59804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 nonimminent. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 broodrearing (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 sagegrouse because sagebrush does not 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse leks have been used since the 

1950s (Rogers 1964, pp. 35-40). 

The pre-laying period is from lateMarch 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. Eightyseven percent of all Gunnison sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse is 6.8 ± 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 sagegrouse, with one study reporting renesting rates of 4.8 percent (Young 

1994, p. 37). Only one instance of renesting 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

(± 7) percent for males and 57 (± 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 (± 8) 

percent, compared to 71 (± 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

(km2) (21,370 square miles (mi2)) 

(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 (OylerMcCance et al. 2001, p. 329). Sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 km2 (1,511mi2) 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 36-37; CDOW 2009b, 

p. 1). The seven populations are 

Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, 

Monticello–Dove Creek, Pı ̃non 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

TABLE 1. PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF TOTAL GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIEDA HABITAT (FROM GSRSCB

2005, PP. D-3-D-6; CDOWC 2009B, P. 1) 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Management and Ownership 

Population hectares acres 

BLMd NPSe USFSf

 CDOW 

CO 

State 

Land 

Board 

State of 

UT Private 

% % % % % % % 

Gunnison Basin 239,953 592,936 51 2 14 3 <1 0 29 

San Miguel Basin 41,022 101,368 36g 0 1 11 3g 0 49g

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 

Pin ̃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 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP28se10.000</GPH>
59810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1. PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF TOTAL GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIEDA HABITAT (FROM GSRSCB 2005, 

PP. D-3-D-6; CDOWC 2009B, P. 1)—Continued 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Management and Ownership 

Population hectares acres 

BLMd NPSe USFSf CDOW 

CO 

State 

Land 

Board 

State of 

UT Private 

% % % % % % % 

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 

aOccupied 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). bGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 

cColorado Division of Wildlife 

dBureau of Land Management 

eNational Park Service 

f

United States Forest Service 

gEstimates 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 (GSRSCA 2005, PP. 44-45) APPLIED TO HIGH MALE

COUNTS ON LEKS (CDOWB 2009A, P. 2). 

Estimated Population 

Year 

Population 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/ac

Monticello 231 172 147 152 162 118 216 216 182 n/ac

Dove Creek 132 98 39 10 34 74 29 29 10 44 

Pin ̃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/ac

aGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 

bColorado Division of Wildlife 

c2010 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

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 sagegrouse 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 sagebrushdominated habitats in Dolores and 

Montezuma Counties within Gunnison 

sage-grouse range in Colorado were 

historically used by Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Pı ̃non Mesa Population – The Pı ̃non 

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 Pı ̃non Mesa was 74 (CDOW 2010, p. 

2). Of the ten known leks, only four 

were active in 2009 (CDOW, 2009a, p. 

3). The Pı ̃non 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 Pı ̃non Mesa area, 

including the Dominguez Canyon area 

of the Uncompaghre Plateau, southeast 

of Pı ̃non 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

sagebrush (A. nova) dominate the midelevation 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 sagegrouse 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 broodrearing. 

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 BLMadministered 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 noncontiguous patches, or from alteration of 

habitat areas that render the altered 

patches unusable to a species (i.e., 

functional habitat loss). Functional 

habitat losses include disturbances that 

change a habitat’s successional state or 

remove one or more habitat functions; 

physical barriers that preclude use of 

otherwise suitable areas; 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 Sagegrouse 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, OylerMcCance 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 sagegrouse, 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, mixedconifer 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, Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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, CRPenrolled 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, CRPenrollment 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse 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 broodrearing 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 sagegrouse 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 km2 (0.5 mi2) 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 km2 (0.5 mi2) 

(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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse. 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 parttime 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 sagegrouse, 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 sagegrouse 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 

Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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). Sagegrouse 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 speciesspecific 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; 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59817 

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; OylerMcCance 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 (OylerMcCance 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse (BLM 2009, pp. 27, 55, 86), 

which further increases the overall 

density of roads and their direct and 

indirect effects on Gunnison sagegrouse. 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, Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse (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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse 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 km2

(259,641 to 323,317 mi2), 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 sagegrouse 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 prairiechickens (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 sagegrouse 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 Sagegrouse Working Group (GSWG) 2005, p. 

17). Powerlines do not appear to be 

present in sufficient density to pose a 

significant threat to Gunnison sagegrouse in the Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse. 

Several wildfires near or within the 

Pı ̃non 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 Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse habitat in the last two decades in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse habitat. They can create longterm 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 Pı ̃non Mesa population 

(Lambeth 2005, pers comm.). It occurs 

in the lower elevation areas below 

Pı ̃non 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 Pı ̃non 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 projectlevel 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. 

Pı ̃non-Juniper Encroachment 

Pı ̃non-juniper woodlands are a native 

habitat type dominated by Pı ̃non pine 

(Pinus edulis) and various juniper 

species (Juniperus spp.) that can 

encroach upon, infill, and eventually 

replace sagebrush habitat. Pı ̃non-juniper 

extent has increased 10-fold in the 

Intermountain West since 

EuroAmerican settlement, causing the 

loss of many bunchgrass and sagebrushbunchgrass communities (Miller and 

Tausch 2001, pp. 15-16). Pı ̃non-juniper 

woodlands have also been expanding 

throughout portions of the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM 2009, pp. 

14, 17, 25). Pı ̃non-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 sagegrouse (CDOW 2002, p. 139). 

Similar to powerlines, trees provide 

perches for raptors, and as a 

consequence, Gunnison sage-grouse 

avoid areas with Pı ̃non-juniper 

(Commons et al. 1999, p. 239). The 

number of male Gunnison sage-grouse 

on leks in southwest Colorado doubled 

after Pı ̃non-juniper removal and 

mechanical treatment of mountain 

sagebrush and deciduous brush 

(Commons et al. 1999, p. 238). 

Pı ̃non-Juniper Encroachment in All 

Population Areas – We have no 

information indicating that the 

Gunnison Basin population area is 

currently undergoing significant Pı ̃nonjuniper encroachment. A significant 

portion of the Pı ̃non Mesa population is 

undergoing Pı ̃non-juniper 

encroachment. Approximately 9 percent 

(1,140 ha [3,484 ac]) of occupied habitat 

in the Pı ̃non Mesa population area have 

Pı ̃non-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 Pı ̃nonjuniper 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 Pı ̃non-juniper (GSRSC 

2005, p. 264). However, BLM (2005d, p. 

8) estimates that as much as 20 percent 

of the population area is occupied by 

Pı ̃non-juniper. Pı ̃non 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). 

Pı ̃non and juniper trees are reported to 

be encroaching throughout the current 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse, approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 

ac) of Pı ̃non-juniper have been treated 

with various methods designed to 

remove Pı ̃non and juniper trees since 

2005, and nearly half of which occurred 

in the Pı ̃non Mesa population (CDOW 

2009c, entire). Mechanical treatment of 

areas experiencing Pı ̃non-juniper 

encroachment continues to be one of the 

most successful and economical habitat 

treatments for the benefit of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Summary of Pı ̃non-Juniper 

Encroachment 

Most Gunnison sage-grouse 

population areas are experiencing low 

to moderate levels of Pı ̃non-juniper 

encroachment; however, Pı ̃non-juniper 

encroachment in the Pı ̃non Mesa 

population has been significant. The 

encroachment of Pı ̃non-juniper into 

sagebrush habitats contributes to the 

fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. However, Pı ̃non-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 Pı ̃non-juniper 

encroachment within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse has been treated. 

We expect Pı ̃non-juniper encroachment 

and corresponding treatment efforts to 

continue into the foreseeable future, 

which we consider to be indefinite for 

this threat. Although Pı ̃non-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 sagegrouse at a population or rangewide 

level either now or in the foreseeable 

future. Pı ̃non-juniper encroachment 

may become an increasingly significant 

threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse if 

mechanical treatment of areas 

experiencing Pı ̃non-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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse. 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse. 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 LHAmonitored allotments were deemed to 

be meeting objectives or as ‘‘unknown’’. 

LHAs are assessments of the on-theground 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 

The fact that most grazing allotments 

are not meeting LHA objectives 

indicates that grazing is a factor that is 

likely contributing to Gunnison sagegrouse 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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 USFWSA 2010C, COMPILATION OF DATA PROVIDED

BY BLMB AND USFSC). 

Percent 

Population 

Number of Active USFS Allotments Number of Active BLM Allotments Active Allotments 

with GUSGd

Objectives 

BLM Allotments 

with Completed 

LHAe

Assessed BLM 

Allotments 

Meeting LHA 

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/af 6 100 83 80 

Pin ̃on Mesa no data 15 53 27 100 

Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa n/af 10 10 50 40 

Crawfordg n/af 7 71 100 86 

Poncha Pass no data 8 13 100 100 

Rangewide Averages 34 63 59 

aUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service 

bBureau of Land Management 

cUnited States Forest Service 

dGunnison sage-grouse 

eLand 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 Pı ̃non 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 

Pı ̃non 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 Pı ̃non 

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 Pı ̃non 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 nonfederal 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse habitat (BLM Geocommunicator, 

2010). No oil and gas wells or 

authorized Federal leases are within the 

Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. Similarly, we do not consider 

renewable energy development to be a 

significant threat to Gunnison sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 westcentral Colorado increased 3.6 °C (2 °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 °C (90 

°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 °C (4 °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 °C (5.1 °F), and average winter 

(October through March) temperature 

could increase by 2.2 °C (4.0 °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 longterm 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 sagegrouse 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 longterm 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 sagegrouse populations (Patterson 1952, pp. 

192-193; Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 4; 

Braun 1998, p. 140; Johnson and Braun 

1999, p. 78; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

975; Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 1; 

Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 29; 

Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Aldridge and 

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

p. 203; Pedersen et al. 2003, pp. 23-24; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-15; Schroeder 

et al. 2004, p. 368; Leu et al. in press, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse. Similarly, we do not consider 

renewable energy development to be a 

significant threat to the Gunnison sagegrouse at this time. However, 

geothermal energy development could 

increase in the future. Pı ̃non-juniper 

encroachment does not pose a 

significant threat to Gunnison sagegrouse at a population or rangewide 

level because of its limited distribution 

throughout the range of Gunnison sagegrouse 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., Pı ̃nonjuniper invasion), on the whole we find 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse since 1995 when the Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 radiotagging 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 nontranslocated 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 sagegrouse is applicable to Gunnison sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 captivebreeding 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 sagegrouse 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. A22-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 educationrelated 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 sagegrouse. 

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 sagegrouse (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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse 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-birdmosquito infection cycle (McLean 2006, 

p. 45). However, direct bird-to-bird 

transmission of the virus has been 

documented in several species (McLean 

2006, pp. 54, 59) including the greater 

sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle in 

press, p. 13; Cornish 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 nonsagebrush 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 viruspositive 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 sagegrouse) 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 Pı ̃non 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse) is not abundant (Coates 2007, p. 

4). We believe that the effects of 

predation observed in greater sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse, 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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 broodrearing 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 nonremoval 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Hansen (1979, p. 954) showed that sagegrouse and bird egg shells made up a 

very small percentage (0.4–2.4 percent) 

of analyzed scat samples. Additionally, 

coyote removal can have unintended 

consequences resulting in the release of 

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 shortterm 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

Population hectares acres 

Percent of 

Occupied 

Habitat in 

Respective 

Population 

Gunnison Basin 11,334 28,008 4.7 

Pin ̃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 sagegrouse throughout their range where 

they are in place (27 in the Gunnison 

Basin, 3 in San Miguel, 2 in Crawford, 

5 in Pı ̃non 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse; (2) minimize the extent and 

severity of those impacts that cannot be 

avoided; and (3) mitigate those effects 

that cannot be avoided or minimized 

(COGCC 2009, section 1202.a). The 

COGCC will consider CDOW’s 

recommendations in the permitting 

decision, although the final permitting 

and conditioning authority remains 

with COGCC. 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse occupied habitat is on BLMadministered 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 BLMadministered 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 sagegrouse 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, Pı ̃non 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 BLMadministered 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 sagegrouse 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 Pı ̃non 

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- 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, §6217(a)). On May 18, 2001, 

President Bush signed Executive Order 

13212-Actions to Expedite EnergyRelated 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 sagegrouse 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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 (OylerMcCance 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 sagegrouse 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, Pı ̃non 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 (OylerMcCance 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 Pı ̃non 

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 (OylerMcCance 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

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 km2 (982 mi2) of sagebrush 

shrublands died in Utah in 2003 as a 

result of drought and infestations with 

the Aroga (webworm) moth (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 5-11). Sage-grouse are 

affected by drought through the loss of 

vegetative habitat components, reduced 

insect production (Connelly and Braun 

1997, p. 9), and potential increased risk 

of virus infections, such as the West 

Nile virus. These habitat component 

losses can result in declining sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse’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). Sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 fastestgrowing 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 highfrequency 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 sagegrouse 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 Pı ̃non 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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse. 

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 populationlevel threat. 

Recreational activities as discussed 

above do not singularly pose a 

significant threat to Gunnison sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse, especially in areas where habitat 

is already fragmented such as in the six 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 sagegrouse 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 grounddwelling 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse. 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 Gunnisonsage 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59849 

exacerbate the fragmentation that has 

already occurred in Gunnison sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 (OylerMcCance 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 captiverearing 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 sagegrouse 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and the species as a whole. Threat 

factors affecting the Gunnison sagegrouse are summarized in Table 5 

below. As required by the Act, we have 

reviewed and taken into account efforts 

being made to protect Gunnison sagegrouse. 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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59851 

TABLE 5. THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING

GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE. A ‘‘+’’ INDICATES HIGHER LEVEL OF THREAT. 

Listing Factor Threat or Impact 

Magnitude Imminence 

Species’ Response Foreseeable Future Overall Threat Overall 

Magnitude Intensity Exposure (percent) Overall Immi- nence Likelihood 

A Conversion to Agriculture Moderate Moderate 40% Non-Imminent Low Past conversion contributes 

to current habitat 

fragmentation and degradation. 

Year 2050a Low 

A Water Development Low Low <20% Non-Imminent Low Past development 

contributes to habitat fragmentation and degradation 

Year 2050 Low 

A Residential Development High+ High 70% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation 

and degradation; 

increased predation 

Year 2050 High 

A Fences Moderate Low 75% Imminent High Habitat fragmentation and 

degradation; increased predation; direct mortality 

Year 2050 Moderate 

A Roads High+ High 90% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation 

and degradation; 

increased predation; direct 

mortality 

Year 2050 High 

A Powerlines Moderate Moderate 60% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation 

and degradation; 

increased predation 

Year 2050 Moderate+ 

A Fire Low Low 10% Non-Imminent Low Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation 

Likely to increase indefinitely with cheatgrass invasion 

Low+ 

A Invasive Plants Moderate Moderate 65% Imminent Moderate Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation 

Likely to increase indefinitely 

due to 

increased 

human presence and climate change 

Moderate+ 

A Pin ̃on-Juniper Encroachment Low Low 15% Imminent Moderate Habitat fragmentation and 

degradation; increased predation 

Indefinitely Low 

A Domestic and Wild Ungulate 

Herbivory 

High Low 85% Imminent Moderate Habitat degradation Indefinitely Moderate 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5. THREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING

GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE. A ‘‘+’’ INDICATES HIGHER LEVEL OF THREAT.—Continued 

Listing Factor Threat or Impact 

Magnitude Imminence 

Species’ Response Foreseeable Future Overall Threat Overall 

Magnitude Intensity Exposure (percent) Overall Immi- nence Likelihood 

A Non-renewable Energy 

Development 

Low+ Moderate 10% Imminent Low Habitat fragmentation and 

degradation; increased predation 

Year 2050 Low 

A Renewable Energy Development Low+ Low+ 15% Non-Imminent Moderate Habitat fragmentation and degradation; increased 

predation 

Year 2050 Low 

A Climate Change Low Moderate 100% Imminent Moderate Unknown, but could facilitate increase in invasive 

plants and corresponding 

increased fire frequency 

Climate models predict out to 

40 years 

Low 

B Hunting Low Low 0% Non-Imminent Low None Year 2050 Low B Lek Viewing Low Low 10% Imminent Moderate Harassment; avoidance Year 2050 Low B Scientific Research Low+ Low+ 50% Imminent Moderate Harassment; direct mortality Year 2050 Low 

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 Laws and 

Regulations 

High Moderate 50% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation 

Year 2050 High 

D Inadequacy of State Laws and 

Regulations 

Moderate High 60% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation 

Year 2050 Moderate 

D Inadequacy of Federal Laws 

and Regulations 

High High 75% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation, 

and degradation 

Year 2050 High 

E Genetic Complications High Moderate+ 70% Imminent High Inbreeding depression; loss 

of adaptive potential 

Indefinitely High 

E Small Population Size Moderate+ Moderate+ 60% Imminent High Population vulnerability to 

stochastic events 

Indefinitely Moderate+ 

E Drought Moderate+ High 100% Imminent Moderate Habitat degradation; decline 

in species reproductive potential 

Indefinitely Moderate 

E Recreation Low Low+ 50% Imminent Moderate Harassment; avoidance Year 2050 Low E Pesticides and Herbicides Low Low 10% Non-Imminent Low Direct mortality; habitat 

degradation 

Year 2050 Low 

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). 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 sagegrouse. 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 sagegrouse (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 longterm sustainability of this landscapescale 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 sagegrouse is precluded by work on higher 

priority listing actions with absolute 

statutory, court-ordered, or courtapproved 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 highpriority 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 higherpriority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Service Listing Program is available to 

support work involving the following 

listing actions: Proposed and final 

listing rules; 90–day and 12–month 

findings on petitions to add species to 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change 

the status of a species from threatened 

to endangered; annual determinations 

on prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ 

petition findings as required under 

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

habitat petition findings; proposed and 

final rules designating critical habitat; 

and litigation-related, administrative, 

and program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. The median cost for 

preparing and publishing a 90–day 

finding is $39, 276; for a 12–month 

finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule 

with critical habitat, $345,000; and for 

a final listing rule with critical habitat, 

the median cost is $305,000. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

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

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget 

has included a critical habitat subcap to 

ensure that some funds are available for 

other work in the Listing Program (‘‘The 

critical habitat designation subcap will 

ensure that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

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

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

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2009, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding, when making a 12– 

month petition finding, whether we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97-304, 

which established the current statutory 

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

discussion on 90–day petition findings 

that by its own terms also covers 12– 

month findings) that the deadlines were 

‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to 

delay commencing the rulemaking 

process for any reason other than that 

the existence of pending or imminent 

proposals to list species subject to a 

greater degree of threat would make 

allocation of resources to such a petition 

[that is, for a lower-ranking species] 

unwise.’’ 

In FY 2010, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

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

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). However these funds are 

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

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

our critical habitat subcap funds in 

order to work on all of our required 

petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

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

process is to make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

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

is being used to fund work in the 

following categories: compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

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

candidate species. In 2009, the 

responsibility for listing foreign species 

under the Act was transferred from the 

Division of Scientific Authority, 

International Affairs Program, to the 

Endangered Species Program. Starting 

in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is 

being used to work on the actions 

described above as they apply to listing 

actions for foreign species. This has the 

potential to further reduce funding 

available for domestic listing actions. 

Although there are currently no foreign 

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

many actions have statutory or courtWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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 highpriority species provided with funding. 

Finally, proposed rules for 

reclassification of threatened species to 

endangered are lower priority, since as 

listed species, they are already afforded 

the protection of the Act and 

implementing regulations. 

We assigned the Gunnison sagegrouse 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 courtapproved 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 papilliferum 

(Slickspot Peppergrass) as a 

Threatened Species Throughout Its 

Range 

Final Listing Threatened 74 FR 52013-52064 

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List 

the American Dipper in the Black 

Hills of South Dakota as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial 

74 FR 55177-55180 

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling 

(Thymallus arcticus) in the Upper 

Missouri River System 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review 

74 FR 55524-55525 

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct 

Population Segment of the Queen 

Charlotte Goshawk Under the 

Endangered Species Act: Proposed 

rule. 

Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56757-56770 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo 

as Threatened Throughout Its 

Range with Special Rule 

Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56770-56791 

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sagegrouse (Centrocercus minimus) Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review 

74 FR 61100-61102 

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

74 FR 63343-63366 

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

74 FR 63337-63343 

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List 

Nine Species of Mussels From 

Texas as Threatened or 

Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

74 FR 66260-66271 

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

to List 475 Species in the 

Southwestern United States as 

Threatened or Endangered With 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial and Subtantial 

74 FR 66865-66905 

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To 

Change the Final Listing of the 

Distinct Population Segment of the 

Canada Lynx To Include New 

Mexico 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

74 FR 66937-66950 

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru 

and Bolivia as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range 

Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 605-649 

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as 

Endangered Throughout Their Range 

Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 286-310 

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List 

Cook’s Petrel 

Proposed rule, withdrawal 75 FR 310-316 

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos 

Petrel and Heinroth’s Shearwater as 

Threatened Throughout Their 

Ranges 

Final Listing Threatened 75 FR 235-250 

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave 

eggersiana and Solanum 

conocarpum 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 

Review 

75 FR 3190-3191 

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to 

List the American Pika as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 6437-6471 

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Sonoran Desert Population 

of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened 

or Endangered Distinct Population 

Segment 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 8601-8621 

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List 

the Southwestern Washington/ 

Columbia River Distinct Population 

Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as 

Threatened 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List 75 FR 8621-8644 

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Berry Cave salamander as 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 13068-13071 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59857 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Southern Hickorynut Mussel 

(Obovaria jacksoniana) as 

Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial 

75 FR 13717-13720 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Striped Newt as Threatened 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 13720-13726 

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List 

the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

75 FR 13910-14014 

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake 

(Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as 

Threatened or Endangered with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

75 FR 16050-16065 

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as or 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 17062-17070 

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To 

List the Mountain Whitefish in the 

Big Lost River, Idaho, as 

Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 17352-17363 

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a 

Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a 

Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as 

Threatened or Endangered with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial 

75 FR 17363-17367 

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the Delta Smelt From 

Threatened to Endangered 

Throughout Its Range 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

75 FR 17667-17680 

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status 

for 48 Species on Kauai and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

Final ListingEndangered 75 FR 18959-19165 

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the 

North American Wolverine in the 

Contiguous United States 

Notice of Initiation of Status Review 75 FR 19591-19592 

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as 

Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 19592-19607 

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a 

Distinct Population Segment of the 

Fisher in Its United States Northern 

Rocky Mountain Range as 

Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 19925-19935 

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for 

Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys 

macrolepidotus) 

Notice of Initiation of Status Review 75 FR 20547-20548 

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Harlequin Butterfly as 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 21568-21571 

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

Susan’s Purse-making Caddisfly 

(Ochrotrichia susanae) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 22012-22025 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Mohave Ground Squirrel as 

Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 22063-22070 

5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Hermes Copper Butterfly as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 23654-23663 

6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 30313-30318 

6/1/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to 

List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as 

Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 30338-30363 

6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

van Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as 

Endangered orThreatened. 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 32728-32734 

6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to 

List Seven Species of Hawaiian 

Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 34077-34088 

6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Least Chub as Threatened or 

Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

75 FR 35398-35424 

6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Honduran Emerald 

Hummingbird as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 35746-35751 

6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa 

Skyrocket) as Endangered 

Throughout Its Range, and Listing 

Penstemon debilis (Parachute 

Beardtongue) and Phacelia 

submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as 

Threatened Throughout Their 

Range 

Proposed Listing Endangered Proposed Listing Threatened 75 FR 35721-35746 

6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian 

Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian 

Damselfly As Endangered 

Throughout Their Ranges 

Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 35990-36012 

6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush 

Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky 

Madtom, and Laurel Dace as 

Endangered Throughout Their 

Ranges 

Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 36035-36057 

6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Plover as 

Threatened 

Reinstatement of Proposed Listing 

Threatened 

75 FR 37353-37358 

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) 

as Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 42033-42040 

7/20/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Amargosa Toad as Threatened 

or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 42040-42054 

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Giant Palouse Earthworm 

(Driloleirus americanus) as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 42059-42066 

7/27/2010 Determination on Listing the BlackBreasted Puffleg as Endangered 

Throughout its Range; Final Rule 

Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 43844-43853 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59859 

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

7/27/2010 Final Rule to List the Medium TreeFinch (Camarhynchus pauper) as 

Endangered Throughout Its Range 

Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 43853-43864 

8/3/2010 Determination of Threatened Status 

for Five Penguin Species 

Final ListingThreatened 75 FR 45497- 45527 

8/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 

the Mexican Gray Wolf as an 

Endangered Subspecies With Critical 

Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 46894- 46898 

8/10/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Arctostaphylos franciscana as 

Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 48294-48298 

8/17/2010 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species 

from Latin America and the 

Caribbean as Endangered 

Throughout Their Range 

Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 50813-50842 

8/17/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

Brian Head Mountainsnail as 

Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 

substantial 

75 FR 50739-50742 

8/24/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 

the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid 

as Endangered or Threatened 

Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 

Substantial 

75 FR 51969-51974 

9/1/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the White-Sided Jackrabbit as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Not warranted 

75 FR 53615-53629 

9/8/2010 Proposed Rule To List the Ozark 

Hellbender Salamander as 

Endangered 

Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 54561-54579 

9/8/2010 Revised 12-Month Finding to List the 

Upper Missouri River Distinct 

Population Segment of Arctic 

Grayling as Endangered or 

Threatened 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

75 FR 54707-54753 

9/9/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 

the Jemez Mountains Salamander 

(Plethodon neomexicanus) as 

Endangered or Threatened with 

Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, 

Warranted but precluded 

75 FR 54822-54845 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 but have not yet 

been completed to date. These actions 

are listed below. Actions in the top 

section of the table are being conducted 

under a deadline set by a court. Actions 

in the middle section of the table are 

being conducted to meet statutory 

timelines, that is, timelines required 

under the Act. Actions in the bottom 

section of the table are high-priority 

listing actions. These actions include 

work primarily on species with an LPN 

of 2, and selection of these species is 

partially based on available staff 

resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

African penguin Final listing determination 

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination 

Mountain plover4 Final listing determination 

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination 

Sacramento splittail 12–month petition finding 

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding 

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Wolverine 12–month petition finding 

Agave eggergsiana 12–month petition finding 

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding 

Sprague’s pipit 12–month petition finding 

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding 

Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly3 12–month petition finding 

Hermes copper butterfly3 12–month petition finding 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle Final listing determination 

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

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination 

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination 

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek 

darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace) 

Final listing determination 

Salmon crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination 

CA golden trout 12–month petition finding 

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding 

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding 

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding 

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding 

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding 

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding 

3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly(Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, 

Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition 

12–month petition finding 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59861 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium 

ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species 

petition 

12–month petition finding 

2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 

species petition 

12–month petition finding 

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus 

proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 

206 species petition 

12–month petition finding 

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

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

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding 

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding 

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding 

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

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

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

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema 

galbina) (from 475 species petition) 

12–month petition finding 

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species 

petition) 

12–month petition finding 

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, 

Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species petition) 

12–month petition finding 

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

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding 

Berry Cave salamander1 12–month petition finding 

Striped Newt1 12–month petition finding 

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mountain Range1 12–month petition finding 

Mohave Ground Squirrel1 12–month petition finding 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Western gull-billed tern 12–month petition finding 

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

HI yellow-faced bees 12–month petition finding 

Giant Palouse earthworm 12–month petition finding 

Whitebark pine 12–month petition finding 

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

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

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding 

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding 

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding 

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding 

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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

59862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued 

Species Action 

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 Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 

2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) 

Proposed listing 

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

= 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8) 

Proposed listing 

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

2 Arizona springsnails2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis 

trivialis (LPN = 2)) 

Proposed listing 

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

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

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

Altamaha spinymussel2 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

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

(LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 

5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe 

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

Proposed listing 

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

priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3Partially 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2

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

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2