precipitation in the spring-summer growing season and increased 
summer temperatures will likely decrease growth of mountain big 
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana). This could result in a 
significant long-term reduction in the distribution of sagebrush 
communities (Miller et al. in press, pp. 41-45). In the Gunnison Basin, 
increased summer temperature was strongly correlated with reduced 
growth of mountain big sagebrush (Poore et al. 2009, p. 558). Based on 
these results and the likelihood of increased winter precipitation 
falling as rain rather than snow, Poore et al. (2009, p. 559) predict 
decreased growth of mountain big sagebrush, particularly at the lower 
elevation limit of the species. Because Gunnison sage-grouse are 
sagebrush obligates, loss of sagebrush would result in a reduction of 
suitable habitat and negatively impact the species. The interaction of 
climate change with other stressors likely has impacted and will impact 
the sagebrush steppe ecosystem within which Gunnison sage-grouse occur.
    Temperature increases may increase the competitive advantage of 
cheatgrass in higher elevation areas where its current distribution is 
limited (Miller et al. in press, p. 47). Decreased summer precipitation 
reduces the competitive advantage of summer perennial grasses, reduces 
sagebrush cover, and subsequently increases the likelihood of 
cheatgrass invasion (Prevey et al. 2009, p. 11). This impact could 
increase the susceptibility of areas within Gunnison sage-grouse range 
to cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 204), which would reduce the 
overall cover of native vegetation, reduce habitat quality, and 
potentially decrease fire return intervals, all of which would 
negatively affect the species.
Summary of Climate Change
    Climate change predictions are based on models with assumptions, 
and there are uncertainties regarding the magnitude of associated 
climate change parameters such as the amount and timing of 
precipitation and seasonal temperature changes. There is also 
uncertainty as to the magnitude of effects of predicted climate 
parameters on sagebrush plant community dynamics. These factors make it 
difficult to predict the effects of climate change on Gunnison sage-
grouse. We recognize that climate change has the potential to alter 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat by facilitating an increase in the 
distribution of cheatgrass and concurrently increase the potential for 
wildfires, which would have negative effects on Gunnison sage-grouse. 
However, based on the best available information on climate change 
projections into the next 40 years, we do not consider climate change 
to be a significant threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse at this time. 
Existing data indicates that climate change has the potential to alter 
changes in the distribution and extent of cheatgrass and sagebrush and 
associated fire frequencies and therefore is likely to become an 
increasingly important factor affecting Gunnison sage-grouse and its 
habitat in the foreseeable future.

Summary of Factor A

    Gunnison sage-grouse require large, contiguous areas of sagebrush 
for long-term persistence, and thus are affected by factors that occur 
at the landscape scale. Broad-scale characteristics within surrounding 
landscapes influence habitat selection, and adult Gunnison sage-grouse 
exhibit a high fidelity to all seasonal habitats, resulting in low 
adaptability to habitat changes. Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats 
has been cited as a primary cause of the decline of Gunnison and 
greater 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,

[[Page 59830]]

p. 19). Documented negative effects of fragmentation include reduced 
lek persistence, lek attendance, population recruitment, yearling and 
adult annual survival, female nest site selection, and nest initiation 
rates, as well as the 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).
    We examined several factors that result in habitat loss and 
fragmentation. Historically, losses of sagebrush habitats occurred due 
to conversion for agricultural croplands; however, this trend has 
slowed or slightly reversed in recent decades. Currently, direct and 
functional loss of habitat due to residential and road development in 
all populations, including the largest population in the Gunnison 
Basin, is the principal threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. Functional 
habitat loss also contributes to habitat fragmentation as sage-grouse 
avoid areas due to human activities, including noise, even when 
sagebrush remains intact. The collective disturbance from human 
activities around residences and roads reduces the effective habitat 
around these areas, making them inhospitable to Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Human populations are increasing in Colorado and throughout the range 
of Gunnison sage-grouse. This trend is expected to continue at least 
through 2050. The resulting habitat loss and fragmentation will 
continue to negatively affect Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat.
    Other threats from human infrastructure such as fences and 
powerlines may not individually threaten the Gunnison sage-grouse. 
However, the cumulative presence of all these features, particularly 
when considered in conjunction with residential and road development, 
does constitute a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse as they 
collectively contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation. This impact 
is particularly of consequence in light of the decreases in Gunnison 
sage-grouse population sizes observed in the six smallest populations. 
These infrastructure components are associated with overall increases 
in human populations and thus we expect them to continue to increase in 
the foreseeable future.
    Several issues discussed above, such as fire, invasive species, and 
climate change, may not individually threaten the Gunnison sage-grouse. 
However, the documented synergy among these issues result in a high 
likelihood that they will threaten the species in the future. Nonnative 
invasive plants, including cheatgrass and other noxious weeds, continue 
to expand their range, facilitated by ground disturbances such as fire, 
grazing, and human infrastructure. Invasive plants negatively impact 
Gunnison sage-grouse primarily by reducing or eliminating native 
vegetation that sage-grouse require for food and cover, resulting in 
habitat loss (both direct and functional) and fragmentation. Cheatgrass 
is present at varying levels in nearly all Gunnison sage-grouse 
population areas, but there has not yet been a demonstrated change in 
fire cycle in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. However, climate 
change may alter the range of invasive plants, intensifying the 
proliferation of invasive plants to the point that they and their 
effects on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat will likely become a threat to 
the species. Even with aggressive treatments, invasive plants will 
persist and will likely continue to spread throughout the range of 
Gunnison sage-grouse in the foreseeable future.
    Livestock management has the potential to degrade sage-grouse 
habitat at local scales by causing the loss of nesting cover and 
decreases in native vegetation, and by increasing the probability of 
incursion of invasive plants. Given the widespread nature of grazing 
within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, the potential for population-
level impacts is highly likely. Effects of domestic livestock grazing 
are likely being exacerbated by intense browsing of woody species by 
wild ungulates in portions of the Gunnison Basin. We conclude that 
habitat degradation that can result from improper grazing is a 
significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the foreseeable 
future.
    Threats identified above, particularly residential development and 
associated infrastructure such as fences, roads, and powerlines, are 
cumulatively causing significant habitat fragmentation that is 
negatively affecting Gunnison sage-grouse. We have evaluated the best 
available scientific information available on the present or threatened 
destruction, modification or curtailment of the Gunnison sage-grouse's 
habitat or range. Based on the current and anticipated habitat threats 
identified above, and their cumulative effects as they contribute to 
the overall fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, we have 
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat poses a significant threat 
to the species throughout its range.
    The species is being impacted by several other factors, but their 
significance is not at a level that they cause the species to become 
threatened or endangered in the foreseeable future. We do not consider 
nonrenewable energy development to be a significant threat to the 
species because its current and anticipated extent is limited 
throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. Similarly, we do not 
consider renewable energy development to be a significant threat to the 
Gunnison sage-grouse at this time. However, geothermal energy 
development could increase in the future. Pinon-juniper encroachment 
does not pose a significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse at a 
population or rangewide level because of its limited distribution 
throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse and the observed 
effectiveness of treatment projects.
    A review of a database compiled by the CDOW that included local, 
State, and Federal ongoing and proposed Gunnison sage-grouse 
conservation actions (CDOW 2009c, entire) revealed a total of 224 
individual conservation efforts. Of these 224 efforts, a total of 165 
efforts have been completed and were focused on habitat improvement or 
protection. These efforts resulted in the treatment of 9,324 ha (23,041 
ac), or approximately 2.5 percent of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat. A monitoring component was included in 75 (45 percent) of 
these 165 efforts, although we do not have information on the overall 
effectiveness of these efforts. Given the limited collective extent of 
these efforts, they do not ameliorate the effects of habitat 
fragmentation at a sufficient scale range-wide to effectively reduce or 
eliminate the most significant threats to the species. We recognize 
ongoing and proposed conservation efforts by all entities across the 
range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and all parties should be commended 
for their conservation efforts. Our review of conservation efforts 
indicates that the measures identified are not adequate to address the 
primary threat of habitat fragmentation at this time in a manner that 
effectively reduces or eliminates the most significant contributors 
(e.g., residential development) to this threat. All of the conservation 
efforts are limited in size and the measures provided to us were simply 
not implemented at the scale (even when considered cumulatively) that 
would be required to effectively reduce the threats to the species 
across its range. Although the ongoing conservation efforts are a 
positive step toward the conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and 
some have likely reduced the severity of some threats to the species 
(e.g., Pinon-juniper invasion), on the whole we find

[[Page 59831]]

that the conservation efforts in place at this time are not sufficient 
to offset the degree of threat posed to the species by the present and 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Hunting

    Hunting for Gunnison sage-grouse does not currently occur. Hunting 
was eliminated in the Gunnison Basin in 2000 due to concerns with 
meeting Gunnison sage-grouse population objectives (CSGWG 1997, p. 66). 
Hunting has not occurred in the other Colorado populations of Gunnison 
sage-grouse since 1995 when the Pinon Mesa area was closed (GSRSC 2005, 
p. 122). Utah has not allowed hunting of Gunnison sage-grouse since 
1989 (GSRSC 2005, p. 82).
    Both Colorado and Utah will only consider hunting of Gunnison sage-
grouse if populations can be sustained (GSRSC 2005, pp. 5, 8, 229). The 
Gunnison Basin Plan calls for a minimum population of 500 males counted 
on leks before hunting would occur again (CSGWG 1997, p. 66). The 
minimum population level has been exceeded in all years since 1996, 
except 2003 and 2004 (CDOW 2009d, p. 18-19). However, the sensitive 
State regulatory status and potential political ramifications of 
hunting the species has precluded the States from opening a hunting 
season. If hunting does ever occur again, harvest will likely be 
restricted to only 5 to 10 percent of the fall population, and will be 
structured to limit harvest of females to the extent possible (GSRSC 
2005, p. 229). However, the ability of these measures to be implemented 
is in question, as adequate means to estimate fall population size have 
not been developed (Reese and Connelly in press, p. 21) and limiting 
female harvest may not be possible (WGFD 2004, p. 4; WGFD 2006, pp. 5, 
7). Despite these questions, we believe that the low level of hunting 
that could be allowed in the future would not be a significant threat 
to the Gunnison sage-grouse.
    One sage-grouse was known to be illegally harvested in 2001 in the 
Poncha Pass population (Nehring 2010, pers. comm.), but based on the 
best available information we do not believe that illegal harvest has 
contributed to Gunnison sage-grouse population declines in either 
Colorado or Utah. We do not anticipate hunting to be opened in the 
Gunnison Basin or smaller populations for many years, if ever. 
Consequently, we do not consider hunting to be a significant threat to 
the species now or in the foreseeable future.

Lek Viewing

    The Gunnison sage-grouse was designated as a new species in 2000 
(American Ornithologists' Union 2000, pp. 847-858), which has prompted 
increased interest by bird watchers to view the species on their leks 
(Pfister 2010, pers. comm.). 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). Human disturbance, 
particularly if additive to disturbance by predators, could reduce the 
time a lek is active, as well as reduce its size by lowering male 
attendance (Boyko et al. 2004, in GSRSC 2005, p. 125). Smaller lek 
sizes have been hypothesized to be less attractive to females, thereby 
conceivably reducing the numbers of females mating. Disturbance during 
the peak of mating also could result in some females not breeding 
(GSRSC 2005, p. 125). Furthermore, disturbance from lek viewing might 
affect nesting habitat selection by females (GSRSC 2005, p. 126), as 
leks are typically close to areas in which females nest. If females 
move to poorer quality habitat farther away from disturbed leks, nest 
success could decline. If chronic disturbance causes sage-grouse to 
move to a new lek site away from preferred and presumably higher 
quality areas, both survival and nest success could decline. Whether 
any or all of these have significant population effects would depend on 
timing and degree of disturbance (GSRSC 2005, p. 126).
    Throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, public viewing of 
leks is limited by a general lack of knowledge in the public of lek 
locations, seasonal road closures in some areas, and difficulty in 
accessing many leks. Furthermore, 52 of 109 active Gunnison sage-grouse 
leks occur on private lands, which further limits access by the public. 
The BLM closed a lek in the Gunnison Basin to viewing in the late 1990s 
due to declining population counts, which were perceived as resulting 
from recreational viewing, although no scientific studies were 
conducted (BLM 2005a, p. 13; GSRSC 2005, pp. 124, 126). The Waunita lek 
east of Gunnison is the only lek in Colorado designated by the CDOW for 
public viewing (CDOW 2009a, p. 86). Since 1998, a comparison of male 
counts on the Waunita lek versus male counts on other leks in the 
Doyleville zone show that the Waunita lek's male counts generally 
follow the same trend as the others (CDOW 2009d, pp. 31-32). In fact, 
in 2008 and 2009 the Waunita lek increased in the number of males 
counted along with three other leks, while seven leks decreased in the 
Doyleville zone (CDOW 2009d, pp. 31-32). These data suggest that lek 
viewing on the Waunita lek has not impacted the Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Two lek-viewing tours per year are organized and led by UDWR on a 
privately owned lek in the Monticello population. The lek declined in 
males counted in 2009, but 2007 and 2008 had the highest counts for 
several years, suggesting that lek viewing is also not impacting that 
lek. Data collected by CDOW on greater sage-grouse viewing leks also 
indicates that controlled lek visitation has not impacted greater sage-
grouse at the viewed leks (GSRSC 2005, p. 124).
    A lek viewing protocol has been developed and has largely been 
followed on the Waunita lek, likely reducing impacts to sage-grouse 
using the lek (GSRSC 2005, p. 125). During 2004-2009, the percentage of 
individuals or groups of people in vehicles following the Waunita lek 
viewing protocol in the Gunnison Basin ranged from 71-92 percent (CDOW 
2009a, p. 86, 87; Magee et al. 2009, p. 7, 10). Violations of the 
protocol, such as showing up after the sage-grouse started to display 
and creating noise, caused one or more sage-grouse to flush from the 
lek (CDOW 2009a, pp. 86, 87). Despite the protocol violations, the 
percentage of days from 2004 to 2009 that grouse were flushed by humans 
was relatively low, ranging from 2.5 percent to 5.4 percent (Magee et 
al. 2009, p.10). Nonetheless, the lek viewing protocol is currently 
being revised to make it more stringent and to include considerations 
for photography, research, and education related viewing (CDOW 2009a, 
p. 86). Maintenance of this protocol should preclude lek viewing from 
becoming a threat to this lek.
    The CDOW and UDWR will continue to coordinate and implement lek 
counts to determine population levels. We expect annual lek viewing and 
lek counts to continue indefinitely. However, all leks counted will 
receive lower disturbance from counters than the Waunita lek received 
from public viewing, so we do not consider lek counts and viewing a 
threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse now or in the foreseeable future.

Scientific Research

    Gunnison sage-grouse have been the subject of scientific research 
studies, some of which included the capture and handling of the 
species. Most of the research has been conducted in the Gunnison Basin 
population, San Miguel

[[Page 59832]]

Basin population, and Monticello portion of the Monticello-Dove Creek 
population. Between zero and seven percent mortality of handled adults 
or juveniles and chicks has occurred during recent Gunnison sage-grouse 
studies where trapping and radio-tagging was done (Apa 2004, p. 19; 
Childers 2009, p. 14; Lupis 2005, p. 26; San Miguel Basin Working Group 
2009, p. A-10). Additionally, one radio-tagged hen was flushed off a 
nest during subsequent monitoring and did not return after the second 
day, resulting in loss of 10 eggs (Ward 2007, p. 52). The CDOW does not 
believe that these losses or disturbance have any significant impacts 
on the sage-grouse (CDOW 2009a, p. 29).
    Some of the radio-tagged sage-grouse have been translocated from 
the Gunnison Basin to other populations. Over a 5-year period (2000-
2002 and 2006-2007), 68 sage-grouse were translocated from the Gunnison 
Basin to the Poncha Pass and San Miguel Basin populations (CDOW 2009a, 
p. 9). These experimental translocations were conducted to determine 
translocation techniques and survivorship in order to increase both 
size of the receiving populations and to increase genetic diversity in 
populations outside of the Gunnison Basin. However, the translocated 
grouse experienced 40-50 percent mortality within the first year after 
release, which is double the average annual mortality of non-
translocated sage-grouse (CDOW 2009a, p. 9). Greater sage-grouse 
translocations have not appeared to fare any better. Over 7,200 greater 
sage-grouse were translocated between 1933 and 1990, but only five 
percent of the translocation efforts were considered to be successful 
in producing sustained, resident populations at the translocation sites 
(Reese and Connelly 1997, pp. 235-238, 240). More recent translocations 
from 2003 to 2005 into Strawberry Valley, Utah, resulted in a 40 
percent annual mortality rate (Baxter et al. 2008, p. 182). We believe 
the lack of success of translocations found in greater sage-grouse is 
applicable to Gunnison sage-grouse since the two species exhibit 
similar behavior and life-history traits, and are managed accordingly.
    Because the survival rate for translocated sage-grouse has not been 
as high as desired, the CDOW started a captive-rearing program in 2009 
to study whether techniques can be developed to captively rear and 
release Gunnison sage-grouse and enhance their survival (CDOW 2009a, 
pp. 9-12). The Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 
conducted a review of captive-rearing attempts for both greater sage-
grouse and other gallinaceous birds and concluded that survival will be 
very low, unless innovative strategies are developed and tested (GSRSC 
2005, pp. 181-183). However, greater sage-grouse have been captively 
reared, and survival of released chicks was similar to that of wild 
chicks (CDOW 2009a, p. 10). Consequently, the CDOW decided to try 
captive rearing. Of 40 Gunnison sage-grouse eggs taken from the wild, 
only 11 chicks (about 25 percent) survived through October 2009. 
Although chick survival was low, the CDOW believes they have gained 
valuable knowledge on Gunnison sage-grouse rearing techniques. As 
techniques improve, the CDOW intends to develop a captive-breeding 
manual (CDOW 2009a, p. 11). Although adults or juveniles have been 
captured and moved out of the Gunnison Basin, as well as eggs, the 
removal of the grouse only accounts for a very small percentage of the 
total population of the Gunnison Basin sage-grouse population (about 1 
percent).
    The CDOW has a policy regarding trapping, handling, and marking 
techniques approved by their Animal Use and Care Committee (San Miguel 
Basin Working Group 2009, p. A-10, Childers 2009, p. 13). Evaluation of 
research projects by the Animal Use and Care Committee and improvement 
of trapping, handling, and marking techniques over the last several 
years has resulted in fewer mortalities and injuries. In fact, in the 
San Miguel Basin, researchers have handled over 200 sage-grouse with no 
trapping mortalities (San Miguel Basin Working Group (SMBWG) 2009, p. 
A-10). The CDOW has also drafted a sage-grouse trapping and handling 
protocol, which is required training for people handling Gunnison sage-
grouse, to minimize mortality and injury of the birds (CDOW 2002, pp. 
1-4 in SMBWG 2009, pp. A-22-A-25). Injury and mortality does 
occasionally occur from trapping, handling, marking, and flushing off 
nests. However, research-related mortality is typically below three 
percent of handled birds and equates to one half of one percent or less 
of annual population estimates (Apa 2004, p. 19; Childers 2009, p. 14; 
Lupis 2005, p. 26; San Miguel Basin Working Group 2009, p. A-10).
    Research needs may gradually dwindle over the years but annual or 
occasional research is expected to occur for at least 50 years 
constituting the foreseeable future for this potential threat. Short-
term disturbance effects to individuals occur as does injury and 
mortality, but we do not believe these effects cause a threat to the 
Gunnison sage-grouse population as a whole. Based on the available 
information, we believe scientific research on Gunnison sage-grouse has 
a relatively minor impact that does not rise to the level of a threat 
to the species now or is it expected to do so in the foreseeable 
future.
Summary of Factor B
    We have no evidence suggesting that hunting, when it was legal, 
resulted in overutilization of Gunnison sage-grouse. If hunting is 
allowed again, future hunting may result in additive mortality due to 
habitat degradation and fragmentation, despite harvest level 
restrictions and management intended to limit impacts to hens. 
Nonetheless, we do not expect hunting to be reinstated in the 
foreseeable future. Illegal hunting has been documented only once in 
Colorado and is not considered a threat to the species. Lek viewing has 
not affected the Gunnison sage-grouse, and lek viewing protocols 
designed to reduce disturbance have generally been followed. CDOW is 
currently revising their lek viewing protocol to make it more stringent 
and to include considerations for photography, research, and education-
related viewing. Mortality from scientific research is low (2 percent) 
and is not considered a threat. We know of no overutilization for 
commercial or educational purposes. Thus, based on the best scientific 
and commercial data available, we have concluded that overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes does 
not constitute a significant threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease

    No research has been published about the types or pathology of 
diseases in Gunnison sage-grouse. However, multiple bacterial and 
parasitic diseases have been documented in greater sage-grouse 
(Patterson 1952, pp. 71-72; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14, 27). Some 
early studies have suggested that greater sage-grouse populations are 
adversely affected by parasitic infections (Batterson and Morse 1948, 
p. 22). However, the role of parasites or infectious diseases in 
population declines of greater sage-grouse is unknown based on the few 
systematic surveys conducted (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-3). No 
parasites have been documented to cause mortality in Gunnison sage-
grouse, but the protozoan, Eimeria spp., which causes coccidiosis, has 
been reported to cause

[[Page 59833]]

death in greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-4). 
Infections tend to be localized to specific geographic areas, and no 
cases of greater sage-grouse mortality resulting from coccidiosis have 
been documented since the early 1960s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-4).
    Parasites have been implicated in greater sage-grouse mate 
selection, with potentially subsequent effects on the genetic diversity 
of this species (Boyce 1990, p.263; Deibert 1995, p. 38). These 
relationships may be important to the long-term ecology of greater 
sage-grouse, but they have not been shown to be significant to the 
immediate status of populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-6). 
Although diseases and parasites have been suggested to affect isolated 
sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-3), we have no 
evidence indicating that parasitic diseases are a threat to Gunnison 
sage-grouse populations.
    Greater sage-grouse are subject to a variety of bacterial, fungal, 
and viral pathogens. The bacterium Salmonella sp. has caused a single 
documented mortality in the greater sage-grouse and studies have shown 
that infection rates in wild birds are low (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 
10-7). The bacteria are apparently contracted through exposure to 
contaminated water supplies around livestock stock tanks (Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 10-7). Other bacteria found in greater sage-grouse include 
Escherichia coli, botulism (Clostridium spp.), 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). We have no reason to 
expect that mortality and exposure risk are different in Gunnison sage-
grouse; therefore, we do not believe these bacteria to be a threat to 
the species.
    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). In sagebrush habitats, West Nile virus 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). The virus 
persists largely within a mosquito-bird-mosquito 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 2009, pers. comm.). The frequency of direct transmission has 
not been determined (McLean 2006, p. 54). 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 West Nile virus transmission in sage-grouse 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 West Nile 
virus 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). Additional details on the 
impacts of West Nile virus on greater sage-grouse can be found in our 
recent finding (75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010).
    Greater sage-grouse congregate in mesic habitats in the mid-late 
summer (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971), thereby increasing their risk of 
exposure to mosquitoes. If West Nile virus outbreaks coincide with 
drought conditions that aggregate birds in habitat near water sources, 
the risk of exposure to West Nile virus will be elevated (Walker and 
Naugle in press, p. 11). Greater sage-grouse inhabiting higher 
elevation sites in summer (similar to the northern portion of the 
Gunnison Basin) are likely less vulnerable to contracting West Nile 
virus than birds at lower elevation (similar to Dry Creek Basin of the 
San Miguel population) as ambient temperatures are typically cooler 
(Walker and Naugle in press, p. 11).
    West Nile Virus has caused population declines in wild bird 
populations on the local and regional scale (Walker and Naugle in 
press, p. 7) and has been shown to affect survival rates of greater 
sage-grouse (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 710; Naugle et al. 2005, p. 616). 
Experimental results, combined with field data, suggest that a 
widespread West Nile virus infection has negatively affected greater 
sage-grouse (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711; Naugle et al. 2005, p. 616). 
Summer habitat requirements of sage-grouse potentially increase their 
exposure to West Nile virus. Greater sage-grouse are considered to have 
a high susceptibility to West Nile virus, with resultant high levels of 
mortality (Clark et al. 2006, p. 19; McLean 2006, p. 54). Data 
collected on greater sage-grouse suggest 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).
    To date, West Nile virus has not been documented in Gunnison sage-
grouse despite the presence of West Nile virus-positive mosquitoes in 
nearly all counties throughout their range (Colorado Department of 
Public Health 2004, pp. 1-5; U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention 2004, entire). We do not know whether this is a result of 
the small number of birds that are marked, the relatively few birds 
that exist in the wild, or unsuitable conditions in Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat for the virus to become virulent. West Nile virus 
activity within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse has been low compared 
to other parts of Colorado and the western United States. A total of 77 
wild bird (other than Gunnison sage-grouse) deaths resulting from West 
Nile virus have been confirmed from counties within the occupied range 
of Gunnison sage-grouse since 2002 when reporting began in Colorado 
(USGS 2009, entire). Fifty-two (68 percent) of these West-Nile-virus-
caused bird deaths were reported from Mesa County (where the Pinon Mesa 
population is found). Only San Miguel, Dolores, and Hinsdale Counties 
had no confirmed avian mortalities resulting from West Nile virus.
    Walker and Naugle (in press, p. 27) predict that West Nile virus 
outbreaks in small, isolated, and genetically depauperate populations 
could reduce sage-grouse numbers below a threshold from which recovery 
is unlikely because of limited or nonexistent demographic and genetic 
exchange from adjacent populations. Thus, a West Nile virus outbreak in 
any Gunnison sage-grouse population, except perhaps the Gunnison Basin 
population, could limit the persistence of these populations.
    Although West Nile virus is a potential threat, the best available 
information suggests that it is not currently a significant threat to 
Gunnison sage-grouse, since West Nile virus has not been documented in 
Gunnison sage-grouse despite the presence of West Nile virus-positive 
mosquitoes in nearly all counties throughout their range. No other 
diseases or parasitic infections are considered to be threatening the 
Gunnison sage-grouse 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

[[Page 59834]]

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, little published information has been available 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). Generalist predators have the greatest effect on ground-
nesting birds because predator numbers are independent of the density 
of a single prey source since they can switch to other prey sources 
when a given prey source (e.g., Gunnison sage-grouse) is not abundant 
(Coates 2007, p. 4). We believe that the effects of predation observed 
in greater sage-grouse are applicable to the effects anticipated in 
Gunnison sage-grouse since overall behavior and life-history traits are 
similar for the two species.
    Major predators of adult sage-grouse include many species including 
golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), red foxes (Vulpes fulva), and 
bobcats (Felis 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 sage-grouse also are 
killed by many raptors as well as common ravens (Corvus corax), badgers 
(Taxidea taxus), red foxes, coyotes (Canis latrans) and weasels 
(Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, entire; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10). Nest 
predators include badgers, weasels, coyotes, common ravens, American 
crows (Corvus brachyrhyncos) and magpies (Pica spp.), elk (Cervus 
canadensis) (Holloran and Anderson 2003, p.309), and domestic cows 
(Bovus spp.) (Coates et al. 2008, pp. 425-426). Ground squirrels 
(Spermophilus spp.) also have been identified as nest predators 
(Patterson 1952, p. 107; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; Schroder 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 in Nevada, but none resulted in 
predation events (Coates et al. 2008, p. 425). The most common 
predators of Gunnison sage-grouse eggs are weasels, ground squirrels, 
coyotes, and corvids (Young 1994, p. 37). Most raptor predation of 
sage-grouse is on juveniles and older age classes (GSRSC 2005, p. 135). 
Golden eagles were found to be the dominant species recorded perching 
on power poles in Utah in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Prather and 
Messmer 2009, p. 12). Twenty-two and 40 percent of 111 adult 
mortalities were the result of avian and mammalian predation, 
respectively (Childers 2009, p. 7). Twenty-five and 35 percent of 40 
chick mortalities were caused by avian and mammalian predation, 
respectively (Childers 2009, p. 7). A causative agent of mortality was 
not determined in the remaining depredations observed in the western 
portion of the Gunnison Basin from 2000 to 2009 (Childers 2009, p. 7).
    Adult male Gunnison sage-grouse are very susceptible to predation 
while on the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; Schroeder and Baydack 
2001, p. 25; Hagen in press, p. 5), presumably because they are 
conspicuous while performing their mating displays. Because leks are 
attended daily by numerous grouse, predators also may be attracted to 
these areas during the breeding season (Braun 1995, p. 2). 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). Among 77 
adult hens, 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 (Connelly et al. 2000b, 
p. 228). Sage-grouse populations are likely more sensitive to predation 
upon females given the highly negative response of Gunnison sage-grouse 
population dynamics to adult female reproductive success and chick 
mortality (GSRSC, 2005, p. 173). 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). For greater sage-grouse, chick mortality 
from predation ranged from 10 to 51 percent in 2002 and 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). Survival of 
juveniles to their first breeding season was estimated to be low (10 
percent). It is reasonable, given the sources of adult mortality, to 
assume that predation is a contributor to the high juvenile mortality 
rates (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 4).
    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). 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. Moynahan 
et al. (2007, p. 1777) attributed 131 of 258 (54 percent) nest failures 
to predation in Montana. Studies have shown that re-nesting rates are 
low in Gunnison sage-grouse (Young, 1994, p. 44; Childers, 2009, p. 7), 
suggesting that re-nesting is unlikely to offset losses due to 
predation. Losses of breeding hens and young chicks to predation 
potentially can influence overall greater and Gunnison sage-grouse 
population numbers, as these two groups contribute most significantly 
to population productivity (GSRSC, 2005, p. 29, 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, pp. 
1-2; 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, p. 14) reported that nesting success was greater in unaltered 
habitats versus

[[Page 59835]]

habitats affected by anthropogenic activities. Where greater sage-
grouse habitat has been altered, the influx of predators can decrease 
annual recruitment into a population (Gregg et al. 1994, p. 164; Braun 
1995, pp. 1-2; Braun 1998; DeLong et al. 1995, p. 91; Schroeder and 
Baydack 2001, p. 28; Coates 2007, p. 2; Hagen in press, p. 7). 
Agricultural development, landscape fragmentation, and human 
populations have the potential to increase predation pressure on all 
life stages of greater sage-grouse by forcing birds to nest in less 
suitable or marginal habitats, increasing travel time through altered 
habitats where they are vulnerable to predation, and increasing the 
diversity and density of predators (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). We believe the aforementioned is also 
applicable to Gunnison sage-grouse because overall behavior and life-
history traits are similar for the two species (Young 1994, p. 4).
    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). The red 
fox population has increased within the Gunnison Basin (BLM, 2009, p. 
37). Ranches, farms, and housing 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. 12-2). We believe this is also 
applicable to Gunnison sage-grouse because of the habitat similarities 
of the two species and similar patterns of human development. 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 greater 
sage-grouse nest and brood fate in western Wyoming (Bui 2009, p. 27).
    Raven abundance has increased as much as 1,500 percent in some 
areas of western North America since the 1960s (Coates 2007, p. 5). 
Breeding bird survey trends from 1966 to 2007 indicate increases 
throughout Colorado and Utah (USGS, 2009, pp. 1-2). Increases in raven 
numbers are suggested in the Pinon Mesa population, though data have 
not been collected (CDOW 2009a, p. 110). 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). Atamian et al. (2007, 
p. 2) found that ravens contributed to lek disturbance events in the 
areas surrounding the transmission line. However, cause of decline in 
surrounding sage-grouse population numbers could not be separated from 
other potential impacts. 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 (2009, pp. 2-4) also 
found that common raven abundance increased in association with oil and 
gas development in southwestern Wyoming. 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, pp. 85-86) suggested that 
ravens may reduce the time spent off the nest by female sage-grouse, 
thereby potentially compromising their ability to secure sufficient 
nutrition to complete the incubation period.
    As more suitable grouse habitat is converted to exurban 
development, agriculture, or other non-sagebrush habitat types, grouse 
nesting and brood-rearing become increasingly spatially restricted (Bui 
2009, p. 32). As discussed in Factor A, we anticipate a substantial 
increase in the distribution of residential development throughout the 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse. This increase will likely cause 
additional restriction of nesting habitat within the species' range, 
given removal of sagebrush habitats and the strong selection for 
sagebrush by the species. Additionally, Gunnison sage-grouse avoid 
residential development, resulting in functional habitat loss (Aldridge 
et al. 2010, p. 24). Ninety-one percent of nest locations in the 
western portion of the Gunnison Basin population occur within 35 
percent of the available habitat (Aldridge et al. 2010, p. 25-26). 
Unnaturally 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). Increased nest density could 
negatively influence the probability of a successful hatch (Holloran 
and Anderson, 2005, p. 748). The influence of the human footprint in 
sagebrush ecosystems may be underestimated (Leu and Hanser, in press, 
pp. 24-25) since it is uncertain how much more habitat sage-grouse (a 
large landscape-scale species) need for persistence in increasingly 
fragmented landscapes (Connelly et al., in press, pp. 28-34). 
Therefore, the influence of ravens and other predators associated with 
human activities may be underestimated.
    Ongoing studies in the San Miguel population suggest that the lack 
of recruitment in Gunnison sage-grouse is likely due to predation (CDOW 
2009a, p. 31). In this area, 6 of 12 observed nests were destroyed by 
predation, with none of the chicks from the remaining nests surviving 
beyond two weeks (CDOW 2009a, p. 30). In small and declining 
populations, small changes to habitat abundance or quality, or in 
predator abundance, could have large consequences.
    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 greater sage-grouse 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

[[Page 59836]]

Hansen (1979, p. 954) showed that sage-grouse 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 smaller predators, 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 one 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 due to 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
    Predation has a strong relationship with anthropogenic factors on 
the landscape, and human presence on the landscape will continue to 
increase for the foreseeable future.
    Gunnison sage-grouse are adapted to minimize predation by cryptic 
plumage and behavior. Gunnison 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 (exurban development, road 
development, etc.) (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 also limit sage-grouse 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 
to the Gunnison sage-grouse at the landscape level (Coates 2007, p. 3-
5). Since the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse have such similar 
behavior and life-history traits, we believe the current impacts on 
Gunnison sage-grouse are at least as significant as those documented in 
greater sage-grouse and to date in Gunnison sage-grouse. Given the 
small population sizes and fragmented nature of the remaining Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat, we believe that the impacts of predation will 
likely be even greater as habitat fragmentation continues.
    The studies presented above for greater sage-grouse suggest that, 
in areas of intensive habitat alteration and fragmentation, sage-grouse 
productivity and, therefore, populations could be negatively affected 
by increasing predation. Nest predation may be higher, more variable, 
and have a greater impact on the small, fragmented Gunnison sage-grouse 
populations, particularly the six smallest populations (GSRSC 2005, p. 
134). Unfortunately, except for the relatively few studies presented 
here, data are lacking that link Gunnison sage-grouse population 
numbers and predator abundance. However, in at least six of the seven 
populations (Gunnison Basin potentially excluded), where habitats have 
been significantly altered by human activities, we believe that 
predation could be limiting Gunnison sage-grouse populations. As more 
habitats face development, even dispersed development such as that 
occurring throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, we expect this 
threat to spread and increase. Studies of the effectiveness of predator 
control have failed to demonstrate a long-term inverse relationship 
between the predator numbers and sage-grouse nesting success or 
population numbers. Therefore, we believe that predation is currently a 
threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse and will continue to be a threat to 
the species within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor C
    We have reviewed the available information on the effects of 
disease and predation on the Gunnison sage-grouse. The only disease 
that currently presents a potential impact to the Gunnison sage-grouse 
is West Nile virus. This virus is distributed throughout most of the 
species' range. However, despite its near 100 percent lethality, 
disease occurrence is sporadic in other taxa across the species' range 
and has not been detected to date in Gunnison sage-grouse. While we 
have no evidence of West Nile virus acting on the Gunnison sage-grouse, 
because of its presence within the species' range and the continued 
development of anthropogenic water sources in the area, the virus may 
pose a future threat to the species. We anticipate that West Nile virus 
will persist within the range of Gunnison sage-grouse indefinitely and 
will be exacerbated by any factor (e.g., climate change) that increases 
ambient temperatures and the presence of the vector on the landscape.
    We believe that existing and continued landscape fragmentation will 
increase the effects of predation on this species, particularly in the 
six smaller populations, resulting in a reduction in sage-grouse 
productivity and abundance in the future.
    We have evaluated the best available scientific information 
regarding disease and predation and their effects on the Gunnison sage-
grouse. Based on the information available, we have determined that 
predation is a significant threat to the species throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Furthermore, we determine that 
disease is not currently a significant threat but has the potential to 
become a significant threat at any time.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine whether threats to the Gunnison sage-
grouse are adequately addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms. 
Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for 
Gunnison sage-grouse include: (1) local land use laws, processes, and 
ordinances; (2) State laws and regulations; and (3) Federal laws and 
regulations. An example of a regulatory mechanism is the terms and 
conditions attached to a grazing permit that describe how a permittee 
will manage livestock on a BLM allotment. They are non-discretionary 
and enforceable, and are considered a regulatory mechanism under this 
analysis. Other examples include city or county ordinances, State 
governmental actions enforced under a State statute or constitution, or 
Federal action under statute. Actions adopted by local groups, States, 
or Federal entities that are discretionary or are not enforceable, 
including conservation

[[Page 59837]]

strategies and guidance, are typically not regulatory mechanisms.
    Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude the need for 
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). We cannot predict when or 
how local, State, and Federal laws, regulations, and policies will 
change; however, most Federal land use plans are valid for at least 20 
years. In this section we review actions undertaken by local, State, 
and Federal entities designed to reduce or remove threats to Gunnison 
sage-grouse and its habitat.

Local Laws and Regulations

    Rangewide approximately 41 percent of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat is privately owned (calculation from Table 1). Gunnison County 
and San Miguel County, Colorado, are the only local or County entities 
that have regulations and policy, respectively, that provide a level of 
conservation consideration for the Gunnison sage-grouse or its habitats 
on private land (Dolores County 2002; Mesa County 2003; Montrose County 
2003). In 2007, the Gunnison County, Colorado Board of County 
Commissioners approved Land Use Resolution (LUR) Number 07-17 to ensure 
all applications for land use change permits, including building 
permits, individual sewage disposal system permits, Gunnison County 
access permits, and Gunnison County Reclamation permits be reviewed for 
impact to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat within 1 km (0.6 mile) of an 
active lek. If impacts are determined to result from a project, impacts 
are to be avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. Approximately 79 
percent of private land occupied by the Gunnison Basin population is in 
Gunnison County, and thereby under the purview of these regulations. 
The remaining 21 percent of the private lands in the Gunnison Basin 
population is in Saguache County where similar regulations are not in 
place or applicable. Actions outside the 1 km (0.6 mi) buffer are not 
subject to Gunnison County LUR 07-17.
    Colorado State statute (C.R.S. 30-28-101) exempts parcels of land 
of 14 ha (35 ac) or more per home from regulation, so county zoning 
laws in Colorado such as LUR 07-17 only apply to properties with 
housing densities greater than one house per 14 ha (35 ac). This 
statute allows these parcels to be exempt from county regulation and 
may negatively affect Gunnison sage-grouse by allowing for further 
development, degradation, and loss of the species' habitat. A total of 
1,190 parcels, covering 16,351 ha (40,405 ac), within occupied habitat 
in Gunnison County currently contain development. Of those 1,190 
parcels, 851 are less than 14 ha (35 ac) in size and subject to County 
review. However, those 851 parcels encompass only 13.1 percent of 
private land area with existing development in occupied habitat within 
Gunnison County. Parcels greater than 14 ha (35 ac) in size (339 of the 
1,190) encompass 86.9 of the existing private land area within occupied 
habitat within Gunnison County. Cumulatively, 91 percent of the private 
land within the Gunnison County portion of the Gunnison Basin 
population that either has existing development or is potentially 
developable land is allocated in lots greater than 14 ha (35 ac) in 
size and therefore not subject to Gunnison County LUR 07-17. This 
situation limits the effectiveness of LUR 07-17 in providing protection 
to Gunnison sage-grouse in Gunnison County.
    The only required review by Gunnison County under LUR 07-17 
pertains to the construction of roads, driveways, and individual 
building permits. Of the 79 percent of area occupied by the Gunnison 
Basin population that falls within Gunnison County, 37 percent of the 
private land is not subject to the County LUR because the action would 
not be within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a lek. Gunnison County reviewed 231 
projects from July 2006 through November 2009 under the LUR for impacts 
to Gunnison sage-grouse. All but one project was within the overall 
boundary of the Gunnison Basin population's occupied habitat, with most 
of the activity focused in the northern portion of this population. All 
of these projects were approved and allowed to proceed. The majority of 
these projects were within established areas of development, and some 
were for activities such as outbuildings or additions to existing 
buildings; nonetheless, these projects provide an indication of further 
encroachment and fragmentation of the remaining occupied habitat. 
Nineteen percent (44) of the projects were within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a 
lek. Nineteen percent (45) of the projects contained language within 
the permit that established conditions for control of pets. The use of 
the 1-km (0.6-mi) buffer around the lek provides some conservation 
benefit to the grouse. This buffer is not as large as that recommended 
by GSRSC (2005 entire) to meet all the species' year-round life-history 
needs (6.4 km (4 mi)). Because research summarized in GSRSC (2005 
entire) has shown that impacts occur up to 6.4 km (4 mi) from the point 
of disturbance, these minimally or unregulated negative impacts will 
continue to fragment the habitat and thus have substantial impacts on 
the local, as well as landscape, conservation of the species. In 
summary, Gunnison County is to be highly commended for the regulatory 
steps they have implemented. However, the scope and implementation of 
that regulatory authority is limited in its ability to effectively and 
collectively conserve Gunnison sage-grouse due to the County's limited 
authority within the Gunnison Basin portion of the species' range.
    In 2005, San Miguel County amended its Land Use Codes to include 
consideration and implementation, to the extent possible, of 
conservation measures recommended in GSRSC (2005, entire) for the 
Gunnison sage-grouse when considering land use activities and 
development located within its habitat (San Miguel County 2005). The 
County is only involved when there is a request for a special use 
permit, which limits their involvement in review of projects adversely 
affecting Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat and providing 
recommendations. Conservation measures are solicited from the CDOW and 
a local Gunnison sage-grouse working group. Implementation of the 
conservation measure is dependent on negotiations between the County 
and the applicant. Some positive measures (e.g., locating a special use 
activity outside grouse habitat, establishing a 324-ha (800-ac) 
conservation easement; implementing speed limits to reduce likelihood 
of bird/vehicle collisions) have been implemented as a result of the 
policy. Typically, the County has not been involved with residential 
development, and most measures that result from discussions with 
applicants result in measures that the Service considers minimization, 
not mitigation measures, but which the County considers mitigation 
(Henderson 2010, pers. comm.). The San Miguel County Land Use Codes 
provide some conservation benefit to the species through some 
minimization of impacts and encouraging landowners to voluntarily 
minimize/mitigate impacts of residential development in grouse habitat. 
However, the codes allow for limited regulatory authority but are not 
sufficient to prevent or mitigate for the continued degradation and

[[Page 59838]]

fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.
    In addition to the county regulations, Gunnison County hired a 
Gunnison Sage-grouse Coordinator (2005 to present) and organized a 
Strategic Committee (2005 to present) to facilitate implementation of 
conservation measures in the Gunnison Basin under both the local 
Conservation Plan and Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) (GSRSC 2005). 
San Miguel County hired a Gunnison Sage-grouse Coordinator for the San 
Miguel Basin population in March 2006. The Crawford working group hired 
a Gunnison sage-grouse coordinator in December 2009. Saguache County 
has applied for a grant to hire a part-time coordinator for the Poncha 
Pass population (grant status still pending). These efforts facilitate 
coordination relative to sage-grouse management and reflect positively 
on these Counties' willingness to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse, but 
have no regulatory authority. None of the other Counties with Gunnison 
sage-grouse populations have regulations, or staff, that implement 
regulation or policy review that consider the conservation needs of 
Gunnison sage-grouse. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
that address habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation, in the other 
populations constitutes a threat to those populations.
    Conservation measures that have regulatory authority that have been 
implemented as a result of the aforementioned collective efforts 
include: closing of shed antler collection in the Gunnison Basin by the 
Colorado Wildlife Commission due to its disturbance of Gunnison sage-
grouse during the early breeding season; and a BLM/USFS/Gunnison 
County/CDOW collective effort to implement and enforce road closures 
during the early breeding season (March 15 to May 15). These regulatory 
efforts have provided benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse during the 
breeding season. However, these measures do not adequately address the 
primary threat to the species of fragmentation of the habitat.
    Habitat loss is not regulated or monitored in Colorado counties 
where Gunnison sage-grouse occur. Therefore, conversion of agricultural 
land from one use to another, such as native pasture containing 
sagebrush converted to another use, such as cropland, would not 
normally come before a county zoning commission. Based on the 
information we have available for the range of the species, we do not 
believe that habitat loss from conversion of sagebrush habitat to 
agricultural lands is occurring at a level that makes it a threat. The 
permanent loss, and associated fragmentation and degradation, of 
sagebrush habitat is considered the largest threat to Gunnison sage-
grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. 2). The minimally regulated residential/exurban 
development found throughout the vast majority of the species range is 
a primary cause of this loss, fragmentation, and degradation of 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We are not aware of any existing local 
regulatory mechanisms that adequately address this threat.
    We recognize that county or city ordinances in San Juan County, 
Utah, that address agricultural lands, transportation, and zoning for 
various types of land uses have the potential to influence sage-grouse. 
However, we are not aware of any existing County regulations that 
provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the 
Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat.
    Each of the seven populations of Gunnison sage-grouse has a 
Conservation Plan written by the respective local working group with 
publication dates of 1999 to 2009. These plans provide recommendations 
for management of Gunnison sage-grouse and have been the basis for 
identifying and prioritizing local conservation efforts, but do not 
provide regulatory protection for Gunnison sage-grouse or its habitat.

State Laws and Regulations

    State laws and regulations provide specific authority for sage-
grouse conservation over lands that are directly owned by the State, 
provide broad authority to regulate and protect wildlife on all lands 
within their borders, and provide a mechanism for indirect conservation 
through regulation of threats to the species (e.g., noxious weeds).
    Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33, Article 1 gives CDOW 
responsibility for the management and conservation of wildlife 
resources within State borders. Title 33 Article 1-101, Legislative 
Declaration requires a continuous operation of planning, acquisition, 
and development of wildlife habitats and facilities for wildlife-
related opportunities. The CDOW is required by statute (C.R.S. 106-7-
104) to provide counties with information on ``significant wildlife 
habitat,'' and provide technical assistance in establishing guidelines 
for designating and administering such areas, if asked. The CDOW also 
has authority to regulate possession of the Gunnison sage-grouse, set 
hunting seasons, and issue citations for poaching. These authorities 
provide individual Gunnison sage-grouse with protection from direct 
human-caused mortality to the level that hunting is not considered a 
threat to the species (see Factor B discussion, above). The Colorado 
Wildlife Commission is currently considering whether to include the 
Gunnison sage-grouse as an endangered or threatened species in 
accordance with Administrative Directive W-7 (State of Colorado, 2007, 
entire). These authorities do not regulate the primary threat to the 
species of fragmentation of habitat as described in Factor A.
    The Wildlife Resources Code of Utah (Title 23) provides UDWR the 
powers, duties, rights, and responsibilities to protect, propagate, 
manage, conserve, and distribute wildlife throughout the State. Section 
23-13-3 declares that wildlife existing within the State, not held by 
private ownership and legally acquired, is property of the State. 
Sections 23-14-18 and 23-14-19 authorize the Utah Wildlife Board to 
prescribe rules and regulations for the taking and/or possession of 
protected wildlife, including Gunnison sage-grouse. These authorities 
provide adequate protection to individual Gunnison sage-grouse from 
direct, human-caused mortality to the level that hunting is not 
considered a threat to the species (see Factor B discussion, above). 
However, these laws and regulations do not provide the regulatory 
authority needed to conserve sage-grouse habitats from the threats 
described in Factor A.
    Gunnison sage-grouse are managed by CDOW and UDWR on all lands 
within each State as resident native game birds. In both States this 
classification allows the direct human taking of the bird during 
hunting seasons authorized and conducted under State laws and 
regulations. In 2000, CDOW closed the hunting season for Gunnison sage-
grouse in the Gunnison Basin, the only area then open to hunting for 
the species. The hunting season for Gunnison sage-grouse in Utah has 
been closed since 1989. The Gunnison sage-grouse is listed as a species 
of special concern in Colorado, as a sensitive species in Utah, and as 
a Tier I species under the Utah Wildlife Action Plan, providing 
heightened priority for management (CDOW 2009a, p. 40; UDWR 2009, p. 
9). The Colorado Wildlife Commission is currently considering a 
proposal from CDOW to list the Gunnison sage-grouse as a State 
endangered or threatened species. State listed species will be the 
focus of conservation actions such as monitoring, research, 
enhancement, restoration, or inventory, and will receive preferential 
consideration in the

[[Page 59839]]

annual budget development process (State of Colorado, 2007, p. 1). 
Hunting and other State regulations that deal with issues such as 
harassment provide adequate protection for individual birds (see 
discussion under Factor B), but do not protect the habitat. While we 
strongly support the use of regulatory mechanisms to control hunting of 
the species, the protection afforded through the aforementioned State 
regulatory mechanisms is limited.
    Easements that prevent long-term or permanent habitat loss by 
prohibiting development are held by CDOW, UDWR, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), NPS, and non-governmental organizations 
(Table 4). Although the decision of whether to enter into a 
conservation easement is voluntary on the part of the landowner, 
conservation easements are legally binding documents. Therefore, we 
have determined that perpetual conservation easements offer some level 
of regulatory protection to the species. Some of the easements include 
conservation measures that are specific for Gunnison sage-grouse, while 
many are directed at other species, such as big game (GSRSC 2005, pp. 
59-103). Some of these easements protect existing Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat. Sixty-nine percent of the area under conservation easements 
have land cover types other than agricultural (covering 31 percent) 
that provide habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. However, considering 
that the total easements recorded to date cover only 5.1 percent of 
private lands rangewide, that not all easements have sage-grouse 
specific habitat or conservation measures, and their scattered 
distribution throughout the range of the species, we believe that while 
easements provide some level of protection from future development, 
they are not sufficient to ameliorate the threat of loss and 
fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We believe this to be 
true now and into the future, especially considering the costs of 
purchasing easements when compared to the cost paid for development of 
those lands, and money available through all sources to purchase 
easements. In addition, because entering into a conservation easement 
is voluntary on the part of the landowner, we cannot be sure that any 
future conservation easements will occur in such a configuration and 
magnitude that they will offer the species or its habitat substantial 
protection.

 Table 4. Area of conservation easements in hectares (ha) and acres (ac)
    by population and percentage of occupied habitat in conservation
                     easements as of September 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent of
                                                               Occupied
            Population               hectares      acres      Habitat in
                                                              Respective
                                                              Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison Basin                          11,334       28,008          4.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pi[ntilde]on Mesa                        4,270       10,551         27.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa          1,395        3,447          9.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monticello                               1,036        2,560          3.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Miguel Basin                           843        2,084          2.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dove Creek Group                           330          815          2.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford                                   249          616          1.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poncha Pass                                  0            0            0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangewide                               19,457       48,081          5.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CDOW has been implementing the CCAA referenced earlier in this 
document. As of February 2010, 4 landowners have completed Certificates 
of Inclusion (CI) for their properties enrolling 2,581 ha (6,377 ac). 
Because the Service issues a permit to applicants with an approved 
CCAA, we have some regulatory oversight over the implementation of the 
CCAA. However, permit holders and landowners can voluntarily opt out of 
the CCAA at any time. Thus, the CCAA provides important conservation 
measures that assist the species, and provides regulatory protection to 
enrolled landowners, but due to its voluntary nature, provides no 
regulatory protection. An additional 38 landowners (totaling 
approximately 18,211 ha (45,000 ac) within Gunnison sage-grouse 
occupied habitat), have worked with the CDOW to complete baseline 
reports in preparation for issuance of CIs. The reports describe 
property infrastructure and number of acres of Gunnison sage-grouse 
seasonal habitat. A CDOW review of all these reports and the condition 
of the habitat is pending. The CCAA/CI efforts described in this 
paragragh will provide conservation benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse 
throughout their range where they are in place (27 in the Gunnison 
Basin, 3 in San Miguel, 2 in Crawford, 5 in Pinon Mesa, 1 in Dove 
Creek). Even assuming the area of all landowners expressing interest 
and with completed baselines will ultimately be covered under CIs, the 
fact remains that these properties constitute only 13 percent of the 
total private land throughout the species range and that they are 
scattered throughout the species range. Therefore, we do not believe 
the CCAA/CI efforts would provide adequate regulatory coverage to 
ensure the long-term conservation of the species on private lands.
    On April 22, 2009, the Governor of Colorado signed into law new 
rules (House Bill 1298) 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

[[Page 59840]]

operators determine whether their proposed development location 
overlaps with ``sensitive wildlife habitat,'' or is within a restricted 
surface occupancy (RSO) area. For Gunnison sage-grouse, areas within 1 
km (0.6 mi) of an active lek can be designated as RSOs (CDOW 2009a, p. 
27), and surface area occupancy will be avoided except in cases of 
economic or technical infeasibility (CDOW 2009a, p. 27). Areas within 
approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) of an active lek are considered sensitive 
wildlife habitat (CDOW 2009a, p. 27) and the development proponent is 
required to consult with the CDOW to identify measures to (1) avoid 
impacts on wildlife resources, including sage-grouse; (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. As stated in Section 1202.d of the new 
rules, consultation with CDOW is not required under certain 
circumstances such as, the issuance of a variance by the Director of 
the COGCC, the existence of a previously CDOW-approved wildlife 
mitigation plan, and others. Other categories for potential exemptions 
also can be found in the new rules (e.g., 1203.b).
    Because the new rules have only been in place for less than a year 
and their implementation is still being discussed, it remains to be 
seen what level of protection will be afforded to Gunnison sage-grouse. 
The new rules could provide for greater consideration of the 
conservation needs of the species. 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. We 
are not aware of any situations where RSOs have been effectively 
applied or where conservation measures have been implemented for 
potential oil and gas development impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse on 
private lands underlain with privately owned minerals, which are 
regulated by the appropriate governing bodies.
    Colorado and Utah have laws that directly address the priorities 
for use of State school section lands, which require that management of 
these properties be based on maximizing financial returns. State school 
section lands account for only one percent of occupied habitat in 
Colorado and one percent in Utah, so impacts may be considered 
negligible. We are not aware of any conservation measures that will be 
implemented under regulatory authority for Gunnison sage-grouse on 
State school section lands, other than a request to withdraw or apply 
``no surface occupancy'' and conservation measures from the RCP (GSRSC 
2005) to four sections available for oil and gas leasing in the San 
Miguel Basin population (see Factor A for further discussion). The 
State Land Board (SLB) recently purchased the Miramonte Meadows 
property (approximately 809 ha (2,000 ac) next to the Dan Noble State 
Wildlife Area (SWA). Roughly 526 ha (1,300 ac) is considered prime 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Garner 2010, pers. comm.). Discussions 
with the SLB have indicated a willingness to implement habitat 
improvements (juniper removal) on the property. They have also accepted 
an application to designate the tract as a ``Stewardship Trust'' 
parcel. The Stewardship Trust program is capped at 119,383 to 121,406 
ha (295,000 to 300,000 ac), and no more property can be added until 
another tract is removed from the program. Because of this cap, it is 
unknown if or when the designation of the tract as a Stewardship Trust 
parcel may occur. The scattered nature of State school sections (single 
sections) across the landscape and the requirement to conduct 
activities to maximize financial returns minimize the likelihood of 
implementation of measures that will benefit Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Thus, mechanisms present on State trust lands are inadequate to 
minimize degradation and fragmentation of habitat and thus ensure 
conservation of the species.
    Some States require landowners to control noxious weeds, a 
potential habitat threat to sage-grouse (as discussed in Factor A). The 
types of plants considered to be noxious weeds vary by State. 
Cheatgrass is listed as a Class C species in Colorado (Colorado 
Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 3). The Class C designation 
delegates to local governments the choice of whether or not to 
implement activities for the control of cheatgrass. Gunnison, Saguache, 
and Hinsdale Counties target cheatgrass with herbicide applications 
(GWWC 2009, pp. 2- 3). The CDOW annually sprays for weeds on SWAs (CDOW 
2009a, p. 106). The State of Utah does not consider cheatgrass as 
noxious within the State (Utah Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 1) 
nor in San Juan County (Utah Department of Agriculture 2010a, p. 1). 
The laws dealing with other noxious and invasive weeds may provide some 
protection for sage-grouse in local areas by requiring some control of 
the invasive plants, although large-scale control of the most 
problematic invasive plants is not occurring. Rehabilitation and 
restoration techniques for sagebrush habitats are mostly unproven and 
experimental (Pyke in press, p. 25). Regulatory authority has not been 
demonstrated to be effective in addressing the overall impacts of 
invasive plants on the degradation and fragmentation of sagebrush 
habitat within the species range.

Federal Laws and Regulations

    Gunnison sage-grouse are not covered or managed under the 
provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712) because 
they are considered resident game species. Federal agencies are 
responsible for managing 54 percent of the total Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat. The Federal agencies with the most sagebrush habitat are BLM, 
an agency of the Department of the Interior, and USFS, an agency of the 
Department of Agriculture. The NPS in the Department of the Interior 
also has responsibility for lands that contain Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat.
BLM
    About 42 percent of Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat is on 
BLM-administered land (Table 1 details percent ownership within each 
population). 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. Section 102(a)(8) of FLPMA specifically 
recognizes wildlife and fish resources as being among the uses for 
which these lands are to be managed. Regulations pursuant to FLPMA and 
the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) that address wildlife 
habitat protection on BLM-administered land include 43 CFR 3162.3-1 and 
43 CFR 3162.5-1; 43 CFR 4120 et seq.; and 43 CFR 4180 et seq.
    Gunnison sage-grouse have been designated as a BLM Sensitive 
Species since they were first identified and described in 2000 (BLM 
2009, p. 7). The management guidance afforded sensitive species under 
BLM Manual 6840 - Special Status Species Management (BLM 2008, entire) 
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 2008, p. 05V). BLM 
Manual 6840 further requires

[[Page 59841]]

that Resource Management Plans (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 2008, 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 
BLM-administered lands and resources. They establish allowable resource 
uses, resource condition goals and objectives to be attained, program 
constraints and general management practices needed to attain the goals 
and objectives, general implementation sequences, and intervals and 
standards for monitoring and evaluating the plan to determine its 
effectiveness and the need for amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601.0-
5(k)).
    The RMPs provide a framework and programmatic guidance for activity 
plans, which are site-specific plans written to implement decisions 
made in a RMP. Examples include Allotment Management Plans that address 
livestock grazing, oil and gas field development, travel management 
(motorized and mechanized road and trail use), and wildlife habitat 
management. Activity plan decisions normally require additional 
planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. If an 
RMP contains specific direction regarding sage-grouse habitat, 
conservation, or management, it represents an enforceable regulatory 
mechanism to ensure that the species and its habitats are considered 
during permitting and other decision-making on BLM lands.
    The BLM manages Gunnison sage-grouse habitat under five existing 
RMPs. These RMPs contain some specific measures or direction pertinent 
to management of Gunnison sage-grouse or their habitats. Three of these 
RMPs (San Juan, Grand Junction, and Uncompahgre- covering all or 
portions of the San Miguel, Pinon Mesa, Crawford, and Cerro Summit-
Cimarron-Sims Mesa populations, and the Dove Creek group) are in 
various stages of revision. All RMPs currently propose some 
conservation measures (measures that if implemented should provide a 
level of benefit to Gunnison sage-grouse) outlined in GSRSC (2005, 
entire) or local Gunnison sage-grouse Conservation Plans through 
project- or activity-level NEPA reviews (BLM 2009, p. 6). In addition, 
several offices have undergone other program-level planning, such as 
travel management, that incorporate some conservation measures to 
benefit the species (BLM 2009, p. 6). However, the information provided 
to us by the BLM in Colorado did not specify what requirements, 
direction, measures, or guidance will ultimately be included in the 
revised Colorado RMPs to address threats to sage-grouse and sagebrush 
habitat. Additionally we do not know the effectiveness of these 
proposed measures.
    We do not have information on RMP implementation by Utah BLM. 
Therefore, we cannot assess the future value of BLM RMPs as regulatory 
mechanisms for the conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse. Current 
BLM RMPs provide some limited regulatory authority as they are being 
implemented through project-level planning (e.g., travel management 
(the management of the motorized and nonmotorized use of public lands) 
and grazing permit renewals). We do not know the final measures that 
will be included in the revised RMPs and therefore what will be 
implemented, so we cannot evaluate their effectiveness. Based on 
modeling results demonstrating the effects of roads on Gunnison sage-
grouse (Aldridge and Saher 2010 entire - discussed in detail in Factor 
A), we believe that implementation of even the most restrictive travel 
management alternatives proposed by the BLM and USFS will still result 
in further degradation and fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat in the Gunnison Basin.
    In addition to land use planning, BLM uses Instruction Memoranda 
(IM) to provide instruction to district and field offices regarding 
specific resource issues. Instruction Memoranda are guidance that 
require a process to be followed but do not mandate results. 
Additionally, IMs are of short duration (1 to 2 years) and are intended 
to address resource concerns by providing direction to staff until a 
threat passes or the resource issue can be addressed in a long-term 
planning document. BLM issued IM Number CO-2005-038 on July 12, 2005, 
stating BLM's intent and commitment to assist with and participate in 
the implementation of the RCP. Although this IM has not been formally 
updated or reissued, it continues to be used for BLM-administered lands 
in the State (BLM 2009, p. 6).
    The BLM has regulatory authority for oil and gas leasing on Federal 
lands and on private lands with a severed Federal mineral estate, as 
provided at 43 CFR 3100 et seq., and they are authorized to require 
stipulations as a condition of issuing a lease. The BLM's planning 
handbook has program-specific guidance for fluid minerals (which 
include oil and gas) that specifies that RMP decisions will identify 
restrictions on areas subject to leasing, including closures, as well 
as lease stipulations (BLM 2000, Appendix C, p.16). The handbook also 
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 2000, Appendix C, p. 16). The BLM has regulatory authority 
to condition ``Application for Permit to Drill'' authorizations, 
conducted under a lease that does not contain specific sage-grouse 
conservation stipulations, but utilization of conditions is 
discretionary and we are uncertain as to how this authority will be 
applied. Also, oil and gas leases have a 200-m (650-ft) stipulation, 
which allows movement of the drilling area by that distance to avoid 
sensitive resources. Many of the BLM field offices work with the 
operators to move a proposed drilling site farther or justify such a 
move through the site-specific NEPA process.
    For existing oil and gas leases on BLM land in occupied Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat, oil and gas companies can conduct drilling 
operations if they wish, but are always subject to permit conditions. 
The BLM has stopped issuing new drilling leases in occupied sage-grouse 
habitat in Colorado at least until the new RMPs are in place. All 
occupied habitat in the Crawford Area and Gunnison Basin populations 
are covered by this policy. However, leases already exist in 17 percent 
of the Pinon Mesa population, and 49 percent of the San Miguel Basin 
population. Given the already small and fragmented nature of the 
populations where oil and gas leases are likely to occur, additional 
development within occupied habitat would negatively impact those 
populations by causing additional actual and functional habitat loss 
and fragmentation. Since we do not know what minimization and 
mitigation measures might be applied, we cannot assess the overall 
conservation impacts to those populations.
    The oil and gas leasing regulations authorize BLM to modify or 
waive lease terms and stipulations if the authorized officer determines 
that the factors leading to inclusion of the term or stipulation have 
changed sufficiently to no longer justify protection, or if proposed 
operations would not cause unacceptable impacts (43 CFR 3101.1-

[[Page 59842]]

4). The Service has no information indicating that the BLM has granted 
any waivers of stipulations pertaining to the Gunnison sage-grouse and 
their habitat.
    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000 included provisions 
requiring the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to conduct a 
scientific inventory of all onshore Federal lands to identify oil and 
gas resources underlying these lands and the nature and extent of any 
restrictions or impediments to the development of such resources 
(U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 77, Sec. 6217(a)). On May 18, 2001, President 
Bush signed Executive Order 13212-Actions to Expedite Energy-Related 
Projects (66 FR 28357, May 22, 2001), 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 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. Due to the relatively small amount of energy development 
activities occurring within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (with the 
exception of the Dry Creek Basin subpopulation of the San Miguel 
population), we believe that energy development activities are not a 
significant threat. However, given scenarios such as Dry Creek Basin, 
if the level of energy development activities should increase, current 
regulations and policies do not provide adequate regulatory protection 
to prevent oil and gas development from becoming a threat to this 
subpopulation.
    As stated previously, Gunnison sage-grouse are considered a BLM 
Sensitive Species and therefore receive Special Status Species 
management considerations. The BLM regulatory authority for grazing 
management is 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 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)). The State 
or regional standards for grazing administration must address habitat 
for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, or special status 
species, and habitat quality for native plant and animal populations 
and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). The guidelines must 
address restoring, maintaining, or enhancing habitats of BLM special 
status species to promote their conservation, as well as maintaining or 
promoting the physical and biological conditions to sustain native 
populations and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and (10). The BLM is 
required to take appropriate action not 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 agreed to work with their resource advisory councils to 
expand the rangeland health standards required under 43 CFR 4180 so 
that there are public land health standards relevant to all ecosystems, 
not just rangelands, and that they apply to all BLM actions, not just 
livestock grazing (BLM Manual 180.06.A). Both Colorado and Utah have 
resource advisory councils. Within the Gunnison Basin population, 16 
percent of the BLM and USFS allotment management plans in occupied 
habitat currently have incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 
objectives (USFWS, 2010c, entire). Rangewide, of the offices providing 
information specific to allotment management plans, only 24 percent of 
148 BLM and USFS grazing allotments have thus far incorporated Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat objectives into the allotment management plans or 
in permit renewals. Land health objectives were being met in 37 of the 
80 (46 percent) BLM active allotments for which data were reported. 
Land Health Assessments (LHAs) were not conducted in an additional 20 
allotments.
    The BLM Gunnison Field Office conducted Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat assessments in two major occupied habitat locations in the 
Gunnison Basin population quantifying vegetation structural 
characteristics and plant species diversity. Data were collected and 
compared to Gunnison sage-grouse Structural Habitat Guidelines (GSRSC, 
2005, Appendix H) during optimal growing conditions in these two major 
occupied areas. Guidelines for sage cover, grass cover, forb cover, 
sagebrush height, grass height, and forb height were met in 45, 30, 25, 
75, 81, and 39 percent, respectively, of 97 transects (BLM 2009, pp. 
31-32). Using the results of the two assessments along with results 
from LHAs, habitat conditions are not being adequately managed to meet 
the life history requirements of Gunnison sage-grouse in the majority 
of the Gunnison Basin. Only 40 percent of the allotments in the San 
Miguel population were meeting LHA objectives. This data suggests that 
regulatory mechanisms applied within livestock grazing permits and 
leases are not being implemented such that they ensure that habitats 
within two of the largest Gunnison sage-grouse populations are making 
significant progress toward being restored or maintained for Gunnison 
sage-grouse.
USFS
    The USFS manages 10 percent of the occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat (Table 1). Management of 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). The NFMA specifies that all 
National Forests 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. 
The NFMA requires USFS to incorporate standards and guidelines into 
LRMPs (16 U.S.C. 1600). USFS conducts NEPA analysis on its LRMPs, which 
include provisions to manage plant and animal communities for 
diversity, based on the suitability and capability of the specific land 
area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives. The USFS 
planning process is similar to that of BLM.
    The Gunnison sage-grouse is a USFS sensitive species in both Region 
2 (Colorado) and Region 4 (Utah). USFS policy provides direction to 
analyze potential impacts of proposed management activities to 
sensitive species in a biological evaluation. The forests within the 
range of sage-grouse provide important seasonal habitats for the 
species, particularly the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison (GMUG) 
National Forests. The 1991 Amended Land and Resource Management Plan 
for the GMUG National Forests has not directly incorporated Gunnison 
sage-grouse conservation measures or habitat objectives. The Regional 
Forester signed the RCP and as such has agreed to follow and implement 
those recommendations. Three of the 34 grazing allotments in occupied 
grouse habitat have incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 
objectives. To date USFS has not deferred or withdrawn oil and gas 
leasing in occupied habitat, but sage-grouse conservation measures can 
be included at the ``Application for Permit to Drill'' stage. The BLM, 
which regulates oil and gas leases on USFS lands, has the authority to 
defer leases.

[[Page 59843]]

 However, the only population within USFS lands that is in areas of 
high or even medium potential for oil and gas reserves is the San 
Miguel Basin, and USFS lands only make up 1.4 percent of that 
population (GSRSC 2005, D-8). While consideration as a sensitive 
species and following the recommendations contained in the Gunnison 
sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (GSRSC 2005, entire) can 
provide some conservation benefits, they are voluntary in nature. 
Considering the aforementioned, the USFS has minimal regulatory 
authority that has been implemented to provide for the long-term 
conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat.
NPS
    The NPS manages two percent of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat (Table 1), which means that there is little opportunity for the 
agency to affect range-wide conservation of the species. The NPS 
Organic Act (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, and 4) states that NPS 
will administer areas under their jurisdiction ``by such means and 
measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of said parks, 
monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery 
and the natural and historical objects and the wild life therein and to 
provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means 
as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
generations.'' Lands in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 
and the Curecanti National Recreation Area include portions of occupied 
habitat of the Crawford and Gunnison Basin populations. The 1993 Black 
Canyon of the Gunnison Resource Management Plan (NPS 1993, entire) and 
the 1995 Curecanti National Recreation Area Resource Management Plan 
(NPS 1995, entire) do not identify any specific conservation measures 
for Gunnison sage-grouse. However, these Resource Management Plans are 
outdated and will be replaced with Resource Stewardship Strategies, 
which will be developed in the next five to seven years. In the mean 
time, NPS ability to actively manage for species of special concern is 
not limited by the scope of their management plans.
    NPS completed a Fire Management Plan in 2006 (NPS 2006, entire). 
Both prescribed fire and fire use (allowing wildfires to burn) are 
identified as a suitable use in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. However, 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is identified as a Category C area, 
meaning that while fire is a desirable component of the ecosystem, 
ecological constraints must be observed. For Gunnison sage-grouse, 
constraints include limitation of acreage burned per year and 
limitation of percent of project polygons burned. The NPS is currently 
following conservation measures in the local conservation plans and the 
RCP (Stahlnecker 2010, pers. comm.).
    In most cases, implementation of NPS fire management policies 
should result in minimal adverse effects since emphasis is placed on 
activities that will minimize, or ideally benefit, impacts to Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat. Overall, implementation of NPS regulations should 
minimize impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. Certain activities, such as 
human recreation activities occurring within occupied habitat, may have 
adverse effects, although we believe the limited nature of such 
activities on NPS lands would limit their impacts on the species and 
thus not be considered a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. Grazing 
management activities on NPS lands are governed by BLM regulations and 
their implementation.
Summary of Factor D
    Gunnison sage-grouse conservation has been addressed in some local, 
State, and Federal plans, laws, regulations, and policies. Gunnison 
County has implemented regulatory authority over development within 
their area of jurisdiction, for which they are to be highly commended. 
No other counties within the range of the species have implemented such 
regulations. While regulations implemented in Gunnison County have 
minimized some impacts, it has not curtailed the habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and degradation occurring within the County's 
jurisidictional boundary. Due to the limited scope and applicability of 
these regulations throughout the range of the species and within all 
populations, the current local land use or development planning 
regulations do not provide adequate regulatory authority to protect 
sage-grouse from development or other harmful land uses that result in 
habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. The CDOW and UDWR have 
implemented and continue to pursue conservation easements in Colorado 
and Utah, respectively, to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and 
meet the species' needs. These easements provide protection for the 
species where they occur, but do not cover enough of the landscape to 
provide for long-term conservation of the species. State wildlife 
regulations provide protection for individual Gunnison sage-grouse from 
direct mortality due to hunting but do not protect its habitat from the 
main threat of loss and fragmentation. Our assessment of the 
implementation of regulations and associated stipulations guiding 
exurban development indicates that current regulatory measures do not 
adequately ameliorate impacts to sage-grouse and its habitat.
    Energy development is only considered a threat in the Dry Creek 
Basin subpopulation of the San Miguel population. For the BLM and USFS, 
RMPs and LRMPs are mechanisms through which adequate and enforceable 
protections for Gunnison sage-grouse could be implemented. However, the 
extent to which appropriate measures to reduce or eliminate threats to 
sage-grouse resulting from the various activites the agencies manage 
have been incorporated into those planning documents, or are being 
implemented, vary 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 Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitats on their lands.
    We have evaluated the best available scientific information on the 
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms to address threats to Gunnison sage-
grouse and its habitats. While 54 percent of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat is managed by Federal agencies, these lands are interspersed 
with private lands, which do not have adequate regulatory mechanisms to 
ameliorate the further loss and fragmentation of habitat in all 
populations. This interspersion of private lands throughout Federal and 
other public lands extends the negative influence of those activities 
beyond the actual 41 percent of occupied habitat that private lands 
overlay. While we are unable to quantify the extent of the impacts on 
Federal lands resulting from activities on private lands, we have 
determined that the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms on private 
lands as they pertain to human infrastructure development and the 
inadequate implementation of Federal authorities on some Federal lands 
pose a significant threat to the species throughout its range. Further, 
the threat of inadequate regulatory mechanisms is expected to continue 
or even increase in the future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Other factors potentially affecting the Gunnison sage-grouse's 
continued existence include genetic risks, drought, recreational 
activities, pesticides and herbicides, and contaminants.

[[Page 59844]]

Genetics and Small Population Size

    Small populations face three primary genetic risks: inbreeding 
depression; loss of genetic variation; and accumulation of new 
mutations. Inbreeding can have individual and population consequences 
by either increasing the phenotypic expression of recessive, 
deleterious alleles (the expression of harmful genes through the 
physical appearance) or by reducing the overall fitness of individuals 
in the population (GSRSC 2005, p.109 and references therein). At the 
species level, Gunnison sage-grouse have low levels of genetic 
diversity particularly when compared to greater sage-grouse (Oyler-
McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). There is no consensus regarding how large 
a population must be in order to prevent inbreeding depression. 
However, the San Miguel Basin Gunnison sage-grouse effective population 
size was below the level at which inbreeding depression has been 
observed to occur (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 479). Lowered hatching 
success is a well documented correlate of inbreeding in wild bird 
populations (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 479 and references therein). Stiver 
et al. (2008, p. 479) suggested the observed lowered hatching success 
rate of Gunnison sage-grouse in their study may be caused by inbreeding 
depression. Similarities of hatchability rates exist among other bird 
species that had undergone genetic bottlenecks. The application of the 
same procedures of effective population size estimation as used for the 
San Miguel Basin to the other Gunnison sage-grouse populations 
indicated that all populations other than the Gunnison Basin population 
may have population sizes low enough to induce inbreeding depression; 
and all populations could be losing adaptive potential (Stiver et al. 
2008, p. 479).
    Population structure of Gunnison sage-grouse was investigated using 
mitochondrial DNA sequence (mtDNA, maternally inherited DNA located in 
cellular organelles called mitochondria) and nuclear microsatellite 
data from seven geographic areas (Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, 
Crawford, Gunnison Basin, Curecanti area of the Gunnison Basin, 
Monticello-Dove Creek, Pinon Mesa, and San Miguel Basin) (Oyler-McCance 
et al. 2005, entire). The Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population 
was not included in the analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. The 
Poncha Pass population also was not included as it is composed of 
individuals transplanted from Gunnison Basin. Oyler-McCance et al. 
(2005, entire) found that levels of genetic diversity were highest in 
the Gunnison Basin, which consistently had more alleles and most of the 
alleles present in other populations. All other populations had much 
lower levels of diversity.
    The lower diversity levels are linked to small population sizes and 
a high degree of geographic isolation. Collectively, the smaller 
populations contain 24 percent of the genetic diversity of the species. 
Individually, each of the small populations may not be important 
genetically to the survival of the species, but collectively it is 
likely that 24 percent of the genetic diversity is important to future 
rangewide survival of the species. Some of the genetic makeup contained 
within the smaller populations (with the potential exception of the 
Poncha Pass population since it consists of birds from the Gunnison 
Basin) may be critical to maintaining adaptability in the face of 
issues such as climate change or other environmental change. All 
populations sampled were found to be genetically discrete units (Oyler-
McCance et al. 2005, p. 635), so the loss of any of them would result 
in a decrease in genetic diversity of the species. In addition, 
multiple populations across a broad geographic area provide insurance 
against a single catastrophic event (such as the effects of a 
significant drought even), and the aggregate number of individuals 
across all populations increases the probability of demographic 
persistence and preservation of overall genetic diversity by providing 
an important genetic reservoir (GSRSC 2005, p. 179). Consequently, the 
loss of any one population would have a negative effect on the species 
as a whole.
    Historically, the Monticello-Dove Creek, San Miguel, Crawford, and 
Pinon Mesa populations were larger and were connected through more 
contiguous areas of sagebrush habitat. A 20 percent loss of habitat and 
37 percent fragmentation of sagebrush habitat was documented in 
southwestern Colorado between the late 1950s and the early 1990s 
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p.), which led to the current isolation of 
these populations and is consistent with the documented low amounts of 
gene flow and isolation by distance (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 
635). However, Oyler-McCance et al. (2005, p. 636) noted that a few 
individuals in their analysis appeared to have the genetic 
characteristics of a population other than their own, suggesting they 
were dispersers from a different population. Two probable dispersers 
were individuals moving from San Miguel into Monticello-Dove Creek and 
Crawford. The San Miguel population itself appeared to have a mixture 
of individuals with differing probabilities of belonging to different 
clusters. This information suggests that the San Miguel population may 
act as a conduit of gene flow among the satellite populations 
surrounding the larger Gunnison Basin population. Additionally, another 
potential disperser into Crawford was found from the Gunnison Basin 
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 636). This result is not surprising 
given their close geographic proximity.
    Effective population size (Ne) is an important parameter in 
conservation biology. It is defined as the size of an idealized 
population of breeding adults that would experience the same rate of 
(1) loss of heterozygosity (the amount and number of different genes 
within individuals in a population), (2) change in the average 
inbreeding coefficient (a calculation of the amount of breeding by 
closely related individuals), or (3) change in variance in allele (one 
member if a pair or series of genes occupying a specific position in a 
specific chromosome) frequency through genetic drift (the fluctuation 
in gene frequency occurring in an isolated population) as the actual 
population. The effective size of a population is often much less than 
its actual size or number of individuals. As effective population size 
decreases, the rate of loss of allelic diversity via genetic drift 
increases. Two consequences of this loss of genetic diversity, reduced 
fitness through inbreeding depression and reduced response to sustained 
directional selection (``adaptive potential''), are thought to elevate 
extinction risk (Stiver et al., 2008, p. 472 and references therein). 
While no consensus exists on the population size needed to retain a 
level of genetic diversity that maximizes evolutionary potential (i.e., 
the ability to adapt to local changes), up to 5,000 greater sage-grouse 
may be necessary to maintain an effective population size of 500 birds 
(Aldridge and Brigham, 2003, p. 30). Other recent recommendations also 
suggest populations of at least 5,000 individuals to deal with 
evolutionary and demographic constraints (Trail et al. 2009, in press, 
p. 3, and references therein). While the persistence of wild 
populations is usually influenced more by ecological rather than by 
genetic effects, once they are reduced in size, genetic factors become 
increasingly important (Lande 1995, p. 318).
    The CDOW contracted for a population viability analysis (PVA) for 
the Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, Appendix G). The purpose of the 
Gunnison sage-grouse PVA was to assist

[[Page 59845]]

the CDOW in evaluating the relative risk of extinction for each 
population under the conditions at that time (i.e., the risk of 
extinction if nothing changed), to estimate relative extinction 
probabilities and loss of genetic diversity over time for various 
population sizes, and to determine the sensitivity of Gunnison sage-
grouse population growth rates to various demographic parameters (GSRSC 
2005, p. 169). The PVA was used as a tool to predict the relative, not 
absolute or precise, probability of extinction for the different 
populations under various management scenarios based on information 
available at that time and with the understanding that no data were 
available to determine how demographic rates would be affected by 
habitat loss or fragmentation. The analysis indicated that small 
populations (< 50 birds) are at a serious risk of extinction within the 
next 50 years (assuming some degree of consistency of environmental 
influences in sage-grouse demography). In contrast, populations in 
excess of 500 birds had an extinction risk of less than 5 percent 
within the same time period. These results suggested that the Gunnison 
Basin population is likely to persist long term in the absence of 
threats acting on it. In the absence of intervention, the Cerro Summit-
Cimarron-Sims Mesa and Poncha Pass populations and the Dove Creek group 
of the Monticello-Dove Creek population were likely to become 
extirpated (GSRSC 2005, pp. 168-179). Based on 2009 population 
estimates and an overall declining population trend, the same three 
populations may soon be extirpated. Additionally, Gunnison sage-grouse 
estimates in the Crawford and Pinon Mesa populations have declined by 
over 50 percent since the PVA was conducted (Table 2), so they too are 
likely trending towards extirpation. The San Miguel population has 
declined by 40 percent since 2004, so cumulative factors may be 
combining to cause its future extirpation also.
    The lack of large expanses of sagebrush habitat required by 
Gunnison sage-grouse in at least six of the seven Gunnison sage-grouse 
populations (as discussed in Factor A), combined with the results of 
the PVA and current population trends suggest that at least five, and 
most likely six, of the seven Gunnison sage-grouse populations are at 
high risk of extirpation. The loss of genetic diversity from the 
extirpation of the aforementioned populations would result in a loss of 
genetic diversity of the species as a whole and thus contribute to 
decreased functionality of these remaining populations in maintaining 
viability and adaptability, as well as the contribution of these 
populations to connectivity and the continued existence of the entire 
species.
    Six of the seven Gunnison sage-grouse populations may have 
effective sizes low enough to induce inbreeding depression and all 
seven could be losing adaptive potential, with the assumption that the 
five populations smaller than the San Miguel population are exhibiting 
similar demography to the San Miguel population (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 
479) and thus trending towards extirpation. Stiver et al. (2008, p. 
479) suggested that long-term persistence of the six smaller 
populations would require translocations to supplement genetic 
diversity. The only population currently providing individuals to be 
translocated is the Gunnison Basin population, but because of 
substantial population declines such as those observed between the 2001 
and 2004 lek counts (Stiver et al., 2008, p. 479), significant 
questions arise as to whether this population would be able to sustain 
the loss of individuals required by translocations. Lek counts, and 
consequently population estimates, especially in the San Miguel Basin 
and Gunnison Basin populations, have undergone substantial declines 
(Table 2) since peaks observed in the annual 2004 and 2005 counts, thus 
making inbreeding depression even more likely to be occurring within 
all populations except the Gunnison Basin. While we recognize that 
sage-grouse population sizes are cyclical, and that there are concerns 
about the statistical reliability of lek counts and the resulting 
population estimates (CDOW 2009a, pp. 1-3), we nonetheless believe that 
the overall declining trends of 6 of the 7 Gunnison sage-grouse 
populations, and for the species as a whole, are such that they are 
having a significant impact on the species' ability to persist.
    In summary, the declines in estimates of grouse numbers since 2005 
are likely to contribute to even lower levels of genetic diversity and 
higher levels of inbreeding depression than previously considered, thus 
making the species as a whole less adaptable to environmental variables 
and more vulnerable to extirpation. Based on the information presented 
above, we have determined that genetic risks related to the small 
population size of Gunnison sage-grouse are a threat to the species now 
and in the foreseeable future.

Drought

    Drought is a common occurrence throughout the range of the Gunnison 
and greater sage-grouse (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 km\2\ (982 mi\2\) 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 potential increased risk of virus infections, such as the 
West Nile virus. 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 et al. 2007, p. 1781).
    Greater sage-grouse populations declined during the 1930s period of 
drought (Patterson 1952, pp. 68-69; 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). Although drought has been a consistent 
and natural part of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, drought impacts on 
sage-grouse can be exacerbated when combined with other habitat 
impacts, such as human developments, that reduce cover and food (Braun 
1998, p. 148).
    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 
greater 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).
    Gunnison sage-grouse are capable of enduring moderate or severe, 
but relatively short-term, drought as observed from persistence of the

[[Page 59846]]

populations during drought conditions from 1999-2003 throughout much of 
the range. The drought that began by at least 2001 and was most severe 
in 2002 had varying impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and is 
discussed in detail in our April 18, 2006, finding (71 FR 19954). 
Habitat appeared to be negatively affected by drought across a broad 
area of the Gunnison sage-grouse's range. However, the reduction of 
sagebrush density in some areas, allowing for greater herbaceous growth 
and stimulating the onset of sagebrush seed crops may have been 
beneficial to sagebrush habitats over the long term. Six of the seven 
grouse populations (except for the Gunnison Basin population) have 
decreased in number since counts were conducted during the drought year 
of 2002 (Table 2). Data are not available to scientifically determine 
if the declines are due to the drought alone. The current status of the 
various populations throughout the species' range make it highly 
susceptible to stochastic factors such as drought, particularly when it 
is acting in conjunction with other factors such as habitat 
fragmentation, small population size, predation, and low genetic 
diversity. We believe that the available information is too speculative 
to conclude that drought alone is a threat to the species at this time; 
however, based on rapid species decline in drought years, it is likely 
that drought exacerbates other known threats and thus is an indirect 
threat to the species.

Recreation

    Studies have determined that nonconsumptive recreational activities 
can degrade wildlife resources, water, and the land by distributing 
refuse, disturbing and displacing wildlife, increasing animal 
mortality, and simplifying plant communities (Boyle and Samson 1985, 
pp. 110-112). Sage-grouse response to disturbance may be influenced by 
the type of activity, recreationist behavior, predictability of 
activity, frequency and magnitude, timing, and activity location 
(Knight and Cole 1995, p. 71). We have not located any published 
literature concerning measured direct effects of recreational 
activities on Gunnison or greater sage-grouse, but can infer potential 
impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse from studies on related species and 
from research on nonrecreational 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. 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).
    Recreational use of off-highway vehicles (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). Knick et al. (in press, p. 1) reported that widespread 
motorized access for recreation facilitated the spread of predators 
adapted to humans and 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, local working groups 
considered recreational uses, such as off-road vehicle use and biking, 
to be a risk factor in many areas.
    Recreation from OHVs, hikers, mountain bikes, campers, snowmobiles, 
bird watchers, and other sources has affected many parts of the range, 
especially portions of the Gunnison Basin and Pinon Mesa population 
(BLM 2005a, p. 14; BLM 2005d, p. 4; BLM 2009, p. 36). These activities 
can result in abandonment of lekking activities and nest sites, energy 
expenditure reducing survival, and greater exposure to predators (GSRSC 
2005).
    Recreation is a significant use on lands managed by BLM (Connelly 
et al. 2004, p. 7-26). Recreational activities within the Gunnison 
Basin are widespread, occur during all seasons of the year, and have 
expanded as more people move to the area or come to recreate (BLM 2009, 
pp. 36-37). Four wheel drive, OHV, motorcycle, and other means of 
mechanized travel have been increasing rapidly. The number of annual 
OHV registrations in Colorado increased from 12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 
in 2007 (BLM 2009, p. 37). Recreational activities are recognized as a 
direct and indirect threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse and their 
habitat (BLM 2009, p. 36). The Grand Mesa, Uncompaghre, and Gunnison 
(GMUG) National Forest is the fourth most visited National Forest in 
the Rocky Mountain Region of the USFS (Region 2) (Kocis et al., 2004 in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Gunnison Basin Federal Lands 
Travel Management (2009, p. 137)). The GMUG is the second most heavily 
visited National Forest on the western slope of Colorado (DEIS Gunnison 
Basin Federal Lands Travel Management 2009, p. 137). However, it is 
unknown what percentage of the visits occur within Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat on the Gunnison Ranger District ((DEIS Gunnison Basin Federal 
Lands Travel Management 2009, p. 137). With human populations expected 
to increase in towns and cities within and adjacent to the Gunnison 
Basin and nearby populations (see Factor A), we believe the impacts to 
Gunnison sage-grouse from recreational use will continue to increase.
    The BLM and Gunnison County have 38 closure points within the Basin 
from March 15 to May 15 each year (BLM 2009, p. 40). While road 
closures may be violated in a small number of situations, we believe 
that road closures are having a beneficial effect on Gunnison sage-
grouse through avoidance and/or minimization of impacts during the 
breeding season.
    Dispersed camping occurs at a low level on public lands in all of 
the populations, particularly during the hunting seasons for other 
species. However, we have no information indicating that these camping 
activities are adversely affecting Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Domestic dogs accompanying recreationists or associated with 
residences can disturb, harass, displace, or kill Gunnison sage-grouse. 
Authors of many wildlife disturbance studies concluded that dogs with 
people, dogs on leash, or loose dogs provoked the most pronounced 
disturbance reactions from their study animals (Sime 1999 and 
references within). The primary consequences of dogs being off leash is 
harassment, which can lead to physiological stress as well as the 
separation of adult and young birds, or flushing incubating birds from 
their nest. However, we have no data indicating that this activity is 
adversely affecting Gunnison sage-grouse population numbers such that 
it can be considered a rangewide or population-level threat.
    Recreational activities as discussed above do not singularly pose a 
significant threat to Gunnison sage-grouse now or are expected to do so 
in the foreseeable future. However, there may be certain situations 
where recreational activities are impacting local concentrations of 
Gunnison sage-grouse, especially in areas where habitat is already 
fragmented such as in the six

[[Page 59847]]

small populations and in certain areas within the Gunnison Basin.

Pesticides and Herbicides

    Insects are an important component of sage-grouse chick and 
juvenile diets (GSRSC 2005, p.132 and references therein). Insects, 
especially ants (Hymenoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera), can comprise a 
major proportion of the diet of juvenile sage-grouse and are important 
components of early brood-rearing habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. 132 and 
references therein). Most pesticide applications are not directed at 
control of ants and beetles. Pesticides are used primarily to control 
insects causing damage to cultivated crops on private lands and to 
control grasshoppers (Orthoptera) and Mormon crickets (Mormonius sp.) 
on public lands.
    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 greater 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 to 
control grasshoppers in Wyoming resulted in game bird mortality of 23.4 
percent (Christian and Tate in press, p. 20). Forty-five greater 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). Greater 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).
    Infestations of Russian wheat aphids (Diuraphis noxia) have 
occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range in Colorado and Utah 
(GSRSC 2005, p. 132). Disulfoton, a systemic organophosphate extremely 
toxic to wildlife, was routinely applied to over 400,000 ha (million 
ac) of winter wheat crops to control the aphids during the late 1980s. 
We have no data indicating there were any adverse effects to Gunnison 
sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. 132). More recently, an infestation of army 
cutworms (Euxoa auxiliaries) occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 
along the Utah-Colorado State line. Thousands of ha (thousands of ac) 
of winter wheat and alfalfa fields were sprayed with insecticides such 
as permethrin by private landowners to control them (GSRSC 2005, p. 
132) but again, we have no data indicating any adverse effects to 
Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Game birds that ingested sublethal 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 sublethal 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 insecticides may have predisposed sage-
grouse to predation. Sage-grouse mortalities also 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). 
While we do not have specific information of these effects occurring in 
Gunnison sage-grouse, we believe the effects observed in greater sage-
grouse can be expected if similar situations arise within Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat.
    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 sage-grouse travel 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 had 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 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), there is no information as to whether insecticides are 
impacting survivorship or productivity of the Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Herbicide applications can kill sagebrush and forbs important as 
food sources for sage-grouse (Carr 1968 in Call and Maser 1985, p. 14). 
The greatest impact resulting from a reduction of either forbs or 
insect populations is to 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, in Call and Maser 1985, p. 15) concluded that 
herbicides applied at recommended rates should not result in sage-
grouse poisonings.
    Use of insecticides to control mosquitoes is infrequent and 
probably does not have detrimental effects on sage-grouse. Available 
insecticides that kill adult mosquitoes include synthetic pyrethroids 
such as permethrin, which

[[Page 59848]]

are applied at very low concentrations and have very low vertebrate 
toxicity (Rose 2004). Organophosphates such as malathion have been used 
at very low rates to kill adult mosquitoes for decades, and are judged 
relatively safe for vertebrates (Rose 2004).
    In summary, historically insecticides have been shown to 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 Gunnison 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. We currently do not have any 
information to show that either the illegal use of banned pesticides or 
residues in the environment are presently having negative impacts to 
sage-grouse populations. While the reduction in insect availability via 
insecticide application has not been documented to affect overall 
population numbers in sage-grouse, we believe that insect reduction, 
because of its importance to chick production and survival, could be 
having as yet undetected negative impacts in populations with low 
population numbers. There is no information available to indicate that 
either herbicide or insecticide applications pose a threat to the 
species now or in the foreseeable future.

Contaminants

    Gunnison 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, and transportation of materials along highways and 
railroads.
    We expect that the number of sage-grouse occurring in the immediate 
vicinity of wastewater pits associated with energy development would be 
small due to the small amount of energy development within the species' 
range, 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 ground-dwelling birds (such as the sage-grouse) 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 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.
    A few gas and oil pipelines occur within the San Miguel population. 
Exposure to oil or gas from pipeline spills or leaks could cause 
mortalities or morbidity to Gunnison sage-grouse. Similarly, given the 
network of highways and railroad lines that occur throughout the range 
of the Gunnison 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 Gunnison sage-grouse from such 
spills, and we do not expect they are a significant source of mortality 
and a threat to the species because these types of spills occur 
infrequently and may involve only a small area within the occupied 
range of the species.
Summary of Factor E
    Although genetic consequences of low Gunnison sage-grouse 
population numbers have not been definitively detected to date, the 
results from Stiver et al. (2008, p. 479) suggest that six of the seven 
populations may have effective sizes low enough to induce inbreeding 
depression and all seven could be losing adaptive potential. While some 
of these consequences may be ameliorated by translocations, we believe 
the long-term viability of Gunnison sage-grouse is compromised by this 
situation, particularly when combined with threats discussed under 
other Factors, and we have determined that genetics risks related to 
the small population size of Gunnison sage-grouse are a threat to the 
species now and in the foreseeable future.
    While sage-grouse have evolved with drought, population numbers 
suggest that drought is at least correlated with, and potentially an 
underlying cause of, the declines. Although we cannot determine whether 
drought alone is a threat to the species, we believe it is an indirect 
threat exacerbating other threat factors such as predation or habitat 
fragmentation. Based on the available information, insecticides are 
being used infrequently enough and in accordance with manufacturer 
labeling such that they are not adversely affecting populations of the 
Gunnison sage-grouse. The most likely impact of pesticides on Gunnison 
sage-grouse is the reduction of insect prey items. However, we could 
find no information to indicate that use of pesticides, in accordance 
with their label instructions, is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse.
    Thus, based on the best scientific and commercial data available, 
we have concluded that other natural or manmade factors are a 
significant threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse.

Finding

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the present and future threats to the 
Gunnison sage-grouse. We have reviewed the information available in our 
files, information received during the comment period, and other 
published and unpublished information, and consulted with recognized 
Gunnison-sage grouse and sagebrush habitat experts. On the basis of the 
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that 
listing of the Gunnison sage-grouse is warranted throughout all of its 
range.
    Gunnison sage-grouse, a sagebrush obligate, are a landscape-scale 
species requiring large, contiguous areas of sagebrush for long-term 
persistence. Gunnison sage-grouse occur in seven isolated and 
fragmented populations, primarily in southwestern Colorado, with a 
small portion of its range extending into southeastern Utah. 
Populations have been declining since the 1960s, with the Gunnison 
Basin population the only relatively stable population. Six of the 
seven remaining populations are now small enough to be vulnerable to 
extirpation (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 479). Specific issues identified 
under Factors A, C, D, and E are threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse. 
These threats are exacerbated by small population sizes, the isolated 
and fragmented nature of the remaining sagebrush habitat, and the 
potential effects of climate change.
    Current and future direct and functional loss of habitat due to 
residential and road development in all populations (as discussed in 
Factor A) is the principal threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse. Other 
threats from human infrastructure such as fences and powerlines (as 
discussed in Factor A) may not individually threaten the Gunnison sage-
grouse; however, the cumulative presence of these features, 
particularly when considered with residential and road development, do 
constitute a threat to the continued existence of the Gunnison sage-
grouse as they collectively contribute to habitat loss and 
fragmentation. These impacts

[[Page 59849]]

exacerbate the fragmentation that has already occurred in Gunnison 
sage-grouse habitat from past agricultural conversion and residential 
development. Gunnison sage-grouse are sensitive to these forms of 
habitat fragmentation because they require large areas of contiguous, 
suitable habitat. Given the increasing human population trends in 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, we expect urban and exurban development 
and associated roads and infrastructure to continue to expand. 
Likewise, we expect direct and indirect effects from these activities, 
including habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, to increase in 
sage-grouse habitats.
    Invasive species, fire, and climate change (as discussed in Factor 
A) may not individually threaten the Gunnison sage-grouse; however, the 
documented synergy among these factors result in a high likelihood that 
they will threaten the species in the future. Noxious and invasive 
plant incursions into sagebrush ecosystems, which are facilitated by 
human activities and fragmentation, are likely to increase wildfire 
frequencies, further contributing to direct loss of habitat and 
fragmentation. Climate change may alter the range of invasive plants, 
intensifying the proliferation of invasive plants to the point that 
they become a threat to the species. While recent local climatic 
moderations may have produced some improved habitat quality (increased 
forb and grass growth providing enhanced grouse productivity and 
survival). Habitat conservation efforts have been implemented to 
benefit local habitat conditions, but they have not cumulatively 
resulted in local population recoveries because unfragmented sagebrush 
habitats on the scale required that contain the necessary ecological 
attributes (e.g., connectivity and landscape context) have been lost. 
Sagebrush habitats are highly fragmented due to anthropogenic impacts, 
and in most cases are not resilient enough to return to native 
vegetative states following disturbance from fire, invasive species, 
and the effects of climate change. We expect these threats to continue 
and potentially increase in magnitude in the future.
    We found no evidence that the threats summarized above, which 
contribute to habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation will subside 
within the foreseeable future. Six populations are extremely small and 
compromised by existing fragmentation. The one remaining relatively 
contiguous patch of habitat (Gunnison Basin) for the species is 
somewhat compromised by existing fragmentation. Based on the current 
and anticipated habitat threats and their cumulative effects as they 
contribute to the overall fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse 
habitat, we have determined that threats identified under Factor A pose 
a significant threat to the species throughout its range. We find that 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is a threat to the species future 
existence.
    We believe that existing and continued landscape fragmentation will 
increase the effects of predation (discussed in Factor C above) on this 
species, particularly in the six smaller populations, resulting in a 
reduction in sage-grouse productivity and abundance in the future. 
Predation has a strong relationship with anthropogenic factors on the 
landscape, and human presence on the landscape will continue to 
increase in the future. We find that predation is a significant threat 
to the species.
    West Nile virus (discussed in Factor C above) is the only disease 
that currently presents a potential threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse. 
While we have no evidence of West Nile virus acting on the Gunnison 
sage-grouse, because of the virus's presence within the species' range 
and the continued development of anthropogenic water sources in the 
area, the virus may pose a future threat to the species. We have 
determined that disease is not currently a threat to the species. 
However, we anticipate that West Nile virus will persist within the 
range of Gunnison sage-grouse indefinitely and will be exacerbated by 
factors such as climate change that could increase ambient temperatures 
and the presence of the vector on the landscape.
    An examination of regulatory mechanisms (discussed in Factor D 
above) for both the Gunnison sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats 
revealed that while limited mechanisms exist, they are not broad enough 
in their potential conservation value throughout the species range, and 
are not being implemented consistent with our current understanding of 
the species' biology and reaction to disturbances, to be effective at 
ameliorating threats. This is particularly true on private lands, which 
comprise 41 percent of the species' extant range and are highly 
dispersed throughout all populations. Inadequate regulation of grazing 
practices on public land is occurring in some locations within the 
species' range. Public land management agencies should continue to 
improve habitat conditions to be compatible with Gunnison sage-grouse 
life-history requirements. Some local conservation efforts are 
effective and should be continued, but to date have occurred on a scale 
that is too small to remove threats at a range-wide level. Many 
conservation efforts lacked sufficient monitoring to demonstrate their 
overall effectiveness in minimizing or eliminating the primary threat 
of habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Therefore, we find the 
existing regulatory mechanisms are ineffective at ameliorating habitat-
based threats.
    Small population size and genetic factors (discussed in Factor E 
above) subject at least six of the seven populations to a high risk of 
extirpation from stochastic events. All populations are currently 
isolated as documented by low amounts of gene flow (Oyler-McCance et 
al. 2005, p. 635). The loss of connectivity and the concomitant 
isolation of the populations also increase the species' extinction 
risk. 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, or nearly extirpated areas, 
will be extremely challenging. Translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse is 
difficult and to date has not been demonstrated to be successful in 
maintaining and improving population and species viability. Given the 
limited number of source individuals, sustainable, successful 
translocation efforts involving large numbers of individuals are 
unlikely at this time. Recent captive-rearing efforts by CDOW have 
provided some optimistic results. Nonetheless, even assuming CDOW 
captive-rearing and tranlocation efforts prove to be successful in the 
long-term, the existing condition of the habitat throughout the 
species' range will need to be improved, before captive rearing and 
translocation can be relied on to maintain population and species 
viability.
    The existing and continuing loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 
sage-grouse habitat; extremely small population sizes; occupancy of 
extremely small, isolated, and fragmented sagebrush areas; increased 
susceptibility to predation; lack of interconnectivity; low genetic 
diversity; and the potential for catastrophic stochastic (random) 
events, combined with the inadequacy of existing regulations to manage 
habitat loss (either direct or functional), endanger all Gunnison sage-
grouse populations

[[Page 59850]]

and the species as a whole. Threat factors affecting the Gunnison sage-
grouse are summarized in Table 5 below. As required by the Act, we have 
reviewed and taken into account efforts being made to protect Gunnison 
sage-grouse. Although some local conservation efforts have been 
implemented and are effective in small areas, they are not at a scale 
that is sufficient to ameliorate threats to the species as a whole. 
Other conservation efforts (such as habitat treatments, establishment 
of conservation easements, improved grazing practices, additional 
travel management efforts that benefit Gunnison sage-grouse) are being 
planned, but there is substantial uncertainty as to whether, where, and 
when they will be implemented, and whether they will be effective.

[[Page 59851]]



                                          Table 5. Threat summary for factors affecting Gunnison sage-grouse. A ``+'' indicates higher level of threat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Magnitude                                    Imminence
                                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Species'        Foreseeable
        Listing Factor           Threat or Impact        Overall                            Exposure           Overall                            Response           Future       Overall Threat
                                                        Magnitude         Intensity         (percent)         Imminence        Likelihood
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Conversion to        Moderate          Moderate          40%               Non-Imminent      Low               Past conversion   Year 2050\a\     Low
                                Agriculture                                                                                                    contributes to
                                                                                                                                               current habitat
                                                                                                                                              fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and.
                                                                                                                                              degradation.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Water Development    Low               Low               <20%              Non-Imminent      Low               Past development  Year 2050        Low
                                                                                                                                              contributes to
                                                                                                                                               habitat.
                                                                                                                                              fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and degradation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Residential          High+             High              70%               Imminent          High              Habitat loss,     Year 2050        High
                                Development                                                                                                    fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                              increased
                                                                                                                                               predation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Fences               Moderate          Low               75%               Imminent          High              Habitat           Year 2050        Moderate
                                                                                                                                               fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                               increased
                                                                                                                                               predation;
                                                                                                                                               direct
                                                                                                                                               mortality
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Roads                High+             High              90%               Imminent          High              Habitat loss,     Year 2050        High
                                                                                                                                               fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                              increased
                                                                                                                                               predation;
                                                                                                                                               direct
                                                                                                                                               mortality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Powerlines           Moderate          Moderate          60%               Imminent          High              Habitat loss,     Year 2050        Moderate+
                                                                                                                                               fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                              increased
                                                                                                                                               predation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Fire                 Low               Low               10%               Non-Imminent      Low               Habitat loss,     Likely to        Low+
                                                                                                                                               fragmentation,   increase.......
                                                                                                                                               and degradation  indefinitely...
                                                                                                                                                                with...........
                                                                                                                                                                cheatgrass.....
                                                                                                                                                                invasion.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Invasive Plants      Moderate          Moderate          65%               Imminent          Moderate          Habitat loss,     Likely to        Moderate+
                                                                                                                                               fragmentation,   increase.......
                                                                                                                                               and degradation  indefinitely
                                                                                                                                                                 due to.
                                                                                                                                                                increased human
                                                                                                                                                                 presence and
                                                                                                                                                                 climate change.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Pi[ntilde]on-        Low               Low               15%               Imminent          Moderate          Habitat           Indefinitely     Low
                                Juniper                                                                                                        fragmentation
                                Encroachment                                                                                                   and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                               increased
                                                                                                                                               predation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Domestic and Wild    High              Low               85%               Imminent          Moderate          Habitat           Indefinitely     Moderate
                                Ungulate Herbivory                                                                                             degradation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59852]]

 
A                              Non-renewable        Low+              Moderate          10%               Imminent          Low               Habitat           Year 2050        Low
                                Energy                                                                                                         fragmentation
                               Development........                                                                                             and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                               increased
                                                                                                                                               predation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Renewable Energy     Low+              Low+              15%               Non-Imminent      Moderate          Habitat           Year 2050        Low
                                Development                                                                                                    fragmentation
                                                                                                                                               and
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                               increased
                                                                                                                                               predation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A                              Climate Change       Low               Moderate          100%              Imminent          Moderate          Unknown, but      Climate          Low
                                                                                                                                               could            models.........
                                                                                                                                               facilitate       predict out to
                                                                                                                                               increase in       40 years.
                                                                                                                                               invasive plants
                                                                                                                                               and
                                                                                                                                               corresponding
                                                                                                                                              increased fire..
                                                                                                                                              frequency.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                              Hunting              Low               Low               0%                Non-Imminent      Low               None              Year 2050        Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                              Lek Viewing          Low               Low               10%               Imminent          Moderate          Harassment;       Year 2050        Low
                                                                                                                                               avoidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B                              Scientific Research  Low+              Low+              50%               Imminent          Moderate          Harassment;       Year 2050        Low
                                                                                                                                               direct
                                                                                                                                               mortality
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                              Disease              Low               Low               100%              Non-Imminent      Moderate          Direct mortality  Indefinitely     Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C                              Predation            High              Moderate+         90%               Imminent          High              Direct mortality  Indefinitely     Moderate+
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D                              Inadequacy of Local  High              Moderate          50%               Imminent          High              Habitat loss,     Year 2050        High
                                Laws and                                                                                                       fragmentation,
                               Regulations........                                                                                             and degradation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D                              Inadequacy of State  Moderate          High              60%               Imminent          High              Habitat loss,     Year 2050        Moderate
                                Laws and                                                                                                       fragmentation,
                               Regulations........                                                                                             and degradation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D                              Inadequacy of        High              High              75%               Imminent          High              Habitat loss,     Year 2050        High
                                Federal Laws and                                                                                               fragmentation,
                                Regulations                                                                                                    and degradation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E                              Genetic              High              Moderate+         70%               Imminent          High              Inbreeding        Indefinitely     High
                                Complications                                                                                                  depression;
                                                                                                                                               loss of
                                                                                                                                               adaptive
                                                                                                                                               potential
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E                              Small Population     Moderate+         Moderate+         60%               Imminent          High              Population        Indefinitely     Moderate+
                                Size                                                                                                           vulnerability
                                                                                                                                               to stochastic
                                                                                                                                               events
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E                              Drought              Moderate+         High              100%              Imminent          Moderate          Habitat           Indefinitely     Moderate
                                                                                                                                               degradation;
                                                                                                                                               decline in
                                                                                                                                               species
                                                                                                                                               reproductive
                                                                                                                                               potential
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E                              Recreation           Low               Low+              50%               Imminent          Moderate          Harassment;       Year 2050        Low
                                                                                                                                               avoidance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E                              Pesticides and       Low               Low               10%               Non-Imminent      Low               Direct            Year 2050        Low
                                Herbicides                                                                                                     mortality;
                                                                                                                                               habitat
                                                                                                                                              degradation.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E                              Contaminants         Low               Low               <5%               Non-Imminent      Low               Direct mortality  Year 2050        Low
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The foreseeable future date of 2050 was determined for threats or impacts directly related to anthropogenic activities based on the furthest population projection from CWCB (2009, p. 53).


[[Page 59853]]

    Listing factors include: (A) The present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the present and future threats to the 
Gunnison sage-grouse. We have reviewed petitions, information available 
in our files, and other published and unpublished information, and 
consulted with recognized Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse 
experts. We have considered and taken into account efforts being made 
to conserve protect the species. On the basis of the best scientific 
and commercial information available, we find that listing of the 
Gunnison sage-grouse is warranted throughout all of its range. However, 
listing the Gunnison sage-grouse is precluded by higher priority 
listing actions at this time, as discussed in the Preclusion and 
Expeditious Progress section below.

Listing Priority Number

    The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), 
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for 
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of 
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species 
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled 
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority 
Guidelines'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the 
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending 
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and 
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments of 
vertebrates).
    As a result of our analysis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we assigned the Gunnison sage-grouse an LPN of 
2 based on our finding that the species faces threats that are of high 
magnitude and are imminent. These threats include the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; 
predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other 
natural or man-made factors affecting its continued existence. Our 
rationale for assigning the Gunnison sage-grouse an LPN 2 is outlined 
below.
    Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the 
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The 
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat 
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued 
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. We 
consider the threats that the Gunnison sage-grouse faces to be high in 
magnitude because the major threats (exurban development, inadequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms, genetic issues, roads) occur throughout all of 
the species range. Based on an evaluation of biotic, abiotic, and 
anthropogenic factors, no strongholds are believed to exist for 
Gunnison sage-grouse (Wisdom et al., in press, entire). All seven 
populations are experiencing habitat degradation and fragmentation due 
to exurban development and roads. Six of the seven populations of 
Gunnison sage-grouse currently contain so little occupied habitat that 
continued degradation and fragmentation will place their continued 
existence in question. The remaining population (Gunnison Basin) is so 
interspersed with development and roads that it is likely to degrade 
and fragment the habitat (Aldridge and Saher, in press, entire). We 
believe it is not functional for a species that requires large expanses 
of sagebrush. Six of the seven populations of Gunnison sage-grouse have 
population sizes low enough to induce inbreeding depression, and all 
seven may be losing their adaptive potential (Stiver 2008, p. 479). 
Predation is exerting a strong influence on all populations, but 
especially the six smaller populations. Invasive weeds are likely to 
exert a strong influence on all populations in the future. Adequate 
regulations are not in place at the local, State, or Federal level to 
adequately minimize the threat of habitat degradation and fragmentation 
resulting from exurban development. Regulatory mechanisms are not being 
appropriately implemented such that land use practices result in 
habitat conditions that adequately support the life-history needs of 
the species. Adequate regulations are also not in place to ameliorate 
the threats resulting from predation, genetic issues, or invasive 
weeds. Due to the impacts resulting from the issues described above and 
the current small population sizes and habitat areas, impacts from 
other stressors such as fences, recreation, grazing, powerlines, and 
drought/weather are likely acting cumulatively to further decrease the 
likelihood of at least the six small populations, and potentially all 
seven, persisting into the future. We believe the ability of all 
remaining populations and habitat areas to retain the attributes 
required for long-term sustainability of this landscape-scale species 
are highly diminished indicating that the magnitude of threats is high.
    Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in 
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This 
criterion is intended to ensure that the species 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 Factors A, C, D, and E of this finding and currently 
include habitat degradation and fragmentation from exurban development 
and roads, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, genetic issues, predation, 
invasive plants, and drought/weather. In addition to their current 
existence, we expect these threats to continue and likely intensify in 
the foreseeable future.
    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 Gunnison 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 Gunnison 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.
    Currently, work on a proposed listing determination for the 
Gunnison sage-grouse is precluded by work on higher priority listing 
actions with absolute statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved 
deadlines and final listing determinations for those species that were 
proposed for listing with funds from FY 2009. Additionally, remaining 
listing funding from FY 2010 has been directed to work on listing 
determinations for species at significantly greater risk of extinction 
than the Gunnison sage-grouse faces. Because of the large number of 
high-priority species, we further ranked the candidate species with an 
LPN of 2. The resulting ``Top 40'' list of candidate species have the 
highest priority to receive funding to work on a proposed

[[Page 59854]]

listing determination (see the Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 
section below). This work includes all the actions listed in the tables 
below under expeditious progress.

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress

    Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in 
relation to the resources that are available and competing demands for 
those resources. Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), multiple factors 
dictate whether it will be possible to undertake work on a proposed 
listing regulation or whether promulgation of such a proposal is 
warranted but precluded by higher-priority listing actions.
    The resources available for listing actions are determined through 
the annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for 
the Service Listing Program is available to support work involving the 
following listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 
12-month findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the 
status of a species from threatened to endangered; annual 
determinations on prior ``warranted but precluded'' petition findings 
as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat 
petition findings; proposed and final rules designating critical 
habitat; and litigation-related, administrative, and program-management 
functions (including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to 
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach 
regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing 
various listing documents can be extensive and may include, but is not 
limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial 
data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our 
decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing, 
and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed 
rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The 
number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is 
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more 
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for 
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39, 276; for a 12-month 
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000; 
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, the median cost is 
$305,000.
    We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program 
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C. 
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since 
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds which may be 
expended for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly 
appropriated for that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was 
designed to prevent funds appropriated for other functions under the 
Act (for example, recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), 
or for other Service programs, from being used for Listing Program 
actions (see House Report 105-163, 105\th\ Congress, 1st Session, July 
1, 1997).
    Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat 
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the 
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure 
that some funding is available to address other listing activities'' 
(House Report No. 107 - 103, 107\th\ 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 court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the 
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing 
activities. In FY 2007, we were able to use some of the critical 
habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing determinations for high-
priority candidate species. In FY 2009, while we were unable to use any 
of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing 
determinations, we did use some of this money to fund the critical 
habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so that the 
proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat 
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more 
efficient in our work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 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 court-mandated critical habitat 
designations, Congress and the courts have in effect determined the 
amount of money available for other listing activities. Therefore, the 
funds in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-
mandated critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on 
our determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
    Congress also recognized that the availability of resources was the 
key element in deciding, when making a 12-month petition finding, 
whether we would prepare and issue a listing proposal or instead make a 
``warranted but precluded'' finding for a given species. The Conference 
Report accompanying Public Law 97-304, which established the current 
statutory deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states (in 
a discussion on 90-day petition findings that by its own terms also 
covers 12-month findings) that the deadlines were ``not intended to 
allow the Secretary to delay commencing the rulemaking process for any 
reason other than that the existence of pending or imminent proposals 
to list species subject to a greater degree of threat would make 
allocation of resources to such a petition [that is, for a lower-
ranking species] unwise.''
    In FY 2010, expeditious progress is that amount of work that can be 
achieved with $10,471,000, which is the amount of money that Congress 
appropriated for the Listing Program (that is, the portion of the 
Listing Program funding not related to critical habitat designations 
for species that are already listed). However these funds are not 
enough to fully fund all our court-ordered 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 program-management functions; and high-
priority 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, many 
actions have statutory or court-

[[Page 59855]]

approved settlement deadlines, thus increasing their priority. The 
allocations for each specific listing action are identified in the 
Service's FY 2010 Allocation Table (part of our administrative record).
    Based on our September 21, 1983, guidance for assigning an LPN for 
each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number of 
species with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, we assign each candidate 
an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats (high vs. 
moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or nonimminent), and 
taxonomic status of the species (in order of priority: monotypic genus 
(a species that is the sole member of a genus); species; or part of a 
species (subspecies, distinct population segment, or significant 
portion of the range)). The lower the listing priority number, the 
higher the listing priority (that is, a species with an LPN of 1 would 
have the highest listing priority). Because of the large number of 
high-priority species, we have further ranked the candidate species 
with an LPN of 2 by using the following extinction-risk type criteria: 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, Heritage rank (provided by 
NatureServe), Heritage threat rank (provided by NatureServe), and 
species currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or 4 or fewer 
populations. Those species with the highest IUCN rank (critically 
endangered), the highest Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 
threat rank (substantial, imminent threats), and currently with fewer 
than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations, originally comprised 
a group of approximately 40 candidate species (``Top 40''). These 40 
candidate species have had the highest priority to receive funding to 
work on a proposed listing determination. As we work on proposed and 
final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we apply the ranking 
criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN of 2 and 3 to 
determine the next set of highest priority candidate species.
    To be more efficient in our listing process, as we work on proposed 
rules for the highest priority species in the next several years, we 
are preparing multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may 
include species with lower priority if they overlap geographically or 
have the same threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, 
available staff resources are also a factor in determining 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 Gunnison sage-grouse an LPN of 2, based on our 
finding that the species faces immediate and high magnitude threats 
from the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat; predation; the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or man-made factors affecting 
its continued existence. One or more of the threats discussed above 
occurs in each known population. These threats are ongoing and, in some 
cases, considered irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, a 
``species'' facing imminent high-magnitude threats is assigned an LPN 
of 1, 2, or 3 depending on its taxonomic status. Because the Gunnison 
sage-grouse is a species, we assigned it an LPN of 2 (the highest 
category available for a species). Therefore, work on a proposed 
listing determination for the Gunnison sage-grouse is precluded by work 
on higher priority candidate species; listing actions with absolute 
statutory, court ordered, or court-approved deadlines; and final 
listing determinations for those species that were proposed for listing 
with funds from previous fiscal years. This work includes all the 
actions listed in the tables below under expeditious progress.
    As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but 
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made 
to add or remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. (Although we do not discuss it in 
detail here, we are also making expeditious progress in removing 
species from the Lists under the Recovery program, which is funded by a 
separate line item in the budget of the Endangered Species Program. As 
explained above in our description of the statutory cap on Listing 
Program funds, the Recovery Program funds and actions supported by them 
cannot be considered in determining expeditious progress made in the 
Listing Program.) As with our ``precluded'' finding, expeditious 
progress in adding qualified species to the Lists is a function of the 
resources available and the competing demands for those funds. Given 
that limitation, we find that we are making progress in FY 2010 in the 
Listing Program. This progress included preparing and publishing the 
following determinations:

                                        FY 2010 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Publication Date                     Title                   Actions                  FR Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/08/2009                             Listing Lepidium         Final Listing            74 FR 52013-52064
                                        papilliferum             Threatened
                                        (Slickspot
                                        Peppergrass) as a
                                        Threatened Species
                                        Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/27/2009                             90-day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         74 FR 55177-55180
                                        Petition To List the     Petition Finding, Not
                                        American Dipper in the   substantial
                                        Black Hills of South
                                        Dakota as
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/28/2009                             Status Review of Arctic  Notice of Intent to      74 FR 55524-55525
                                        Grayling (Thymallus      Conduct Status Review
                                        arcticus) in the Upper
                                        Missouri River System
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/03/2009                             Listing the British      Proposed Listing         74 FR 56757-56770
                                        Columbia Distinct        Threatened
                                        Population Segment of
                                        the Queen Charlotte
                                        Goshawk Under the
                                       Endangered Species Act:
                                        Proposed rule..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59856]]

 
11/03/2009                             Listing the Salmon-      Proposed Listing         74 FR 56770-56791
                                        Crested Cockatoo as      Threatened
                                        Threatened Throughout
                                        Its Range with Special
                                        Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/23/2009                             Status Review of         Notice of Intent to      74 FR 61100-61102
                                        Gunnison sage-grouse     Conduct Status Review
                                        (Centrocercus minimus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/03/2009                             12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       74 FR 63343-63366
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                        Black-tailed Prairie     warranted
                                        Dog as Threatened or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/03/2009                             90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         74 FR 63337-63343
                                        Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                                        Sprague's Pipit as       Substantial
                                        Threatened or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/15/2009                             90-Day Finding on        Notice of 90-day         74 FR 66260-66271
                                        Petitions To List Nine   Petition Finding,
                                        Species of Mussels       Substantial
                                        From Texas as
                                        Threatened or
                                       Endangered With
                                        Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/16/2009                             Partial 90-Day Finding   Notice of 90-day         74 FR 66865-66905
                                        on a Petition to List    Petition Finding, Not
                                        475 Species in the       substantial and
                                       Southwestern United       Subtantial
                                        States as.
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered With.
                                       Critical Habitat.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/17/2009                             12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       74 FR 66937-66950
                                        Petition To Change the   petition finding,
                                        Final Listing of the     Warranted but
                                       Distinct Population       precluded
                                        Segment of the Canada
                                        Lynx To Include New.
                                       Mexico.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010                              Listing Foreign Bird     Proposed Listing         75 FR 605-649
                                        Species in Peru and      Endangered
                                        Bolivia as Endangered
                                        Throughout Their Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010                              Listing Six Foreign      Proposed Listing         75 FR 286-310
                                        Birds as                 Endangered
                                       Endangered Throughout
                                        Their Range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010                              Withdrawal of Proposed   Proposed rule,           75 FR 310-316
                                        Rule to List Cook's      withdrawal
                                        Petrel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/05/2010                              Final Rule to List the   Final Listing            75 FR 235-250
                                        Galapagos                Threatened
                                       Petrel and Heinroth's
                                        Shearwater as
                                        Threatened Throughout
                                        Their Ranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/20/2010                              Initiation of Status     Notice of Intent to      75 FR 3190-3191
                                        Review for Agave         Conduct Status Review
                                        eggersiana and Solanum
                                        conocarpum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/09/2010                              12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 6437-6471
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                        American Pika as         warranted
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/25/2010                              12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 8601-8621
                                        Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                        Sonoran Desert           warranted
                                        Population of the Bald
                                        Eagle as a Threatened
                                        or Endangered Distinct
                                        Population Segment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/25/2010                              Withdrawal of Proposed   Withdrawal of Proposed   75 FR 8621-8644
                                        Rule To List the         Rule to List
                                        Southwestern
                                        Washington/
                                       Columbia River Distinct
                                        Population Segment of
                                        Coastal Cutthroat
                                        Trout (Oncorhynchus
                                        clarki clarki) as
                                        Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/18/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13068-13071
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Berry Cave salamander    Substantial
                                        as
                                       Endangered.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59857]]

 
3/23/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13717-13720
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding, Not
                                        Southern Hickorynut      substantial
                                        Mussel (Obovaria
                                        jacksoniana) as
                                       Endangered or
                                        Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 13720-13726
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Striped Newt as          Substantial
                                        Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/2010                              12-Month Findings for    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 13910-14014
                                        Petitions to List the    petition finding,
                                        Greater Sage-Grouse      Warranted but
                                        (Centrocercus            precluded
                                        urophasianus) as
                                        Threatened or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/31/2010                              12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 16050-16065
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding,
                                        Tucson Shovel-Nosed      Warranted but
                                        Snake (Chionactis        precluded
                                        occipitalis klauberi)
                                        as Threatened or
                                        Endangered with
                                        Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/5/2010                               90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 17062-17070
                                        Petition To List         Petition Finding,
                                        Thorne's Hairstreak      Substantial
                                        Butterfly as or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/6/2010                               12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 17352-17363
                                        Petition To List the     petition finding, Not
                                        Mountain Whitefish in    warranted
                                        the Big Lost River,
                                        Idaho, as
                                       Endangered or
                                        Threatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/6/2010                               90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 17363-17367
                                        Petition to List a       Petition Finding, Not
                                        Stonefly (Isoperla       substantial
                                        jewetti) and a Mayfly
                                        (Fallceon eatoni) as
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered with.
                                       Critical Habitat.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/7/2010                               12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 17667-17680
                                        Petition to Reclassify   petition finding,
                                        the Delta Smelt From     Warranted but
                                        Threatened to            precluded
                                        Endangered Throughout
                                        Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/13/2010                              Determination of         Final ListingEndangered  75 FR 18959-19165
                                        Endangered Status for
                                        48 Species on Kauai
                                        and
                                       Designation of Critical
                                        Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/2010                              Initiation of Status     Notice of Initiation of  75 FR 19591-19592
                                        Review of the North      Status Review
                                        American Wolverine in
                                        the Contiguous United
                                        States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/15/2010                              12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 19592-19607
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                        Wyoming Pocket Gopher    warranted
                                        as Endangered or
                                        Threatened with
                                        Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/16/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 19925-19935
                                        Petition to List a       Petition Finding,
                                        Distinct Population      Substantial
                                        Segment of the Fisher
                                        in Its United States
                                        Northern Rocky
                                        Mountain Range as
                                       Endangered or
                                        Threatened with.
                                       Critical Habitat.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/20/2010                              Initiation of Status     Notice of Initiation of  75 FR 20547-20548
                                        Review for               Status Review
                                       Sacramento splittail
                                        (Pogonichthys
                                        macrolepidotus).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/26/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 21568-21571
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Harlequin Butterfly as   Substantial
                                       Endangered.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/27/2010                              12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 22012-22025
                                        Petition to List         petition finding, Not
                                        Susan's Purse-making     warranted
                                        Caddisfly
                                        (Ochrotrichia susanae)
                                        as
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59858]]

 
4/27/2010                              90-day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 22063-22070
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Mohave Ground Squirrel   Substantial
                                        as
                                       Endangered with
                                        Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/4/2010                               90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 23654-23663
                                        Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                                        Hermes Copper            Substantial
                                        Butterfly as
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/1/2010                               90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 30313-30318
                                        Petition To List         Petition Finding,
                                        Castanea pumila var.     Substantial
                                        ozarkensis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/1/2010                               12-month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 30338-30363
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                        White-tailed Prairie     warranted
                                        Dog as Endangered or
                                        Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/9/2010                               90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 32728-32734
                                        Petition To List van     Petition Finding,
                                        Rossem's Gull-billed     Substantial
                                        Tern as Endangered
                                        orThreatened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/16/2010                              90-Day Finding on Five   Notice of 90-day         75 FR 34077-34088
                                        Petitions to List        Petition Finding,
                                        Seven Species of         Substantial
                                        Hawaiian Yellow-faced
                                        Bees as Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/22/2010                              12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 35398-35424
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding,
                                        Least Chub as            Warranted but
                                        Threatened or            precluded
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/23/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 35746-35751
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Honduran Emerald         Substantial
                                       Hummingbird as
                                        Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/23/2010                              Listing Ipomopsis        Proposed Listing         75 FR 35721-35746
                                        polyantha (Pagosa        Endangered Proposed
                                        Skyrocket) as            Listing Threatened
                                        Endangered Throughout
                                        Its Range, and Listing
                                        Penstemon debilis
                                        (Parachute
                                        Beardtongue) and
                                        Phacelia submutica
                                        (DeBeque Phacelia) as
                                        Threatened Throughout
                                        Their Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/2010                              Listing the Flying       Final Listing            75 FR 35990-36012
                                        Earwig Hawaiian          Endangered
                                        Damselfly and Pacific
                                        Hawaiian Damselfly As
                                        Endangered
                                       Throughout Their Ranges
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/24/2010                              Listing the Cumberland   Proposed Listing         75 FR 36035-36057
                                        Darter, Rush Darter,     Endangered
                                        Yellowcheek Darter,
                                        Chucky Madtom, and
                                        Laurel Dace as
                                       Endangered Throughout
                                        Their Ranges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/29/2010                              Listing the Mountain     Reinstatement of         75 FR 37353-37358
                                        Plover as Threatened     Proposed Listing
                                                                 Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/20/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 42033-42040
                                        Petition to List Pinus   Petition Finding,
                                        albicaulis (Whitebark    Substantial
                                        Pine) as Endangered or
                                        Threatened with
                                        Critical Habitat
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/20/2010                              12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 42040-42054
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                        Amargosa Toad as         warranted
                                        Threatened or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/20/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 42059-42066
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Giant Palouse            Substantial
                                        Earthworm (Driloleirus
                                        americanus) as
                                       Threatened or
                                        Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/27/2010                              Determination on         Final Listing            75 FR 43844-43853
                                        Listing the Black-       Endangered
                                        Breasted Puffleg as
                                        Endangered Throughout
                                        its Range; Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59859]]

 
7/27/2010                              Final Rule to List the   Final Listing            75 FR 43853-43864
                                        Medium Tree-Finch        Endangered
                                        (Camarhynchus pauper)
                                        as Endangered
                                        Throughout Its Range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/3/2010                               Determination of         Final ListingThreatened  75 FR 45497- 45527
                                        Threatened Status for
                                        Five Penguin Species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/4/2010                               90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 46894- 46898
                                        Petition To List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Mexican Gray Wolf as     Substantial
                                        an
                                       Endangered Subspecies
                                        With Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/10/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 48294-48298
                                        Petition to List         Petition Finding,
                                        Arctostaphylos           Substantial
                                        franciscana as
                                       Endangered with
                                        Critical Habitat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/17/2010                              Listing Three Foreign    Final Listing            75 FR 50813-50842
                                        Bird Species from        Endangered
                                        Latin America and the
                                       Caribbean as Endangered
                                       Throughout Their Range.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/17/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 50739-50742
                                        Petition to List Brian   Petition Finding, Not
                                        Head Mountainsnail as    substantial
                                       Endangered or
                                        Threatened with.
                                       Critical Habitat.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8/24/2010                              90-Day Finding on a      Notice of 90-day         75 FR 51969-51974
                                        Petition to List the     Petition Finding,
                                        Oklahoma Grass Pink      Substantial
                                        Orchid as Endangered
                                        or Threatened
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/1/2010                               12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 53615-53629
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding, Not
                                        White-Sided Jackrabbit   warranted
                                        as Threatened or
                                        Endangered
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/8/2010                               Proposed Rule To List    Proposed Listing         75 FR 54561-54579
                                        the Ozark Hellbender     Endangered
                                        Salamander as
                                       Endangered.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/8/2010                               Revised 12-Month         Notice of 12-month       75 FR 54707-54753
                                        Finding to List the      petition finding,
                                        Upper Missouri River     Warranted but
                                        Distinct                 precluded
                                       Population Segment of
                                        Arctic Grayling as
                                        Endangered or.
                                       Threatened.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/9/2010                               12-Month Finding on a    Notice of 12-month       75 FR 54822-54845
                                        Petition to List the     petition finding,
                                        Jemez Mountains          Warranted but
                                        Salamander (Plethodon    precluded
                                        neomexicanus) as
                                       Endangered or
                                        Threatened with.
                                       Critical Habitat.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

             Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Species                               Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Eurasia                       Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59860]]

 
African penguin                            Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flat-tailed horned lizard                  Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain plover\4\                         Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Birds from Peru                          Proposed listing
                                            determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento splittail                       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific walrus                             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunnison sage-grouse                       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine                                  12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agave eggergsiana                          12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solanum conocarpum                         12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sprague's pipit                            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desert tortoise - Sonoran population       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)\1\                12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thorne's Hairstreak butterfly\3\           12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hermes copper butterfly\3\                 12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Actions with Statutory Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle                        Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail,     Final listing determination
 and rough hornsnail
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Bird species from Brazil                 Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern rockhopper penguin - Campbell     Final listing determination
 Plateau population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador   Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Charlotte goshawk                    Final listing determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 species southeast fish (Cumberland       Final listing determination
 darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter,
 chucky madtom, and laurel dace)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Salmon crested cockatoo                   Proposed listing
                                            determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA golden trout                            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black-footed albatross                     12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mount Charleston blue butterfly            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mojave fringe-toed lizard\1\               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kokanee - Lake Sammamish population\1\     12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl\1\            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern leopard frog                      12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehachapi slender salamander               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coqui Llanero                              12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dusky tree vole                            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly(Lednia  12-month petition finding
 tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, Oreohelix sp.
 31) from 206 species petition
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59861]]

 
5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii,        12-month petition finding
 Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri,
 Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium
 friscanum) from 206 species petition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus,       12-month petition finding
 Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 species
 petition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis   12-month petition finding
 rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus,
 Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon
 gibbensii) from 206 species petition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leatherside chub (from 206 species         12-month petition finding
 petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species        12-month petition finding
 petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gopher tortoise - eastern population       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrights marsh thistle                      12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
67 of 475 southwest species                12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species    12-month petition finding
 petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from     12-month petition finding
 475 species petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475    12-month petition finding
 species petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva,              12-month petition finding
 Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema
 galbina) (from 475 species petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp.,           12-month petition finding
 Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species
 petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron           12-month petition finding
 piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus,
 Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species
 petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from     12-month petition finding
 474 species petition)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 parrots (foreign species)               12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Cave salamander\1\                   12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Striped Newt\1\                            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher - Northern Rocky Mountain Range\1\  12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mohave Ground Squirrel\1\                  12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly            12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Western gull-billed tern                   12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var.     12-month petition finding
 ozarkensis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI yellow-faced bees                       12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giant Palouse earthworm                    12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whitebark pine                             12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis)\1\  12-month petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering  90-day petition finding
 pop. of piping plover\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Lake trout\1\                        90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smooth-billed ani\1\                       90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay Springs salamander\1\                  90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32 species of snails and slugs\1\          90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah)           90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 59862]]

 
Red knot roselaari subspecies              90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peary caribou                              90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plains bison                               90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly     90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spring pygmy sunfish                       90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bay skipper                                90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsilvered fritillary                      90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas kangaroo rat                         90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot-tailed earless lizard                 90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern small-footed bat                   90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northern long-eared bat                    90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prairie chub                               90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 species of Great Basin butterfly        90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles               90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Golden-winged warbler                      90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand-verbena moth                          90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
404 Southeast species                      90-day petition finding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    High-Priority Listing Actions\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species\2\ (16 plants,   Proposed listing
 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with
 LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Maui-Nui candidate species\2\ (16       Proposed listing
 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2,
 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune  Proposed listing
 lizard)\3\ (LPN = 2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Arizona springsnails\2\ (Pyrgulopsis     Proposed listing
 bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis
 trivialis (LPN = 2))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 New Mexico springsnail\2\ (Pyrgulopsis    Proposed listing
 chupaderae (LPN = 2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 mussels\2\ (rayed bean (LPN = 2),        Proposed listing
 snuffbox No LPN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 mussels\2\ (sheepnose (LPN = 2),         Proposed listing
 spectaclecase (LPN = 4),)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Altamaha spinymussel\2\ (LPN = 2)          Proposed listing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell  Proposed listing
 (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))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in
  previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided
  in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and
  competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011
  funds.

    We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and 
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and 
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are 
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve 
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given 
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions 
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
    The Gunnison sage-grouse will be added to the list of candidate 
species upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to 
monitor the status of this species as new information becomes 
available. This review will determine if a change in status is

[[Page 59863]]

warranted, including the need to make prompt use of emergency listing 
procedures.
    We intend that any proposed listing action for the Gunnison 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 this finding.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Western Colorado 
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the 
Western Colorado Ecological Services Field Office.

Authority

    The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 7, 2010
Paul R. Schmidt,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-23430 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S