69312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0111; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AX71 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), designate 

critical habitat for the Gunnison sagegrouse (Centrocercus minimus) under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act). In 

total, approximately 1,429,551 acres (ac) 

(578,515 hectares (ha)) are designated as 

critical habitat in Delta, Dolores, 

Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, Montrose, 

Ouray, Saguache, and San Miguel 

Counties in Colorado; and in Grand and 

San Juan Counties in Utah. The effect of 

this regulation is to conserve Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat under the Act. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

December 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and at the 

Service’s species Web site for Gunnison 

sage-grouse, at http://www.fws.gov/

mountain-prairie/species/birds/

gunnisonsagegrouse/. Comments and 

materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation used in 

preparing this final rule, are available 

for public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking will be made available 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Western Colorado Field Office, 

445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 240, 

Grand Junction, CO 81501; telephone 

970–243–2778. 

The coordinates from which the 

critical habitat maps are generated are 

included in the administrative record 

for this rulemaking and are available at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0111, at http://

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/

birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/, and at the 

Western Colorado Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any 

additional tools or supporting 

information that we developed for this 

critical habitat designation will also be 

available at the Fish and Wildlife 

Service Web site and Field Office set out 

above, and may also be included in the 

preamble and at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Linner, Western Colorado 

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Western Colorado Field Office, 

445 West Gunnison Ave., Suite 240, 

Grand Junction, CO 81501; telephone 

970–243–2778; facsimile 970–245–6933. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. This 

is a final rule to designate critical 

habitat for the Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) (Act), any species that is 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species requires critical 

habitat to be designated, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable. Designations and 

revisions of critical habitat can only be 

completed by issuing a rule. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service), publish a final rule to list the 

Gunnison sage-grouse as a threatened 

species under the Act. On January 11, 

2013, we published in the Federal 

Register a proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the species (78 FR 

2540). Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states 

that the Secretary shall designate critical 

habitat on the basis of the best available 

scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. 

The critical habitat areas we are 

designating in this rule constitute our 

current best assessment of the areas that 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Here we are 

designating approximately 1,429,551 

acres (ac) (578,515 hectares (ha)) in six 

units in Delta, Dolores, Gunnison, 

Hinsdale, Mesa, Montrose, Ouray, 

Saguache, and San Miguel Counties in 

Colorado, and in Grand and San Juan 

Counties in Utah. 

This rule consists of: A final rule 

designating critical habitat for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The Gunnison 

sage-grouse is concurrently being listed 

as threatened under the Act, in a 

separate rule elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register. This rule designates 

critical habitat necessary for the 

conservation of the species. 

We have prepared an economic 

analysis of the designation of critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared an analysis of the 

economic impacts of the critical habitat 

designations and related factors. We 

announced the availability of the draft 

economic analysis (DEA) in the Federal 

Register on September 19, 2013 (78 FR 

57604), allowing the public to provide 

comments on our analysis. We have 

incorporated the comments into our 

analysis and have completed the final 

economic analysis (FEA) concurrently 

with this final determination. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments on our proposed 

critical habitat rule (as well as our 

proposal to list the species) from 

independent and appropriate specialists 

to ensure that our designation is based 

on scientifically sound data and 

analyses. We obtained opinions from 

five knowledgeable individuals with 

relevant scientific expertise to review 

our technical assumptions, analysis, and 

whether or not we had used the best 

available information. One peer 

reviewer concluded that our proposals 

included a thorough and accurate 

review of the available scientific and 

commercial data on Gunnison sagegrouse, but did not provide substantive 

comments. The remaining four letters 

provided additional relevant 

information on biology, threats, and 

scientific research for the species. Two 

peer review letters were generally in 

opposition to the proposals and 

questioned our rationale and 

determinations. Information we 

received from peer review is considered 

and incorporated as appropriate in this 

final revised designation. We also 

considered all comments and 

information received from the public 

during each comment period. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please see the proposed (78 FR 2486, 

January 11, 2013) and final listing rules 

(published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register) for a history of previous 

Federal actions related to Gunnison 

sage-grouse prior to January 11, 2013. 

On January 11, 2013, we published in 

the Federal Register a proposed rule to 

list Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered 

(78 FR 2486), and a proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat for the species 

(78 FR 2540). We proposed to designate 

as critical habitat approximately 

1,704,227 acres (689,675 hectares) in 

seven units located in Chaffee, Delta, 

Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, 

Montrose, Ouray, Saguache, and San 

Miguel Counties in Colorado, and in 

Grand and San Juan Counties in Utah. 

Those proposals initially had a 60-day 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69313 

comment period, ending March 12, 

2013, but we extended the comment 

period by an additional 21 days, 

through April 2, 2013 (78 FR 15925, 

March 13, 2013). 

On July 19, 2013, we extended the 

timeline for making final determinations 

on both proposed rules by 6 months due 

to scientific disagreement regarding the 

sufficiency and accuracy of the available 

data relevant to the proposals, and we 

reopened the public comment period to 

seek additional information to clarify 

the issues in question (78 FR 43123). In 

accordance with that July 19, 2013, 

publication, we indicated our intent to 

submit a final listing determination and 

a final critical habitat designation for 

Gunnison sage-grouse to the Federal 

Register on or before March 31, 2014. 

On September 19, 2013, we 

announced in the Federal Register the 

availability of the draft economic 

analysis and a draft environmental 

assessment prepared pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) for the proposed critical habitat 

designation, and reopened the public 

comment period until October 19, 2013 

(78 FR 57604). The draft economic 

analysis (IEc 2013, entire) was prepared 

to identify and evaluate the economic 

impacts of the proposed critical habitat 

designation. We also reopened the 

public comment period from November 

4, 2013, through December 2, 2013, and 

announced the rescheduling of three 

public hearings on the proposed listing 

and critical habitat rules due to delays 

caused by the lapse in government 

appropriations in October 2013 (78 FR 

65936, November 4, 2013). All 

substantive information received during 

all public comment periods related to 

the critical habitat designation, 

economic analysis, and environmental 

assessment have been incorporated 

directly into the final versions of those 

documents, or addressed below (see 

Peer Review and Public Comments). 

On February 11, 2014, we announced 

a 6-week extension to May 12, 2014, for 

our final decision on our proposed 

listing and critical habitat rules (USFWS 

2014e). This extension was granted by 

the Court due to delays caused by the 

lapse in government appropriations in 

October 2013, and the resulting need to 

reopen a public comment period and 

reschedule public hearings. On May 6, 

2014, we announced a 6-month 

extension to November 12, 2014, as 

approved by the Court, to make our final 

listing and critical habitat decisions 

(USFWS 2014f). 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

• We refined some critical habitat 

boundaries based the most recent 

occupied habitat spatial layers by 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). We 

also modified the unoccupied habitat in 

the Sanborn Park/Iron Springs area to 

better match CPW’s mapping. We also 

deleted one unoccupied polygon 

(Bostwick Park) in the Cerro Summit 

area based on the low likelihood of this 

area supporting birds. 

• Although we previously proposed 

designating a critical habitat unit in 

Poncha Pass, information received since 

the publication of the proposed rule has 

caused us to reevaluate the 

appropriateness of including the unit. 

Poncha Pass is thought to have been 

part of the historical distribution of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. There were no 

grouse there, however, when a 

population was established via 

transplant from 30 Gunnison Basin 

birds in 1971 and 1972. In 1992, hunters 

harvested at least 30 grouse from the 

population when CPW inadvertently 

opened the area to hunting. We have no 

information on the population’s trends 

until 1999 when the population was 

estimated at roughly 25 birds. In one 

year, the population declined to less 

than 5 grouse, when more grouse were 

brought in, again from the Gunnison 

Basin, in 2000 and 2001. In 2002, the 

population rose to just over 40 grouse, 

but starting in 2006, the population 

again started declining until no grouse 

were detected in lek surveys in the 

spring of 2013 (after publication of the 

proposed critical habitat rule). Grouse 

were again brought in in the fall of 2013 

and 2014 and six grouse were counted 

in the Poncha Pass population during 

the spring 2014 lek count (CPW 2014d, 

p. 2); however, no subsequent evidence 

of reproduction was found. We now 

conclude that the Poncha Pass area, for 

reasons unknown, is not a landscape 

capable of supporting a population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and therefore 

does not meet primary constituent 

element (PCE) 1. As a result, we have 

determined that the Poncha Pass area 

should not be designated as critical 

habitat, and have therefore removed this 

proposed critical habitat unit from the 

final critical habitat designation. 

• Based on peer review and public 

comments and our analysis, this final 

rule excludes specific properties from 

the critical habitat designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, namely 

private lands enrolled in the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) as 

of the effective date of this rule, private 

lands under permanent conservation 

easement (CE) as of August 28, 2013 as 

identified by Lohr and Gray (2013), and 

private land owned by the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe under restricted fee 

status that is subject to a species 

conservation plan as of the effective 

date of this final rule (see Exclusions). 

These private land exclusions reduced 

the total critical habitat designation 

from 1,621,008 ac (655,957 ha) to 

1,429,551 ac (578,515 ha) (see Table 1). 

• We modified the boundaries of this 

critical habitat designation around the 

City of Gunnison. We refined the 

boundary to leave out areas of mediumto high-intensity development, airport 

runways, and golf courses. In all other 

areas, lands covered by buildings, 

pavement, and other manmade 

structures, as of the effective date of this 

rule, are not included in this 

designation, even if they occur inside 

the boundaries of a critical habitat unit, 

because such lands lack physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

and hence do not constitute critical 

habitat as defined in section 3(5)(A)(i) of 

the Act. 

• Based on comments and 

recommendations received by peer 

reviewers and the public, in this final 

rule, we refined our description of the 

PCEs (see Primary Constituent Elements 

for Gunnison Sage-grouse) and have 

provided more detailed background and 

rationale for the criteria and methods 

used to identify and map critical habitat 

(see Criteria and Methods Used to 

Identify and Map Critical Habitat). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69314 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SIZE AND CURRENT

OCCUPANCY STATUS OF

GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE IN PROPOSED AND FINAL DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS a

Critical habitat unit 

Proposed critical habitat Final critical habitat without exclusions Final critical habitat with exclusions 

Ac Ha Occupied? Ac Ha Ac Ha Occupied? Ac Ha Ac Ha Occupied? Ac Ha 

Monticello-Dove Creek ....................................... 348,353 14,097 Yes .......... 111,945 45,303 348,949 141,214 Yes .......... 112,543 45,544 343,000 138,807 Yes .......... 107,061 43,326 

No ............ 236,408 95,671 No ............ 236,405 95,670 No ............ 235,940 95,481 

Pin ̃on Mesa ........................................................ 245,179 99,220 Yes .......... 38,905 15,744 245,925 99,522 Yes .......... 44,678 18,080 207,792 84,087 Yes .......... 28,820 11,663 

No ............ 206,274 83,476 No ............ 201,247 81,442 No ............ 178,972 72,424 

San Miguel Basin ............................................... 165,769 67,084 Yes .......... 101,371 41,023 143,277 57,982 Yes .......... 101,750 41,177 121,929 49,343 Yes .......... 81,514 32,988 

No ............ 64,398 26,061 No ............ 41,526 16,805 No ............ 40,414 16,355 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa .................. 62,708 25,334 Yes .......... 37,161 15,038 56,541 22,881 Yes .......... 37,161 15,039 52,544 21,264 Yes .......... 33,675 13,628 

No ............ 25,547 10,339 No ............ 19,380 7,843 No ............ 18,869 7,636 

Crawford ............................................................. 97,123 3,930 Yes .......... 35,015 14,170 97,124 39,305 Yes .......... 35,015 14,170 83,671 33,860 Yes .......... 32,632 13,206 

No ............ 62,109 25,134 No ............ 62,109 25,134 No ............ 51,039 20,655 

Gunnison Basin .................................................. 76,802 298,173 Yes .......... 592,952 239,959 729,194 295,053 Yes .......... 592,168 239,600 620,616 251,154 Yes .......... 500,909 202,711 

No ............ 143,850 58,214 No ............ 137,027 55,453 No ............ 119,707 48,444 

Poncha Pass ...................................................... 48,292 19,543 Yes .......... 20,416 8,262 

No ............ 27,877 11,281 Not included in the final critical habitat designation 

All Units .............................................................. 1,704,227 689,675 Yes .......... 937,765 379,499 1,621,008 655,957 Yes .......... 923,314 349,238 1,429,551 578,515 Yes .......... 784,611 317,521 

No ............ 766,463 310,176 No ............ 697,694 306,719 No ............ 644,940 260,994 

a Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69315 

Peer Review and Public Comments 

In our January 11, 2013, proposed 

rules for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(proposed listing, 78 FR 2486; and 

proposed critical habitat designation, 78 

FR 2540), we requested written public 

comments on the proposals. We 

requested written comments from the 

public on the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Gunnison sagegrouse during four comment periods, 

spanning from January 11, 2013, to 

December 2, 2013 (see Previous Federal 

Actions). We also requested comments 

on the associated draft economic 

analysis and environmental assessment 

during two of those comment periods 

(see Previous Federal Actions). We 

contacted appropriate State and Federal 

agencies, county governments, elected 

officials, scientific organizations, and 

other interested parties and invited 

them to comment. We also published 

notices inviting general public comment 

in local newspapers throughout the 

species’ range. From January 11, 2013, 

to December 2, 2013, we received a total 

of 36,171 comment letters on both 

proposals. Of those letters, 

approximately 445 were substantive 

comment letters; 35,535 were 

substantive form letters; and 191 were 

non-substantive comment letters. 

Substantive letters generally 

contained comments pertinent to both 

proposed rules, although the vast 

majority of comments were related to 

the proposed listing rule. Responses to 

comments related to the listing rule are 

provided in the final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse as threatened, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. Also, three public hearings 

were held November 19–21, 2013, in 

response to requests from local and 

State agencies and governments; oral 

comments were received during that 

time (see Previous Federal Actions). All 

substantive information related to 

critical habitat provided during the 

comment periods has been incorporated 

directly into this final rule or addressed 

below. For the readers’ convenience, we 

combined similar comments and 

responses. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published in the Federal Register 

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we 

solicited and received expert opinion 

from five appropriate and independent 

individuals with scientific expertise on 

Gunnison sage-grouse biology and 

conservation. The purpose of the peer 

review is to ensure that our decisions 

are based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses, based on the 

input of appropriate experts and 

specialists. We received written 

responses from all five peer reviewers. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

critical habitat for the Gunnison sagegrouse. One peer reviewer concluded 

that our proposals included a thorough 

and accurate review of the available 

scientific and commercial data on 

Gunnison sage-grouse, but did not 

provide substantive comments. The 

remaining four letters provided 

additional relevant information on 

biology, threats, and scientific research 

for the species. Two peer review letters 

were generally in opposition to the 

proposed listing and critical habitat 

designation and questioned our 

rationale and determinations. All 

substantive comments from peer 

reviewers related to critical habitat are 

incorporated directly into this final rule 

or addressed in the summary of 

comments below. For the readers’ 

convenience, similar comments and 

responses are combined. 

Comments From Peer Reviewers 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that we should consider 

including measures of residual grass 

cover and height in the assessment of 

breeding habitat within the PCEs for 

Gunnison sage-grouse critical habitat. 

Our response: As described in this 

final rule, habitat structural values for 

breeding habitat (PCE 2) are based on 

the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan (RCP) and are 

considered average values over a given 

project or area (Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Steering Committee (GSRSC) 

2005, p. H–6). This comprises the best 

available information for breeding 

habitat requirements of Gunnison sagegrouse. The RCP does not specifically 

define minimum residual grass cover or 

height (remaining seasonal vegetation 

following livestock grazing) or grazing 

management for breeding habitats. 

However, the PCE 2 includes habitat 

structural guidelines that require 

appropriate and cognizant management 

(i.e., related to livestock grazing and 

forage utilization levels) to ensure that 

adequate residual grass cover and height 

are achieved and maintained. Thus, we 

conclude that the PCEs indirectly 

address residual grass cover and height 

requirements for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

This topic is discussed further in the 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Gunnison Sage-grouse section of this 

final rule. 

(2) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that the sagebrush canopy cover and 

height requirements establishing winter 

habitat seem high, as compared to 

greater sage-grouse needs, and given 

that sagebrush exposed above the snow 

is the overriding consideration for 

wintering habitat, and this exposure 

often occurs in wind-blown areas where 

sagebrush cover and height are much 

less than the numbers presented here. 

Our response: Winter habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse either has 

sufficient shrub height to be above 

average snow depths, or is exposed due 

to topographic features (e.g., windswept 

ridges, south-facing slopes) (GSRSC 

2005, p. H–3). As described in this final 

rule, habitat structural values for winter 

habitat (PCE 4) are specific to Gunnison 

sage-grouse and its habitat and are based 

on the RCP and studies that quantified 

vegetation attributes of winter habitat 

used by Gunnison sage-grouse (Hupp 

1987, entire; GSRSC 2005, pp. H–2 to 

H–3). These are considered average 

values over a given project or area 

(GSRSC 2005, p. H–8). This comprises 

the best available information for the 

winter habitat requirements specific to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. This topic is 

discussed further in the Primary 

Constituent Elements for Gunnison 

Sage-grouse section of this final rule. 

(3) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that it is not clear in the proposed rule 

what methods and criteria were used to 

identify and map critical habitat, or 

why. 

Our response: In this final rule, we 

expand our description of the criteria 

and methods used to identify and map 

critical habitat and provide detailed 

rationale for our analysis and approach 

(see Criteria and Methods Used to 

Identify and Map Critical Habitat). 

(4) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that habitat in Utah at brood location 

sites did not meet the rangewide 

structural habitat guidelines (and by 

extension, do not contain the proposed 

PCEs), yet brood production, based on 

small samples sizes, exceeded what was 

previously reported for Colorado (Young 

1994, Apa 2004). The peer reviewer 

suggested that these habitat differences 

were an artifact of the hens with broods 

selecting for Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) fields where sagebrush 

cover was limited to small patches. 

Our response: As indicated in the 

peer reviewer’s information, brood 

production in the subject study area 

(areas with lower vegetation structural 

values than identified by the RCP and 

our PCEs) was based on a very small 

sample size—the broods of just three 

hens were monitored during this study 

(Lupis 2005, p. 28). Therefore, we 

cannot conclude from this study that 

brood production of Gunnison sagegrouse in Utah is higher than observed 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69316 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

in Colorado, despite lower habitat 

structural values in the study area. 

As described in this final rule, habitat 

structural values for breeding habitat 

(PCE 2) are based on the RCP and are 

considered average values over a given 

project or area (GSRSC 2005, p. H–6). 

This comprises the best available 

information for breeding habitat 

requirements of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Agricultural fields, which include CRP 

lands, are also included in both PCE 2 

and PCE 3, because the best available 

science indicates that these lands are 

sometimes used by the species as early 

brood-rearing and summer-late fall 

habitat when they are part of a 

landscape that otherwise encompasses 

the species’ seasonal habitats. We 

therefore acknowledge the benefits of 

CRP lands to Gunnison sage-grouse, as 

habitat provided under this program is 

generally more beneficial to the species 

than lands under more intensive 

agricultural uses such as crop 

production. Gunnison sage-grouse are 

known, for example, to regularly use 

CRP lands in the Monticello population 

(Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Ward 

2007, p. 15). In San Juan County, 

Gunnison sage-grouse use CRP lands in 

proportion to their availability (Lupis et 

al. 2006, p. 959). However, CRP lands 

are generally lacking in the sagebrush 

and shrub components typically critical 

to the survival and reproduction of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and vary greatly 

in plant diversity and forb abundance 

(Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Prather 

2010, p. 32). As such, while these CRP 

lands are considered critical habitat, 

they are generally of lower value or 

quality than native sagebrush habitats. 

Future section 7(a)(2) consultations 

regarding the potential effect of a 

Federal project on critical habitat would 

take into consideration the value or 

quality of the affected habitat. 

The CRP program is evaluated in our 

final rule to list Gunnison sage-grouse as 

threatened, published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. 

(5) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that the total area summarized as 

unoccupied habitat in Table 4 of the 

proposed critical habitat rule 

approximates estimates provided by the 

Utah Division of Wildlife for Utah based 

on sagebrush cover. The peer reviewer 

further noted that unoccupied areas 

north of Highway 491 in Utah 

approximate rangewide habitat 

guidelines. However within this area, 

approximately 30,000 acres would be 

considered non-habitat (Table 3, San 

Juan County Working Group 2000) 

because they are largely dominated by 

pin ̃on-juniper (Pinus edulis-Juniperus 

spp.). Therefore, the peer reviewer 

suggested that many of the areas 

included in the critical habitat 

designation may not contain suitable 

habitat. 

Our response: Unoccupied habitat 

does not need to contain the PCEs, the 

standard is instead ‘‘essential for the 

conservation of the species.’’ For 

occupied habitat at the landscape scale, 

we consider all areas designated as 

occupied critical habitat here to meet 

the landscape specific PCE (1) and one 

or more of the seasonally specific PCEs 

(2–5). Although in our final listing rule, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, we found that using a 1.5-km 

radius (window) analysis was not 

appropriate for evaluating the effects of 

residential development, for our habitat 

suitability analysis, we found that, at 

the 1.5-km radius scale (or window) 

(based on Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 400), 

areas where at least 25 percent of the 

land is dominated by sagebrush cover 

(based on Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 465– 

467; and Aldridge et al. 2008b, pp. 989– 

990) provided the best estimation of our 

current knowledge of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied range and suitable 

habitat. It is important to note that 25 

percent of a 1.5-km radius area being 

dominated by sagebrush cover (as 

classified by Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project (SWReGAP) 30 x 30 

meter pixels) is very different from an 

area having 25 percent canopy cover of 

sagebrush. At the landscape scale, there 

will still be areas (up to 75 percent) that 

are not dominated by sagebrush within 

the larger matrix of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied habitat. For example, 

there will be areas within this landscape 

that are dominated by pin ̃on-juniper or 

mixed shrub communities that will still 

be occupied critical habitat, because at 

the landscape scale considered here, 

these areas are still part of the larger 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. In a 

critical habitat determination, the 

Service determines what scale is most 

meaningful to identifying specific areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under the Act. For example, for 

a wide-ranging, landscape species 

covering a large area of occupied and 

potential habitat across several States 

(such as the Gunnison sage-grouse), a 

relatively coarse-scale analysis is 

appropriate and sufficient to designate 

critical habitat as defined by the Act, 

while for a narrow endemic species, 

with specialized habitat requirements 

and relatively few discrete occurrences, 

it might be appropriate to engage in a 

relatively fine-scale analysis for the 

designation of critical habitat. 

(6) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that the answer to ‘‘how much is 

enough’’ in terms of the minimum size 

landscape needed to support a sagegrouse population remains uncertain. 

This peer reviewer felt that the 

Monticello population area proposed 

critical habitat should include only the 

Conservation Study Area (CSA), and 

that additional areas include some sites 

dominated by pin ̃on-juniper and deep 

draws and canyons that may never 

provide suitable Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. Thus, the peer reviewer 

recommended refining the proposed 

critical habitat boundaries to include 

only the CSA and appropriate buffer 

areas as defined by Prather (2010). 

Our response: The Act directs us to 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

the species at the time it is listed (such 

as the CSA), upon a determination that 

such areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. For the 

Gunnison sage-grouse, we evaluated the 

ability of unoccupied habitat to 

potentially provide for the landscape 

scale habitat needs of the species by 

identifying areas of large size with large 

areas dominated by sagebrush. A 

minimum of 500 birds may be necessary 

to support a viable population (Shaffer 

1981, p. 133; GSRSC 2005, pp. 2 and 

170). Approximately 100,000 ac (40,500 

ha) likely would be needed to support 

500 birds (GSRSC 2005, p. 197). 

Currently occupied habitat is less than 

this amount for three of the six 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations 

included in this final designation–– 

Pin ̃ on Mesa, Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa, and Crawford. Two other 

populations—Monticello-Dove Creek 

and San Miguel Basin––slightly exceeds 

this amount. This suggests that 

currently occupied habitat alone may 

not be sufficient to maintain long-term 

viability for at least three and possibly 

five of the six populations included in 

this final designation. Declining trends 

in the abundance of Gunnison sagegrouse outside of the Gunnison Basin 

further indicate that currently occupied 

habitat for the five satellite populations 

included in this final designation may 

be less than the minimum amount of 

habitat necessary for their long-term 

viability. Therefore, we consider the 

designation of unoccupied critical 

habitat, including areas outside the CSA 

in the Monticello population area, 

essential for conservation of the species. 

As we discuss in detail below, our 

delineation of unoccupied critical 

habitat areas was based on specific 

criteria, scientific data, and mapping 

methods on a landscape scale. These 

parameters were consistently applied 

across the range of Gunnison sagegrouse to ensure the integrity and 

reliability of the maps on a broad scale, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69317 

as opposed to applying varying sources 

and scales of data or information on 

habitat conditions. This topic is 

discussed further under Criteria and 

Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat in this final rule. 

In a critical habitat determination, the 

Service determines what scale is most 

meaningful to identifying specific areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under the Act. For example, for 

a wide-ranging, landscape species 

covering a large area of occupied and 

potential habitat across several States 

(such as the Gunnison sage-grouse), a 

relatively coarse-scale analysis is 

appropriate and sufficient to designate 

critical habitat as defined by the Act. 

While for a narrow endemic species, 

with specialized habitat requirements 

and relatively few discrete occurrences, 

it might be appropriate to engage in a 

relatively fine-scale analysis for the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Comments From States 

Comments received from the States 

regarding the proposal to designate 

critical habitat for the Gunnison sagegrouse are incorporated directly into 

this final rule or are addressed below. 

(1) Comment: Arizona Game and Fish 

Department stated that any designation 

of Gunnison sage-grouse critical habitat 

should occur within the current 

distribution for the species, in Colorado 

and Utah. 

Our Response: Critical habitat has 

been designated only in Colorado and 

Utah, within the current range of the 

species. 

(2) Comment: Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife (CPW) requested justification 

for our use of the Dolores County line 

as the southern boundary for critical 

habitat designation, and not including 

areas of habitat within Montezuma 

County. 

Our Response: Our identification of 

lands that contain the features essential 

to conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse was based on a habitat mapping 

project by the Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Steering Committee in 2005 

(78 FR 2547, January 11, 2013). The 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan notes that the local 

conservation plan for Dove Creek was 

limited to Dolores County (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 70). The RCP potential habitat 

polygon that extended into Montezuma 

County was very large. The portion of 

the potential polygon that fell within 

Montezuma County had little suitable 

habitat (less than 20 percent of the 

almost 95,000 ac) and the suitable 

habitat was almost all more than 18.5 

km away from occupied habitat. The 

Dove Creek Conservation Plan (1998, p. 

7) states that the species is not known 

to currently occur in Montezuma 

County. Further, vegetation data 

indicate that areas in Montezuma 

County are generally unsuitable for the 

species. For these reasons, we modified 

this very large potential polygon so it no 

longer included Montezuma County. 

Criteria for identifying and mapping 

critical habitat are described in further 

detail in this final rule (see Criteria and 

Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). 

(3) Comment: CPW and one other 

commenter questioned the use of 18 

kilometers (km) (11 miles (mi)) as a 

distance for seasonal movement and for 

critical habitat designation. CPW stated 

that this distance is for extreme 

movements and results in large areas of 

non-habitat being included in the 

critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: Gunnison sage-grouse 

make relatively large movements on an 

annual basis (GSRSC 2005, p. J–3). The 

movement distances of Gunnison sagegrouse as a criterion for identifying 

unoccupied critical habitat areas are 

discussed in this final rule (see 

Proximity and Potential Connectivity 

(Criterion 3)). To account for proximity 

to and potential connectivity with 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 

we only considered unoccupied areas 

meeting our other criteria to be critical 

habitat if they occur within 

approximately 18.5 km (11.5 mi) of 

occupied habitat (using ‘‘shortest 

distance’’). This distance represents the 

rangewide maximum measured seasonal 

movement of Gunnison sage-grouse 

across all seasons, as presented in the 

RCP (GSRSC 2005, p. J–3). Therefore, 

outside of occupied habitat, we 

conclude that unoccupied areas within 

18.5 km (11.5 mi) of occupied areas 

have the highest likelihood of Gunnison 

sage-grouse use and occupation. 

Other scientific information further 

supports our use of 18.5 km to account 

for habitat connectivity. Connelly et al. 

(2000a, p. 978) recommended protection 

of breeding habitats within 18 km of 

active leks in migratory sage-grouse 

populations. The maximum dispersal 

distance of greater sage-grouse in 

northwestern Colorado was greater than 

20.0 km (12.4 mi) and, therefore, it was 

suggested that populations within this 

distance could maintain gene flow and 

connectivity (Thompson 2012, pp. 285– 

286). It was hypothesized that isolated 

patches of suitable habitats within 18 

km (11.2 mi) provide for connectivity 

between sage-grouse populations; 

however, information on how sagegrouse actually move through 

landscapes is lacking (Knick and Hanser 

2011, pp. 402, 404). 

We recognize that Gunnison sagegrouse movement behavior and 

distances likely vary widely by 

population and area, potentially as a 

function of population dynamics, 

limited or degraded habitats, and 

similar factors. Movements have been 

documented as being much greater (up 

to 56 km (35 mi)) or less than 18.5 km 

in some cases (see our final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register for more 

discussion). However, the best available 

information indicates 18.5 km is a 

reasonable estimate of the distance 

required between habitats and 

populations to ensure connectivity for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, or facilitate 

future expansion of the species range— 

hence, we used this measure in our 

evaluation of areas as potential critical 

habitat. This topic is discussed further 

under Criteria and Methods Used to 

Identify and Map Critical Habitat in this 

final rule. 

(4) Comment: CPW recommended that 

the following areas of proposed critical 

habitat be reevaluated: Pine forests 

along the eastern boundary of Gunnison 

Basin, Sanborn Park north of Iron 

Springs, Bostwick Park and Poverty 

Mesa in the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa Unit, Black Mesa between 

Crawford and Gunnison Basin (they 

requested that we exclude the north side 

and include the south side), southern 

Dove Creek, Hinsdale County, and the 

southeastern portion of Sims Mesa. 

CPW recommended that these areas be 

reevaluated for a variety of reasons, 

including updated mapping, severely 

degraded or converted habitats, and 

inappropriate habitats (such as forested 

areas). 

Our Response: We have modified our 

critical habitat designation to address 

several of CPWs concerns as follows: (1) 

We modified several occupied polygons 

to reflect the latest mapping from CPW 

(CPW 2013e, spatial data); (2) we used 

CPW’s mapping for unoccupied habitat 

in the Sanborn Park/Iron Springs area; 

and (3) we removed the unoccupied 

habitat in the Bostwick Park area (part 

of the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa population) from our critical 

habitat designation because the habitat 

has been converted to a point where 

restoration to Gunnison age-grouse 

habitat would be highly unlikely and 

because it did not meet our suitability 

criterion (see Criteria and Methods Used 

to Identify and Map Critical Habitat 

below). Other areas have remained the 

same based on our sagebrush habitat 

suitability analysis as further described 

here. 

For occupied habitat, we based our 

identification of lands that contain the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69318 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

PCEs for Gunnison sage-grouse on 

polygons delineated, defined, and 

updated by Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

(CPW) and the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR) as part of the 2005 

RCP Habitat Mapping project (GSRSC 

2005, p. 54; CPW 2013e, spatial data). 

We consider all areas designated as 

occupied critical habitat here to meet 

the landscape specific PCE 1 and one or 

more of the seasonally specific PCEs (2– 

5). In general, for PCE 1, this includes 

areas with vegetation composed of 

sagebrush plant communities (at least 

25 percent of the land is dominated by 

sagebrush within a 0.9-mi (1.5-km) 

radius of any given location) (see 

Habitat Suitability), of sufficient size 

and configuration to encompass all 

seasonal habitats for a given population 

of Gunnison sage-grouse, and facilitate 

movements within and among 

populations. 

We based our identification of 

unoccupied critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse on four criteria: 

(1) The overall distribution or range of 

the species; (2) potential occupancy of 

the species; (3) proximity and potential 

connectivity to occupied habitats; and 

(4) suitability of the habitat for the 

species. Our delineation of unoccupied 

critical habitat areas was based on these 

criteria, scientific data, and mapping 

methods on a landscape scale. These 

parameters were consistently applied 

across the range of Gunnison sagegrouse to ensure the integrity and 

reliability of the maps on a broad scale, 

as opposed to applying varying sources 

and scales of data or information on 

habitat conditions. 

In this designation, as described in 

Criteria and Methods Used to identify 

and map Critical Habitat, we utilized 

the best available information to 

identify areas for critical habitat at a 

landscape level scale. At a smaller scale, 

there are local areas that do not meet 

these landscape criteria, and for 

occupied habitat, the PCEs. All 

occupied areas have the PCEs on a 

landscape scale, and unoccupied areas 

meet the landscape criteria at a 

landscape scale as well, therefore these 

areas are designated as critical habitat. 

Gunnison and greater sage-grouse 

occupancy, survival, and persistence are 

dependent on the availability of 

sufficient sagebrush habitat on a 

landscape scale (Patterson 1952, p. 9; 

Braun 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, 

p. 364; Knick and Connelly 2011, entire; 

Aldridge et al. 2012, entire; Wisdom et 

al. 2011, entire). Aldridge et al. (2008b, 

pp. 989–990) reported that at least 25 

percent of the land needed to be 

dominated by sagebrush cover within a 

30 km (18.6 mi) radius scale for longterm persistence of sage-grouse 

populations. Wisdom et al. (2011, pp. 

465–467) indicated that at least 27 

percent of the land needed to be 

dominated by sagebrush cover within an 

18-km (11.2-mi) radius scale for a higher 

probability of sage-grouse population 

persistence. Although in our final listing 

rule, published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register, we found that using a 

1.5-km radius (window) analysis was 

not appropriate for evaluating the effects 

of residential development, for our 

habitat suitability analysis, we found 

that, at the 1.5-km radius scale (or 

window) (based on Aldridge et al. 2012, 

p. 400), areas where at least 25 percent 

of the land is dominated by sagebrush 

cover (based on Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

465–467; and Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 

989–990) provided the best estimation 

of our current knowledge of Gunnison 

sage-grouse occupied range and suitable 

habitat. It is important to note that 25 

percent of a 1.5-km radius area being 

dominated by sagebrush cover (as 

classified by SWReGAP 30 x 30 meter 

pixels) is very different from an area 

having 25 percent canopy cover of 

sagebrush. At the landscape scale, there 

will still be areas (up to 75 percent) that 

are not dominated by sagebrush within 

the larger matrix of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied habitat. For example, 

there are areas within this landscape 

that are dominated by pin ̃ on-juniper or 

mixed shrub communities that are still 

occupied critical habitat, because at the 

landscape scale considered here, these 

areas are still part of the larger 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. In a 

critical habitat determination, the 

Service determines what scale is most 

meaningful to identifying specific areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under the Act. For example, for 

a wide-ranging, landscape species 

covering a large area of occupied and 

potential habitat across several States 

(such as the Gunnison sage-grouse), a 

relatively coarse-scale analysis is 

appropriate and sufficient to designate 

critical habitat as defined by the Act. 

While for a narrow endemic species, 

with specialized habitat requirements 

and relatively few discrete occurrences, 

it might be appropriate to engage in a 

relatively fine-scale analysis for the 

designation of critical habitat. 

Although in our final listing rule, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, we found that using a 1.5-km 

radius (window) analysis was not 

appropriate for evaluating the effects of 

residential development, we found that, 

at the 1.5-km radius scale (or window) 

(based on Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 400), 

mapping areas where at least 25 percent 

of the land is dominated by sagebrush 

cover (based on Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

465–467; and Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 

989–990) provided the best estimation 

of our current knowledge of Gunnison 

sage-grouse occupied range and suitable 

habitat. Specifically, we found that 

modeling at the finer 1.5-km scale was 

necessary to identify or ‘‘capture’’ all 

areas of known occupied range, 

particularly in the smaller satellite 

populations where sagebrush habitat is 

generally limited in extent. Larger scales 

failed to capture areas that we know to 

contain occupied and suitable habitats 

(e.g., at the 54-km scale, only the 

Gunnison Basin area contained areas 

where 25 percent or more of the land is 

dominated by sagebrush cover) (USFWS 

2013d, p. 3). 

The scale of the maps provided in the 

final rule to designate critical habitat 

does not allow for delineation of some 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, and other manmade 

structures within critical habitat that do 

not contain the required PCEs; 

nonetheless, lands covered by buildings, 

pavement and other manmade 

structures on the effective date of this 

rule are not included in critical habitat, 

and text has been included in the final 

regulation to make this point clear. This 

topic is discussed further under Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat in this final rule. 

(5) Comment: The Colorado 

Department of Agriculture, the State of 

Utah Office of the Governor, and several 

other commenters expressed concern 

that critical habitat designation would 

impact the local economy, with income 

losses due to restrictions to agriculture, 

energy development, mineral extraction, 

or hunting. 

Our Response: We expect some 

economic impacts as a result of 

designating critical habitat for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The Final 

Economic Analysis (FEA) forecasted 

incremental impacts from the critical 

habitat designation alone (not including 

baseline impacts due to listing of the 

species) of $6.9 million (present value 

over 20 years), assuming a seven percent 

discount rate. Assuming a social rate of 

time preference of three percent, 

incremental impacts were $8.8 million 

(present value over 20 years). 

Annualized incremental impacts of the 

critical habitat designation were forecast 

to be $610,000 at a seven percent 

discount rate, or $580,000 at a three 

percent discount rate (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014, p. ES–2). 

Estimated economic impacts for a 20- 

year period regarding livestock grazing, 

agriculture and water management, 

mineral and fossil fuel extraction, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69319 

residential development, renewable 

energy development, recreation, and 

transportation are described in the FEA 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). 

Actions carried out, authorized by or 

funded by a Federal agency that might 

affect the species or its critical habitat 

would require section 7 consultations 

under the Act. 

(6) Comment: The State of Utah Office 

of the Governor asserted that voluntary 

cooperation of private landowners will 

be much more effective in improving 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse than 

protections afforded by listing and 

designation of critical habitat. 

Our Response: We agree that 

voluntary cooperation of private 

landowners will be key in improving 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, under the Act, we must list a 

species that meets the definition of a 

threatened or endangered species, and 

we have determined that the Gunnison 

sage-grouse meets this definition. We 

believe that the best opportunity to 

conserve and ultimately recover the 

species will require both the protections 

afforded by listing and the critical 

habitat designation as well as voluntary 

conservation measures undertaken by 

private landowners, with support from 

the State in accomplishing these 

measures. 

(7) Comment: The State of Utah Office 

of the Governor asserted that the critical 

habitat designation for Utah is too broad 

and erroneously includes sagebrush 

(Artemisia spp.) areas that likely never 

supported Gunnison sage-grouse, but 

are based on habitat definitions from the 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan. Similarly, a Federal 

agency asserted that approximately onethird of unoccupied habitat proposed 

for designation as critical habitat does 

not contain at least 25 percent sagebrush 

cover and suggested that we clearly 

identify the criteria (such as soil type) 

that indicate sagebrush communities 

once occurred. 

Our Response: See our responses to 

comments 3 and 4 above, which explain 

the methodology we used to delineate 

critical habitat areas. 

(8) Comment: CPW commented that, 

within proposed unoccupied critical 

habitat, mapped ‘‘vacant/unknown 

habitat’’ should be considered more 

important than ‘‘potentially suitable 

habitat’’ because restoration would not 

be required in vacant/unknown habitat. 

Additionally, CPW recommended that 

old-growth pin ̃ on-juniper, exurban 

lands, and agricultural lands be 

removed from the category of 

potentially suitable habitat. 

Our Response: We consider both 

categories of unoccupied critical habitat 

(vacant/unknown and potentially 

suitable habitat, as defined by the RCP) 

to be essential to conservation of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. However, habitat 

conditions and suitability across these 

areas vary, and we recognize that certain 

areas may require restoration to meet 

the needs of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

With respect to exurban lands, lands 

covered by buildings, pavement and 

other manmade structures on the 

effective date of this rule are not 

included in this critical habitat 

designation, either by mapping or by 

text in this final rule. With respect to 

unoccupied agricultural lands, these 

areas can be important for various 

seasonal uses by grouse and can, 

because of scale, meet the landscape 

level habitat suitability criteria. These 

topics are discussed further under the 

Criteria and Methods Used to Identify 

and Map Critical Habitat section in this 

final rule. 

Comments From Federal Agencies 

Comments received from Federal 

agencies regarding the proposal to 

designate critical habitat for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse are incorporated 

directly into this final rule or are 

addressed below. 

(9) Comment: Two Federal agencies 

noted that the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat included areas 

outside of currently occupied habitat 

that are deemed essential for the 

conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse and questioned how a section 7 

adverse modification analysis will be 

conducted in unoccupied critical 

habitat that does not contain the PCEs. 

Our Response: Our memorandum of 

December 9, 2004, provides our most 

current guidance on critical habitat and 

adverse modification (USFWS 2004). 

This memorandum describes an 

analytical framework for adverse 

modification determinations addressing 

how critical habitat will be addressed in 

different sections of the Section 7(a)(2) 

consultation or Section 7(a)(4) 

conference. Unoccupied habitat does 

not need to have the PCEs, the standard 

is instead ‘‘essential to the conservation 

of the species.’’ Instead of considering 

the PCEs, in the section 7 consultation 

addressing unoccupied habitat, we 

would expect a discussion of whether 

critical habitat, through the 

implementation of the proposed Federal 

action, would remain functional (or 

retain the current ability for the PCEs to 

be functionally established) to serve the 

intended conservation role for the 

species (USFWS 2004, p. 3). 

We also note that the Service has 

proposed to amend the definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat’’ to (1) more explicitly tie 

the definition to the stated purpose of 

the Act; and (2) more clearly contrast 

the definitions of ‘‘destruction or 

adverse modification’’ of critical habitat 

and ‘‘jeopardize the continued existence 

of’’ any listed species (79FR 27060). 

(10) Comment: A Federal agency 

recommended that critical habitat 

boundaries and edges should be made 

contiguous at the Utah and Colorado 

state line for the Pin ̃ on Mesa population 

and for the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population. 

Our Response: We based our 

identification of occupied and 

unoccupied habitats for Gunnison sagegrouse on maps and polygons 

delineated and defined by the CPW and 

UDWR. Habitat maps were completed 

by the CPW and UDWR in support of 

the 2005 RCP (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) 

and are updated periodically (CPW 

2013e, spatial data). The habitat maps 

were derived from a combination of 

telemetry locations, sightings of sagegrouse or sage-grouse sign, local 

biological expertise, GIS analysis, and 

other data sources (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; 

CDOW 2009e, p. 1). These sources, as 

compiled in the RCP and updated, 

combined with recent lek count data, 

collectively constitute the best available 

information on the species’ current 

distribution and occupancy in Colorado 

and Utah. In general, we considered 

areas classified as ‘‘occupied habitat’’ 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 38, 54) to be currently 

occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse. All 

RCP mapped occupied habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, except Poncha 

Pass (which does not meet PCE 1), is 

included in this critical habitat 

designation. Unoccupied habitat is 

included in this designation only when 

designated by the RCP (including both 

potential and vacant/unknown habitats), 

where potential connectivity to 

occupied habitat exists, and where 

vegetation cover provides suitable 

habitat, as described below. This topic 

is discussed further under the Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat section in this final rule. 

According to the RCP information, in 

the Pin ̃on Mesa population area in Utah, 

the center polygon is of vacant or 

unknown status; and the northern and 

southern polygons are potential habitat. 

As pointed out, the polygons do not 

match between Colorado and Utah. For 

instance, mapped occupied habitat in 

Colorado terminates at the State line, 

although adjacent habitat in Utah is 

shown as unoccupied. In that case, 

while Gunnison sage-grouse from the 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population are known to 

seasonally use adjacent habitat in Utah, 

the area was not classified as occupied 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69320 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

by the RCP (GSRSC 2005, p. 86). In the 

Monticello-Dove Creek population, part 

of the state line transition is due to a 

change to cropland on the Utah side of 

the border (GSRSC 2005, p. 38). The 

RCP has identified resolving these 

mapping issues as an objective, but this 

resolution has not been completed to 

date (GSRSC 2005, p. 221). A Federal 

agency recently suggested that all 

critical habitat near Monticello, Utah 

should be considered occupied. This 

change in designation has not been 

vetted through the RCP process, which 

we have determined provides the best 

available science regarding habitat 

occupied by the species. Critical habitat 

designations can also be revised by a 

future rulemaking, if appropriate. In the 

meantime, section 7 consultations can 

incorporate updated information in the 

analysis of designated critical habitats. 

(11) Comment: A Federal agency 

stated that the following information 

from statements in the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat conflict and 

need clarification. The first statement 

was that critical habitat designated at a 

particular point in time may not include 

all of the habitat areas that we may later 

determine are necessary for the recovery 

of the species. The second statement 

was that critical habitat units are 

depicted for Grand and San Juan 

Counties, Utah, and Chaffee, Delta, 

Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Mesa, 

Montrose, Ouray, Saguache, and San 

Miguel Counties, Colorado (78 FR 2542 

and 2562, January 11, 2013). 

Our Response: The first statement 

acknowledges that with new 

information we may in the future 

identify other areas outside of 

designated critical habitat that are 

needed for recovery of the species. 

Consequently, conservation actions for 

the species can occur outside of critical 

habitat, section 7 consultations can 

occur outside of critical habitat if the 

species is present, and section 9 

prohibitions regarding take apply 

anywhere. The second statement 

proposes critical habitat, based on the 

best available information, in portions 

of the aforementioned counties (note, 

however, that lands in Chaffee County 

are no longer included in this final 

designation). This results in 

requirements for section 7 consultations 

within critical habitat, even if the 

habitat is not currently occupied by the 

species. 

(12) Comment: Several agencies 

requested that research be cited 

regarding the justification for the 

landscape specific PCE 1, and more 

specifically the generally corresponding 

habitat suitability analysis (areas with 

vegetation composed primarily of 

sagebrush plant communities [at least 

25 percent of the area is dominated by 

sagebrush cover within a 1.5-km (0.9- 

mi) radius of any given location], of 

sufficient size and configuration to 

encompass all seasonal habitats for a 

given population of Gunnison sagegrouse, and facilitate movements within 

and among populations). The 

commenters noted that no on-theground assessment was completed to 

verify the choice of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) as 

a tool to delineate critical habitat. 

Our Response: See our response to 

comment 4 above. The Act does not 

require us to collect additional 

information or do assessments on the 

ground; instead it requires us to base 

our decisions on the best available 

information. 

(13) Comment: A Federal agency 

requested clarification regarding 

whether each PCE must be met for 

designation as critical habitat. 

Our Response: We consider all areas 

designated as occupied critical habitat 

here to meet the landscape specific PCE 

1 and one or more of the seasonally 

specific PCEs (2–5). This topic is 

discussed under the Primary 

Constituent Elements for Gunnison 

Sage-grouse section of this final rule. 

However, see our response to comment 

9 above for a discussion of unoccupied 

critical habitat and section 7 

consultation. Unoccupied critical 

habitat does not need to contain the 

PCEs, but rather is designated because it 

is considered essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

(14) Comment: A Federal agency 

requested clarification regarding the 

‘‘non-sagebrush canopy cover 

component’’ of PCEs 2–3, and asked 

whether this component includes trees 

or just non-sagebrush shrubs. 

Our Response: Habitat structural 

values for the seasonally specific PCEs 

2 and 3 (breeding habitat and summerfall habitat, respectively) are based on 

the RCP (GSRSC 2005, pp. H–6 and H– 

7). The non-sagebrush canopy cover 

component (5 to 15 percent) does not 

include tree canopy cover, but may 

include other shrub species such as 

horsebrush (Tetradymia spp.), 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), 

bitterbrush (Purshia spp.), snakeweed 

(Gutierrezia sarothrae), greasewood 

(Sarcobatus spp.), winterfat (Eurotia 

lanata), Gambel’s oak (Quercus 

gambelii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier 

spp.), and chokecherry (Prunus 

virginiana). We clarify this in the 

Seasonally Specific Primary Constituent 

Elements section of this final rule. 

(15) Comment: A Federal agency 

suggested that wording in the proposed 

rule to designate critical habitat (78 FR 

2547, January 11, 2013) be changed from 

implying that wildfire suppression 

would be a new management 

consideration to noting that it is an 

ongoing management action. The agency 

also requested that the North Rim 

Landscape Strategy be explicitly 

recognized as an ongoing conservation 

effort. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

provide a list of management 

considerations or protections (including 

wildfire suppression) that may be 

applied in the future within critical 

habitat, each of which has been 

implemented to some extent in the past. 

We clarify this in the Special 

Management Considerations section of 

this final rule. The North Rim 

Landscape Strategy is discussed in the 

final rule to list Gunnison sage-grouse as 

threatened, published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. To the extent 

the commenter is inquiring about 

whether certain activities might be 

‘‘actions’’ under section 7 of the ESA, 

this determination is made on a case-bycase basis as an agency investigates 

whether a particular action is subject to 

consultation. 

(16) Comment: A Federal agency 

recommended that results from the ESRI 

‘‘Neighborhood Analysis’’ tool be 

provided within the final rule to 

designate critical habitat. 

Our Response: The full results of our 

modeling and analysis, including the 

ESRI ‘‘Neighborhood Analysis’’, are not 

in a format that can be provided in the 

Federal Register. However, the data and 

methods used to perform our analyses 

are described in greater detail in this 

final rule (see Criteria and Methods 

Used to Identify and Map Critical 

Habitat); and background and 

supporting data are available by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Western Colorado Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES). 

(17) Comment: A Federal agency 

stated that the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat and the 

proposed rule to list present conflicting 

viewpoints regarding whether or not fire 

regimes are altered and whether or not 

altered fire regimes are a threat. 

Our Response: In the proposed and 

final critical habitat rules for Gunnison 

sage-grouse, we identified ‘‘threats to 

the physical and biological features’’ of 

critical habitat units, including altered 

fire regimes. These are stressors 

potentially affecting the conservation 

and management of critical habitat. This 

is in contrast to identified threats to the 

species’ continued persistence, as 

evaluated in the final rule to list 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69321 

Gunnison sage-grouse (published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register). 

In this final rule, we clarify this point 

by identifying these stressors as ‘‘factors 

potentially affecting the physical and 

biological features’’ of given critical 

habitat units (see Unit Descriptions). 

(18) Comment: A Federal agency 

recommended adding areas to the 

critical habitat unit proposed for Pin ̃ on 

Mesa, provided GIS data, and noted that 

more information is available. 

Our Response: We have added and 

expanded occupied areas in the Pin ̃on 

Mesa critical habitat unit based on 

updated mapping provided by CPW. 

CPW does recognize that the boundaries 

of Pin ̃ on Mesa need to be changed, but 

those changes were not completed prior 

to the publication of this rule. CPW 

modifies their unit boundaries in a 

group setting with input from numerous 

individuals and sources. Since a group 

(that would include the Federal agency) 

has not been convened by CPW to 

officially change the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

boundaries, we choose here to rely on 

the older information provided by CPW 

as the best currently available 

information. 

(19) Comment: A Federal agency 

noted that in the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat, the text 

describes ‘‘potential’’ and ‘‘vacant or 

unknown’’ habitat categories, whereas 

the maps refer to ‘‘occupied’’ and 

‘‘unoccupied’’ habitat. 

Our Response: We used RCP 

‘‘occupied habitat’’ to define areas 

currently occupied by Gunnison sagegrouse (GSRSC 2005, pp. 38, 54) (see 

Criteria and Methods Used to Identify 

and Map Critical Habitat). We also use 

the RCP mapped ‘‘potential’’ and 

‘‘vacant or unknown’’ habitat polygons 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) to evaluate 

unoccupied areas as potential critical 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. We 

combined and classified these two types 

as unoccupied habitat for consideration 

in our analysis and identification of 

critical habitat (see Potential Occupancy 

of the Species). 

(20) Comment: A Federal agency 

recommended deleting a portion of 

unoccupied habitat in the southern part 

of Gunnison Basin that is forested, and 

provided shapefiles. 

Our Response: We did look at the 

shapefiles provided. In general, we have 

relied on the most recent habitat 

mapping done by CPW (GSRSC 2005, 

spatial data; CPW 2013e, spatial data) as 

the best available data. Some critical 

habitat unit boundaries have been 

refined based on the mapping by CPW. 

Our habitat suitability analysis looked at 

areas that generally correlated with PCE 

1 where the dominant species is 

sagebrush 25 percent of the time within 

a 1.5 km radius. Given this, there could 

be up to 75 percent of the time where 

a different species, such as treed areas, 

is dominant. See our responses to 

comments 3 and 4 above. 

(21) A Federal agency stated it does 

not support inclusion of isolated 

Federal lands polygons of unoccupied 

habitat within a matrix of private lands 

that are also unoccupied, unless the 

Service can demonstrate that those 

Federal land polygons––if restoration 

were applied and successful––are 

valuable in and of themselves for sagegrouse habitat. 

Our Response: Unoccupied lands are 

designated here because they are 

‘‘essential for the conservation of the 

species’’ and these areas do not stop at 

land ownership boundaries. We 

recognize that in areas with a high 

proportion of private ownership and 

with more intensive land uses (such as 

agriculture), the conservation of these 

populations will be more difficult than 

in less developed areas. In these 

developed areas, the importance of 

Federal lands can be greater than less 

developed areas because there may be 

fewer conservation options available on 

private lands (especially those that are 

already developed). The conservation of 

the grouse in these more developed 

areas will be more likely with the 

cooperation of private landowners and 

there are numerous tools available to 

private landowners to work on 

conservation of the grouse. The 

comment to exclude Federal lands 

assumes that restoration is not possible 

on these private lands. 

Our landscape level approach used in 

this critical habitat designation 

generally does not consider land 

ownership. With the exception of 

exemptions for economic reasons or for 

Department of Defense lands and 

exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act (where the benefits of such 

exclusions outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion), all lands that contain the 

PCEs (for occupied areas) or are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species (for unoccupied areas) are 

included in a critical habitat 

designation. On Federal lands where 

agencies are required to conserve 

endangered species (section 7(a)(1) of 

the Act) and consult on projects that 

may adversely affect species (section 

7(a)(2) of the Act), it is difficult to show 

how an exclusion outweighs inclusion. 

In contrast, on private lands where 

conservation is largely voluntary, 

rewarding landowners for their 

conservation efforts by excluding their 

lands in a critical habitat designation 

can outweigh the benefits of including 

those lands. 

(22) Comment: The U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) recommended several 

additions and deletions to critical 

habitat on USFS lands at Crawford, 

Gunnison Basin, Pin ̃ on Mesa, and San 

Miguel Basin, with a net reduction of 

12,781 ha (31,557 ac), and noted the 

following information: 

• Most of the areas proposed for 

removal at Crawford are forested areas 

directly north of Blue Mesa Reservoir. 

• Waunita Park in Gunnison Basin 

was considered unoccupied critical 

habitat in the proposed rule, but 

Gunnison sage-grouse have been 

observed in that area by USFS personnel 

for at least the past 20 years. 

• Forested areas in Gunnison Basin 

should be deleted. 

• At Pin ̃ on Mesa, sagebrush areas in 

portions of the Dominguez Creek 

watershed and in portions of Calamity 

Basin should be added. 

• Forested areas at San Miguel Basin 

should be removed from critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: Waunita Park was 

changed to occupied habitat, consistent 

with CPWs updates (CPW 2013e, spatial 

data). Although in our final listing rule, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, we found that using a 1.5-km 

radius (window) analysis was not 

appropriate for evaluating the effects of 

residential development, for our habitat 

suitability analysis, we found that, at 

the 1.5-km radius scale (or window) 

(based on Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 400), 

areas where at least 25 percent of the 

land is dominated by sagebrush cover 

(based on Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 465– 

467; and Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 989– 

990) provided the best estimation of our 

current knowledge of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied range and suitable 

habitat. Given this, there could be up to 

75 percent of the time where a different 

vegetation type is dominant, such as 

treed areas. CPW does recognize that 

changes are needed to the boundaries of 

Pin ̃ on Mesa, but those changes were not 

completed by CPW prior to the 

publication of this rule. CPW modifies 

their unit boundaries in a group setting 

with input from numerous individuals 

and sources. Since a group (that would 

include the USFS) has not been 

convened by CPW to change the Pin ̃on 

Mesa boundaries, we choose here to rely 

on the older information provided by 

CPW as the best currently available 

information. See our responses to 

comments 3, 4, 18, and 20 above. 

(23) Comment: The USFS provided a 

list of grazing allotments containing 

critical habitat, dates of permit renewal 

for those allotments, and information on 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69322 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

whether or not they are covered by the 

Gunnison Basin Candidate Conservation 

Agreement (CCA). 

Our Response: We considered this 

information for the final critical habitat 

(and listing) rules. 

(24) Comment: The USFS asked if the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

at the Dolores and Montezuma County 

line was intended to include any 

portion of Montezuma County; a close 

inspection of the map in the proposed 

rule indicates that a small portion of 

Montezuma County is included. 

Our Response: Montezuma County is 

not included in this critical habitat 

designation. Please see our response to 

comment 2 above; and the map for 

Critical Habitat Unit 1: Monticello-Dove 

Creek, at the end of this rule. Any 

observed overlap of this critical habitat 

unit with Montezuma County may be 

due to GIS application and/or projection 

errors. 

(25) Comment: We received several 

comments about our proposed critical 

habitat designation at Poncha Pass. One 

Federal agency recommended revising 

the delineation of critical habitat at 

Poncha Pass based on the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Level III Soil classification survey and 

vegetation potential and provided GIS 

files. A Federal agency also asserted that 

most of the unoccupied habitat and a 

small section of occupied habitat do not 

have the potential to support sagebrush 

due to alkaline soils and low 

precipitation, or do not have the 

potential to support brood-rearing 

habitat because of minimal water 

availability. The USFS recommended 

that any land in the Rio Grande National 

Forest on the east side of the Valley at 

Poncha Pass that is designated as 

critical habitat be considered 

unoccupied due to a lack of 

documented presence. The agency 

noted that small parcels of USFS land 

on the west side of the Valley within 

critical habitat contain sagebrush that 

might eventually be used by Gunnison 

sage-grouse. The USFS stated that 

proposed critical habitat extends too far 

up the slopes of the Sangre de Cristo 

Range into mixed-conifer forests and 

offered to work with the Service in 

defining critical habitat on the east side 

of the Valley. 

Our Response: Although we 

previously proposed designating a 

critical habitat unit in Poncha Pass, 

information received since the 

publication of the proposed rule (CPW 

2013e, p. 1; CPW 2014d, p. 2; CPW 

2014e, p. 2; CPW 2014f, p. 2) has caused 

us to reevaluate this proposal and to 

determine that it should not be included 

in this designation. See Reasons for 

Removing Poncha Pass as a Critical 

Habitat Unit below. 

Comments From the Public 

Comments received from the general 

public including local governments, 

organizations, associations, and 

individuals regarding the proposal to 

designate critical habitat for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse are incorporated 

directly into this final rule or are 

addressed below. 

(26) Comment: Several commenters 

indicated that National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and economic 

analyses should be completed and made 

available for review prior to designating 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: Both a Draft 

Environmental Assessment, as required 

by NEPA, and a Draft Economic 

Analysis were completed and made 

available for public review on 

September 19, 2013 (78 FR 57604), prior 

to this final designation of critical 

habitat. Comments have been addressed 

for both the Environmental Assessment 

and Economic Analysis, and final 

versions of these documents have been 

completed and posted to the Service’s 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/

mountain-prairie/species/birds/

gunnisonsagegrouse/ and at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

(27) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed differing opinions on whether 

private lands should be excluded from 

critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: Private lands are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and, therefore, qualify as critical 

habitat. Federal agencies manage 55 

percent of critical habitat designated in 

this rule. Approximately 43 percent of 

critical habitat is on private lands. 

Although there are public lands within 

the current range of the Gunnison sagegrouse, they are not sufficient to ensure 

conservation of the species for the 

reasons discussed in Rationale and 

Other Considerations below. The 

language of the Act does not restrict the 

designation of critical habitat to specific 

land ownerships such as Federal lands. 

Consequently, lands of all ownerships 

are considered if they meet the 

definition of critical habitat. Designation 

of private or other non-Federal lands as 

critical habitat has no regulatory impact 

on the use of that land unless there is 

Federal action that is subject to 

consultation. Identifying non-Federal 

lands that are essential to the 

conservation of a species alerts State 

and local government agencies and 

private landowners to the value of 

habitat on their lands, and may promote 

conservation partnerships. We have, 

however, excluded from our critical 

habitat designation 191,460 ac (77,481 

ha) of private land where the CCAA, 

CEs, and a Tribal land management plan 

provide protection for Gunnison sagegrouse (see Exclusions below). 

(28) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that agricultural lands and other 

habitat without sagebrush should be 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: The best available 

information supports the consideration 

and inclusion of certain agricultural 

lands and other lands without sagebrush 

in this critical habitat designation. The 

PCEs for this species include those 

habitat components essential for 

meeting the biological needs of 

reproducing, rearing of young, foraging, 

sheltering, dispersing, and exchanging 

genetic material. Gunnison sage-grouse 

are sagebrush obligates, requiring large, 

interconnected expanses of sagebrush 

plant communities that contain a 

healthy understory of native, 

herbaceous vegetation. The species may 

also use riparian habitat, agricultural 

lands, and grasslands that are in close 

proximity to sagebrush habitat. Primary 

constituent elements 2, 3, and 5 include 

agricultural lands, and PCE 5 

(alternative, mesic habitats) also 

includes wet meadows, and other 

habitats that may not contain sagebrush 

but which occur near sagebrush 

communities. This topic is discussed 

further under the Seasonally Specific 

Primary Constituent Elements section of 

this final rule. 

(29) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that critical habitat should not 

include unoccupied habitat. 

Our Response: The Service has found 

that areas outside the geographical area 

currently occupied by the species are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. Data indicate that the currently 

occupied habitat area for four 

populations in this designation is 

insufficient for the conservation of the 

species, and may be minimally adequate 

for one other population (see our 

response to peer review comment 6). 

Declining trends in the abundance of 

Gunnison sage-grouse outside of the 

Gunnison Basin further indicate that 

currently occupied habitat for the five 

satellite populations included in this 

final designation may be less than the 

minimum amount of habitat necessary 

for the conservation of the species. 

Unoccupied habitat in the Gunnison 

Basin population is also needed for 

movement and migration of birds to 

outlying areas and satellite populations 

and for potential range expansion. 

Consequently, we do not believe that 

occupied habitat alone is sufficient to 

ensure conservation of the species. We 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69323 

designated occupied and unoccupied 

habitat that is essential for conservation 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. This topic is 

discussed further under the Rationale 

and Other Considerations section in this 

final rule. 

(30) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that critical habitat should 

include all PCEs throughout the 

designated area. 

Our Response: We consider all areas 

designated as occupied critical habitat 

here to meet the landscape specific PCE 

1 and one or more of the seasonally 

specific PCEs (2–5). See our responses 

to comments 9 and 13. Each of the 

seasonally specific PCEs represents a 

unique seasonal habitat important for 

Gunnison sage-grouse survival and 

reproduction. Therefore, few areas 

would contain all seasonally specific 

PCEs. For instance, alternative, mesic 

habitats (PCE 5) may contain little to 

none of the sagebrush component 

generally required for the breeding, 

summer-fall, and winter habitats (PCEs 

2–4). 

(31) Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that a specific county (i.e., 

Dolores, Hinsdale, Ouray, or Saguache 

Counties in Colorado, or San Juan 

County in Utah) should be excluded 

from critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: See our responses to 

comments 27 and 28. The five smaller 

populations included in this final 

designation outside of Gunnison Basin 

provide redundancy in the event of 

perturbations such as an outbreak of 

West Nile virus or the occurrence of 

drought, either of which could result in 

severe impacts to the Gunnison sagegrouse. The loss of one or more of the 

populations outside of Gunnison Basin 

could reduce the geographical 

distribution and total range of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse and increase the 

species’ vulnerability to stochastic 

events and natural catastrophes, 

although the Poncha Pass population 

less so because it provides no unique 

genetic characteristics (since it is 

composed entirely of Gunnison Basin 

birds). These topics are discussed in 

detail in our final rule to list Gunnison 

sage-grouse as threatened, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

The specific counties mentioned 

include portions of critical habitat 

designated for the Monticello-Dove 

Creek, San Miguel Basin, Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa, and Gunnison 

Basin populations and are essential for 

conservation of the species. 

(32) Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that lands with an 

existing conservation plan, CEs, 

Certificates of Inclusion (CIs), or other 

protections for Gunnison sage-grouse 

either should or should not be excluded 

from critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: Multiple partners 

including private citizens, 

nongovernmental organizations, a Tribe, 

and Tribal, State, and Federal agencies 

are engaged in conservation efforts 

across the range of Gunnison sagegrouse. Numerous conservation actions 

have been implemented for Gunnison 

sage-grouse, and these efforts have 

provided and will continue to provide 

conservation benefit to the species. In 

this final rule, as provided by section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, we evaluate the 

benefits of including versus excluding 

lands covered under an existing 

conservation plan. Based on that 

evaluation, lands covered under the 

CCAA or CEs have been excluded from 

this final critical habitat designation. 

That evaluation also supported our 

decision to exclude the Ute Mountain 

Ute Tribe’s Pinecrest Ranch in the 

Gunnison Basin area from the critical 

habitat designation, based on the Tribe’s 

conservation plan for the ranch (see 

Exclusions). We are excluding 191,460 

ac (77,481 ha) of proposed critical 

habitat on these conserved areas from 

the final designation. 

(33) Comment: Several commenters 

presented differing opinions on whether 

or not energy and mineral exploration 

and production should be prohibited on 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: Critical habitat does 

not in and of itself prohibit or permit 

certain activities or development. 

Critical habitat designation will only 

affect projects that are subject to a 

Federal action. The Monticello-Dove 

Creek and San Miguel Basin 

populations support numerous mineral 

and fossil fuel extraction activities. 

Additionally, one wind project and one 

potash mine are under development in 

the Monticello-Dove Creek unit. There 

are no active uranium mines in 

proposed critical habitat. Oil and gas 

extraction occurs on both Federal and 

private lands within proposed critical 

habitat. Mineral and fossil fuel 

extraction activities on private lands 

without Federal mineral rights are less 

likely to have a Federal action that 

would require section 7 consultations 

under the Act. 

(34) Comment: Several commenters 

noted that critical habitat sometimes 

follows political boundaries rather than 

ecological boundaries. 

Our Response: In some cases, political 

boundaries may also be ecological 

boundaries due to differences in land 

management practices between counties 

or States. Also, in some cases nonecological boundaries such as roads or 

county lines provide recognizable 

boundaries to help provide clarity to the 

public on where critical habitat begins 

and ends. In other cases, land cover 

types actually differ across political 

boundaries due to different land uses 

(e.g., the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population area along the Colorado– 

Utah State line). 

(35) Comment: One commenter stated 

that routes within critical habitat to 

recreational areas outside of critical 

habitat should not have access 

restricted. 

Our Response: Critical habitat does 

not in and of itself prohibit or restrict 

certain activities or development. 

Critical habitat designation will only 

affect actions that have a Federal action 

that are subject to consultation under 

section 7 of the ESA. Through section 7 

consultation with Federal land 

management agencies, conservation 

measures may be implemented to avoid 

or minimize impacts on critical habitat 

or the species. 

(36) Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that the proposed Poncha 

Pass critical habitat unit be excluded 

from critical habitat designation due to 

impacts to private property. 

Our Response: We are no longer 

including the Poncha Pass population 

area in our critical habitat designation 

as described above in our response to 

comment 25 and below in Reasons for 

Removing Poncha Pass as a Critical 

Habitat Unit. Private properties, while 

important to the conservation of the 

species, did not factor into the decision 

not to include this population in critical 

habitat. 

(37) Comment: One commenter noted 

that some critical habitat units are less 

than the 100,000-ac (40,500-ha) criteria 

needed to support 500 birds. 

Our Response: Two units of the 

critical habitat designation are less than 

100,000 ac (40,500 ha): Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa at 52,544 ac 

(21,264 ha) and Crawford at 83,671 ac 

(33,860 ha). These two populations 

likely do not have enough contiguous 

habitat remaining to independently 

support 500 birds––the theoretical 

minimum number needed to maintain 

long-term viability, as previously 

described in our response to peer review 

comment 6. However, as populations 

grow and recover, we expect occupied 

habitat to expand and the distance 

between populations to decrease, 

thereby facilitating migration and 

interchange between populations. 

Furthermore, the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population likely 

serves, and should continue to serve in 

the future, as an important linkage area 

between the Crawford, Gunnison Basin, 

and San Miguel populations. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69324 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(38) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the listing and proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse will have 

economic impacts on energy and 

mineral development. Several 

commenters stated that oil and gas 

companies may cease operations if 

critical habitat is designated for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Some 

commenters asserted that they have 

been unable to lease their mineral rights 

as a result of the anticipated listing and 

designation of proposed critical habitat. 

Several commenters also noted that a 

large percentage of county revenues in 

Dolores and Montezuma Counties are 

from oil and gas. 

Our Response: Four of the critical 

habitat units included in this final 

designation currently have little or no 

energy or mineral development. Habitat 

in the San Miguel Basin and MonticelloDove Creek populations has a high oil 

and gas development potential; habitat 

for the Crawford population has a 

medium oil and gas development 

potential. Approximately 54,000 ac 

(22,000 ha) of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) lands within 

proposed critical habitat are leased in 

Colorado, with 38 percent currently in 

production; approximately 2,700 ac 

(1,100 ha) are leased in Utah, with none 

currently in production (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 5–4). Most 

costs of critical habitat designation 

would be borne by Federal and State 

agencies, and would include species 

monitoring and section 7 consultation. 

Energy and mineral development and 

extraction on privately owned lands 

without Federal mineral rights are 

unlikely to have a Federal action that 

would require section 7 consultations. 

We estimate annual baseline costs (costs 

due to listing) associated with mineral 

and energy development on Federal 

lands of approximately $15,000 for 

Monticello-Dove Creek and $23,000 for 

San Miguel Basin Units (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014 p. 5–12). We 

estimate additional annual incremental 

costs on Federal lands due to proposed 

critical habitat designation of 

approximately $93,000 for MonticelloDove Creek and $7,600 for San Miguel 

Basin (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014 

p. 5–17). More detailed information is 

available in the Final Economic 

Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation 

for the Gunnison Sage-grouse (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014). 

Montezuma County is not part of 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat 

or unoccupied critical habitat; therefore, 

oil and gas activities should not be 

impacted in that county. Oil and gas 

activities on privately owned lands 

without Federal mineral rights are 

unlikely to require section 7 

consultation. The Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission implements 

several environmental regulations on 

both Federal and private lands that 

provide protection to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse and occupied habitat. The 

BLM also requires conservation 

measures on leases it issues. 

(39) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the listing and proposed 

critical habitat designation for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse will have 

economic impacts on farming and 

ranching. 

Our Response: Ranching activities 

occur throughout most of the species’ 

range on Federal and private lands. 

Farming occurs on private lands. 

Activities on private lands that do not 

have a Federal action associated with 

the particular activity will not be subject 

to section 7 consultations or be required 

to implement recommended 

conservation practices. However, more 

than 300 Federal grazing allotments 

cover nearly 1,000,000 ac (405,000 ha) 

within the proposed designation for 

critical habitat (Industrial Economics, 

Inc. 2013, p. 3–1), as well as numerous 

farms that have a Federal action 

associated with the activity due to 

participation in Federal programs 

(typically through NRCS or the Farm 

Service Agency). Impacts to ranching 

could include potential reductions in 

stocking rates, which would impact 

ranchers, and administrative costs due 

to section 7 consultations, which would 

impact BLM or USFS. Rangewide 

economic impacts to grazing activities 

due to listing the species are estimated 

at $110,000 annually, with an additional 

annual cost of $100,000 due to 

designation of proposed critical habitat 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, pp. 3– 

11–3–12). Economic impacts to other 

agricultural activities due to listing the 

species are estimated at $6,100 

annually, with an additional annual cost 

of $2,000 due to designation of 

proposed critical habitat (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 4–8). More 

detailed information is available in the 

Final Economic Analysis of Critical 

Habitat Designation for the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse (Industrial Economics, Inc. 

2014). 

(40) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the listing and critical habitat 

designation for the Gunnison sagegrouse will impact the regional 

economy, reduce the tax base, or affect 

property values. 

Our Response: Activities on private 

lands that do not require Federal 

approval or action will not be subject to 

section 7 consultations or restrictions 

related to this critical habitat 

designation. Impacts may occur on 

Federal lands or on other lands where 

landowners are participating in Federal 

programs. The Economic Analysis 

forecasts an annual economic impact 

from listing of $4.3 million and an 

additional annual impact of $610,000 

from designation of proposed critical 

habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, 

p. ES–2). These cost estimates are 

rangewide totals and address potential 

economic impacts to livestock grazing, 

agriculture and water management, 

mineral and fossil fuel extraction, 

renewable energy, residential and 

related development, recreation, and 

transportation activities. Most costs 

would be borne by Federal and State 

agencies, which include species 

monitoring and section 7 consultation. 

However, the majority of costs 

associated with residential development 

would be to developers or landowners 

for potential land set-asides to offset 

impacts to the species, and costs 

associated with livestock grazing would 

consist primarily of potential 

restrictions on grazing activities that 

would be borne largely by private 

ranchers. There may also be perceived 

negative impacts on jobs and the general 

economy due to concerns about 

additional regulatory requirements. 

More detailed information is available 

in the Final Economic Analysis of 

Critical Habitat Designation for the 

Gunnison Sage-grouse (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014). 

(41) Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern that listing and 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the Gunnison sage-grouse will have 

economic impacts on recreation, 

including activities such as hunting, 

wildlife watching, and tourism. 

Our Response: We anticipate that, due 

to listing the species and the proposed 

designation of critical habitat, there may 

be additional monitoring and 

management requirements and 

additional costs associated with section 

7 consultations on public lands. These 

costs will largely be borne by the BLM, 

USFS, and the National Park Service 

(NPS). The Economic Analysis forecasts 

annual rangewide economic impacts to 

recreation from listing of $140,000 and 

an additional annual impact of $2,400 

from designation of proposed critical 

habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, 

pp. 8–10–8–11). More detailed 

information is available in the Economic 

Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation 

for the Gunnison Sage-grouse (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014). 

(42) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that critical habitat 

boundaries be moved to avoid 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69325 

encompassing their personal property, 

thereby reducing economic impacts to 

those individuals. 

Our Response: See our response to 

comment 27. We did exclude certain 

private lands covered under the CCAA 

or with a CE. Our economic analysis did 

not identify any costs that are 

concentrated in any geographic area or 

sector likely to result from the 

designation, since activities on private 

lands that do not require Federal 

approval or action will not be subject to 

section 7 consultations or restrictions 

related to critical habitat designation 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, 

Appendix A). Therefore, we did not 

exclude any area from designation as 

critical habitat based on economic 

reasons. 

(43) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that listing and proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse will impact the economics 

of water development. 

Our Response: Water projects may be 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat if they involve a Federal action 

under section 7 of the Act (e.g., if a 

permit is required from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to dam or divert 

streams). The estimated costs associated 

with water development projects are 

included in the costs for agricultural 

activities other than ranching, as 

described in our response to comment 

39. 

(44) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that listing and proposed critical 

habitat designation for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse will impact the economics 

of airport properties. 

Our Response: The scale of the maps 

used for publication in the Federal 

Register cannot delineate small areas 

within critical habitat that are 

developed. To address this, the final 

rule includes text specifying that lands 

covered by buildings, pavement or other 

manmade structures on the effective 

date of this rule, such as existing 

airports, are not included in critical 

habitat. As a result, Federal actions 

affecting such lands would not require 

section 7 consultation. We do not 

anticipate the critical habitat 

designation will result in an economic 

impact to airports. 

(45) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that travel corridors linking 

critical habitat units should be protected 

or created. Other commenters 

recommended that travel corridors not 

be included as critical habitat because: 

(1) Connectivity is already addressed 

through translocation efforts, (2) travel 

corridors could facilitate disease 

transmission, and (3) travel corridors 

have not been proven to work. 

Our Response: We have not 

designated specific corridors linking 

critical habitat units in this final rule. 

As noted in our response to comment 3, 

Gunnison sage-grouse make relatively 

large movements on an annual basis. 

Movement distances up to 27.9 km (17.3 

mi) within a given year have been 

reported, and winter migration 

distances as great as 56.3 km (35 mi) 

have been documented. Gunnison sagegrouse commonly travel from lek sites to 

summer-use areas, from summer-use 

areas to fall/winter-use areas, and back 

to lek sites (Commons 1997, entire). 

This critical habitat designation will 

facilitate intrapopulation (within a 

single population) bird movement and 

the protection and availability of 

seasonal habitats necessary for the 

survival of Gunnison sage-grouse. With 

the designation of unoccupied habitat 

and the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa Unit, we hope to facilitate some 

natural migration and interpopulation 

(between two or more populations) 

exchange of birds. However, further 

understanding and research of bird 

movements across the landscape is 

needed to better identify travel corridors 

and assess their utility. We recognize 

that natural migration and interpopulation movement is the desired 

condition to restore self-sustaining 

populations. The translocation of birds 

is a less sustainable (since it requires 

constant human intervention) and less 

desirable method for interpopulation 

movement. 

(46) Comment: Some commenters 

noted specific sites within proposed 

critical habitat that are forested and 

should, therefore, not be included in 

critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: Our habitat suitability 

analysis, which generally correlates 

with PCE 1, looked at sagebrush on a 

landscape, not a small scale. Although 

in our final listing rule, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we found that using a 1.5-km radius 

(window) analysis was not appropriate 

for evaluating the effects of residential 

development, for our habitat suitability 

analysis, we found that, at the 1.5-km 

radius scale (or window) (based on 

Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 400), areas 

where at least 25 percent of the land is 

dominated by sagebrush cover (based on 

Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 465–467; and 

Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 989–990) 

provided the best estimation of our 

current knowledge of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied range and suitable 

habitat. Given this, there could be up to 

75 percent of the area where a different 

species, such as a tree, is dominant. We 

evaluated the information provided by 

these commenters and other entities, but 

have retained the original critical 

habitat boundaries in these areas (with 

exclusions) based on our methodology, 

as described above in our responses to 

comments 3 and 4. We have refined the 

boundaries of a few units where better 

mapping data from CPW became 

available. 

(47) Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concern that potash mining in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat may cease 

operations if the species is listed or 

critical habitat designated. RM Potash 

expressed concerns that listing may 

delay their project (Thorson 2013). 

Our Response: Potash exploration is 

planned on BLM lands within Gunnison 

sage-grouse unoccupied critical habitat 

in San Miguel and Dolores Counties. As 

a result of the listing and designation of 

critical habitat, section 7 consultation 

will be required for such projects if they 

may affect Gunnison sage-grouse or 

designated critical habitat for the 

species. The amount of time necessary 

to complete a section 7 consultation will 

vary depending on the complexity of the 

project and the anticipated level of 

impacts. More detailed information on 

the economic impacts of the critical 

habitat designation on potash mining is 

available in the Final Economic 

Analysis of Critical Habitat Designation 

for the Gunnison Sage-grouse (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014). 

(48) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the proposed rule to 

designate critical habitat relies too much 

on the use of linguistically uncertain or 

vague wording to support its 

conclusions. 

Our Response: Natural sciences, 

including wildlife biology, typically 

does not allow for absolute conclusions. 

Studies can seldom evaluate all 

members of a species or address all 

possible variables. Under the Act, we 

base our decision on the best and most 

current available scientific information, 

even if that information includes some 

uncertainty, but we have attempted to 

explicitly characterize that uncertainty 

where applicable. 

(49) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that voluntary conservation 

efforts by landowners such as CEs and 

CCAAs either should or should not be 

encouraged in lieu of critical habitat 

designation. 

Our Response: The Service strongly 

supports voluntary conservation efforts 

by landowners, and we have excluded 

some lands covered by specific 

conservation measures from the final 

critical habitat designation, as described 

in our response to comment 32 and 

Exclusions below. 

(50) Comment: Several commenters 

noted that without critical habitat 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69326 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

designation, a proposed 81-ha (200-ac) 

gravel pit on Sims Mesa in Montrose 

County will likely be developed. 

Our Response: We appreciate this 

new information and considered it in 

finalizing our critical habitat 

designation and our final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

However, as stated above, critical 

habitat designation does not 

automatically preclude or otherwise 

restrict land uses or development. 

Consultation under section 7 is only 

required if there is a Federal action 

associated with a project that may affect 

a listed species or its critical habitat. 

(51) Comment: One commenter asked 

if road exclusions in critical habitat 

include power lines in road rights-ofway. 

Our Response: Lands covered by 

paved roads, buildings or other 

manmade structures on the effective 

date of this rule are not included in 

critical habitat designated under this 

rule. A right-of-way that is not paved 

would be considered critical habitat. 

Within designated critical habitat, the 

value or quality of the critical habitat 

will vary in terms of conserving 

Gunnison sage-grouse. This habitat 

value or quality will be considered and 

evaluated through our section 7(a)(2) 

consultation process. 

(52) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that critical habitat 

designation should be deferred for one 

year to enable areas outside of Gunnison 

Basin to achieve positive results from 

conservation efforts that are currently 

underway. 

Our Response: We acknowledge past 

and ongoing conservation efforts by the 

affected State, local, and Federal 

agencies, and private landowners, 

which have improved the status of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. We are required 

by the Act, however, to designate 

critical habitat at the time of listing to 

the extent prudent and determinable, 

and are required by court order to make 

this determination no later than 

November 12, 2014. We have 

determined that designation is prudent 

and critical habitat is determinable (see 

Background section). 

(53) Comment: One commenter 

requested explanation of the terms 

‘‘protected habitat,’’ ‘‘approximate 

quantity,’’ and ‘‘spatial arrangement’’ as 

used in describing the PCEs. 

Our Response: The term ‘‘protected 

habitat’’ is noted as a feature essential 

to conservation of the species and refers 

to the species’ natural environment not 

subject to disturbance that could 

interfere with the species’ life-history 

processes. The term ‘‘approximate 

quantity’’ is not used in the context of 

PCEs. However, the term ‘‘appropriate 

quantity’’ was used in the proposed rule 

regarding the need for a sufficient 

number of physical or biological 

features to provide for a species’ lifehistory processes essential to the 

conservation of the species. Similarly, 

the term ‘‘spatial arrangement’’ was 

used in the proposed rule regarding the 

need for an adequate geographical 

placement of physical or biological 

features within typical dispersal 

distances throughout a species’ range to 

provide for life-history processes 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. We have simplified this 

language in this final rule. 

(54) Comment: One commenter noted 

that, within proposed critical habitat, 

soils differ between occupied and 

unoccupied habitat. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

there is variation in soil types, and other 

physical, biological, and chemical 

characteristics, across the species’ range 

and throughout designated critical 

habitat. In the context of our analysis, 

soil type is most directly related to its 

capacity to support sagebrush 

communities upon which Gunnison 

sage-grouse depend. To identify and 

map critical habitat for the species, we 

relied on land cover data from 

SWReGAP (USGS 2004, entire), 

including three prominent sagebrush 

land cover types in Gunnison sagegrouse range: Intermountain Basin big 

sagebrush shrubland, Intermountain 

Basin montane sagebrush steppe, and 

Colorado Plateau mixed low sagebrush. 

For the purposes and scope of our 

analysis, we determined broader land 

cover data (vegetation type) to be more 

appropriate than fine-scale or sitespecific information such as soils data. 

This topic is discussed further under the 

Criteria and Methods Used to Identify 

and Map Critical Habitat section of this 

final rule. 

(55) Comment: One commenter 

recommended that all areas excluded 

from critical habitat be identified on 

maps, rather than just by text. 

Our Response: When determining 

critical habitat boundaries, we make 

every effort to avoid including 

developed areas, e.g., lands covered by 

buildings, pavement, and other 

manmade structures on the effective 

date of this rule, because such lands 

lack the physical and biological features 

essential for Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation. However, the broad scale 

of critical habitat maps prepared for 

publication in the Federal Register 

typically cannot depict all such 

developed areas or small exclusions 

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As a 

result, the text of the rule specifies that 

lands covered by buildings, pavement 

and other manmade structures on the 

effective date of this rule are not 

included in critical habitat. 

(56) Comment: One commenter noted 

that the proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat stated that the City of 

Gunnison and Gunnison County only 

own 52 ac (21 ha) within the Gunnison 

Basin critical habitat unit. However, the 

City owns 744 ac (301 ha), and the 

County owns 1,849 ac (749 ha) within 

this unit. 

Our Response: This discrepancy may 

be attributed to differences in how 

acreages are calculated using GIS. Our 

GIS analysis, using version 9 of COMaP 

(the most comprehensive and up-to-date 

ownership layer for the State of 

Colorado), showed that, in the Gunnison 

Basin critical habitat unit, the City of 

Gunnison owns 5 ac (2 ha) of occupied 

habitat. Combined, land owned by the 

City of Gunnison and Gunnison County 

constitutes less than one percent of the 

entire Gunnison Basin unit. When we 

use the Gunnison County ownership 

layer, we show that approximately 1,200 

ac (486 ha) of City and County lands fall 

within the final critical habitat 

designation. The figures provided in the 

comment above, with a combined total 

of 2,593 ac, are not all included in the 

final critical habitat boundaries (in other 

words, many of the acres fall within the 

City of Gunnison boundary that is not 

part of this critical habitat designation), 

and this area still constitutes less than 

0.1 percent of the entire Gunnison Basin 

unit. Therefore, we consider this a 

minor discrepancy. Also note that we 

expect land ownership in critical habitat 

to change over time, due to land 

conveyance and exchange; 

consequently, estimated acres by land 

owner or entity as provided in this final 

rule are not static. 

(57) Comment: We received a 

comment from the City of Gunnison that 

an area left out of the critical habitat 

designation in the Gunnison Basin did 

not follow the City of Gunnison’s 

boundary. 

Our Response: We looked at the most 

up-to-date boundary for the City of 

Gunnison, which has changed 

significantly through the last several 

years, and found it contained areas of 

suitable habitat for Gunnison sagegrouse. Based on these comments, we 

modified the critical habitat area 

according to the City of Gunnison’s 

boundaries where, based on satellite 

imagery and land cover data, these 

boundaries reflected the edge of 

moderate to high density development. 

We also adjusted the critical habitat 

boundary to leave out all of the runway 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69327 

areas at the airport and the golf course 

south and west of town since these areas 

do not contain the PCEs for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. We retained lands within 

the city boundary that contain the PCEs 

for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

(58) Comment: One commenter stated 

that critical habitat designation is 

difficult, uncertain, inefficient, costly, 

and a low priority; therefore, it 

shouldn’t be done. Another commenter 

asserted that critical habitat designation 

is not prudent or determinable. 

Our Response: Under the Act, the 

Service is required to designate critical 

habitat, to the maximum extent prudent 

and determinable, for any species 

determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. We 

have determined that designation is 

prudent and critical habitat is 

determinable (see Background section); 

therefore, we must designate critical 

habitat for this species. 

(59) Comment: One commenter 

recommended that a Small Government 

Agency plan be required. 

Our Response: Our economic analysis 

forecasted incremental impacts on five 

county governments associated with 

transportation and administrative costs. 

However, incremental costs were 

estimated to be less than 0.7 percent of 

annual revenues for those entities 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, p. A– 

9). Therefore, we do not expect that this 

rule will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it will not 

produce a Federal mandate of $100 

million or greater in any year, that is, it 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act. Consequently, we do not believe 

that the critical habitat designation 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small government entities. As such, a 

Small Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

(60) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that critical habitat designation 

may affect other wildlife species. 

Our Response: We believe the overall 

effects on other wildlife species will be 

positive, as described in sections 5.2.2 

and 5.2.3 of our Environmental 

Assessment. 

(61) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that critical habitat mapping 

was a closed process that should have 

involved other land managers. 

Our Response: We have carefully 

considered input from Federal, State, 

and county land managers and have 

incorporated this information, as 

appropriate, in our identification and 

mapping of critical habitat, both in the 

proposed as well as the final rule. 

(62) Comment: One commenter noted 

that critical habitat polygons are 

delineated with straight lines; habitat 

boundaries are seldom straight lines; 

therefore, the critical habitat maps are 

not accurate. 

Our Response: See our responses to 

comments 10 and 24 above. 

(63) Comment: One commenter asked 

if landowners will be able to withdraw 

lands enrolled in the Conservation 

Reserve Program that are designated as 

critical habitat and resume farming. 

Our Response: Any landowner will 

have the option of managing their lands 

as they choose unless ‘‘take’’ (defined as 

to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct) of Gunnison sage-grouse will 

occur. The ESA provides various 

mechanisms for authorizing take, 

depending on the circumstances. 

(64) Comment: One commenter 

requested that the city of Gunnison, 

including wastewater treatment 

facilities and the Gunnison River 

channel from Highway 135 to Tomichi 

Riverway Park, be excluded from 

critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: When determining 

critical habitat boundaries within this 

final rule, we made every effort to avoid 

including developed areas, e.g. lands 

covered by buildings, pavement, and 

other manmade structures on the 

effective date of this rule, because such 

lands lack physical and biological 

features essential for Gunnison sagegrouse conservation. For example, we 

did not include moderately to highly 

developed lands around the City of 

Gunnison and Dove Creek within the 

mapped critical habitat boundaries. We 

have also not included lands around the 

Gunnison wastewater treatment facility 

and the Gunnison River channel 

extending through the Dos Rios Golf 

Club to Highway 135, because these 

areas fell within the moderately to 

highly developed lands. 

(65) Comment: Some commenters 

requested that hang gliding be allowed 

within critical habitat. 

Our Response: Critical habitat 

designation does not automatically 

preclude or otherwise restrict land uses, 

including recreation. 

(66) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that a Flexibility Analysis 

Report should be completed due to the 

large number of small businesses that 

will be impacted. 

Our Response: The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act requires a determination of 

whether the critical habitat designation 

will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

(i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). In this final rule, we are 

certifying that the critical habitat 

designation for Gunnison sage-grouse 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As described in more detail in 

Required Determinations below, we 

believe that, based on our interpretation 

of directly regulated entities under the 

RFA and relevant case law, this 

designation of critical habitat will only 

directly regulate Federal agencies which 

are not by definition small business 

entities. And as such, we certify in this 

final rule that this designation of critical 

habitat will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small business entities. 

Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

However, though not necessarily 

required by the RFA, in our final 

economic analysis for this rule we 

considered and evaluated the potential 

effects to third parties that may be 

involved with consultations with 

Federal action agencies related to this 

action (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, 

Appendix A). 

(67) Comment: One commenter 

requested a definition of ‘‘crucial 

seasonal habitat.’’ 

Our Response: This term is used in 

our description of the six critical habitat 

units, in reference to the need for 

special management actions to address 

threats from development to these 

habitats. Crucial seasonal habitat refers 

to areas important to the life history and 

survival of Gunnison sage-grouse 

including breeding, nesting, brood 

rearing, and wintering habitats, as 

defined by seasonally specific PCEs 2 

through 5 in this rule (see Seasonally 

Specific Primary Constituent Elements). 

(68) Comment: Several commenters 

requested that an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) be prepared for the 

critical habitat designation for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Our Response: As described in the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

section of this rule, we found, based on 

our final environmental assessment, that 

no significant environmental impact 

would occur as a result of critical 

habitat designation for Gunnison sagegrouse. Therefore, an environmental 

impact statement is not necessary for 

the designation of critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Critical Habitat 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss below only 

those topics directly relevant to the 

designation of critical habitat for 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69328 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Gunnison sage-grouse in this section of 

the final rule. For more information on 

Gunnison sage-grouse taxonomy, life 

history, habitat, population 

descriptions, and threats to the species, 

refer to the 12-month finding published 

September 28, 2010 (75 FR 59804) and 

the final listing rule published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(1) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features: 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species, and 

(b) Which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(2) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means to use and 

the use of all methods and procedures 

that are necessary to bring an 

endangered or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

pursuant to the Act are no longer 

necessary. Such methods and 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, live trapping, and 

transplantation, and, in the 

extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot be otherwise relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

requirement that Federal agencies 

ensure, in consultation with the Service, 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. The designation of 

critical habitat does not affect land 

ownership or establish a refuge, 

wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other 

conservation area. Such designation 

does not allow the government or public 

to access private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by nonFederal landowners. Where a landowner 

seeks or requests Federal agency 

funding or authorization for an action 

that may affect a listed species or 

critical habitat, the consultation 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) apply, 

but even in the event of a destruction or 

adverse modification finding, the 

obligation of the Federal action agency 

and the landowner is not to restore or 

recover the species, but to implement 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

avoid destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

Under the first prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, areas 

within the geographic area occupied by 

the species at the time it was listed are 

included in a critical habitat designation 

if they contain physical or biological 

features (1) which are essential to the 

conservation of the species and (2) 

which may require special management 

considerations or protection. For these 

areas, critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, those physical or biological 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species (such as 

space, food, cover, and protected 

habitat). In identifying those physical 

and biological features within an area, 

we focus on the principal biological or 

physical constituent elements (primary 

constituent elements such as roost sites, 

nesting grounds, seasonal wetlands, 

water quality, tide, soil type) that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Primary constituent elements 

are the elements of physical or 

biological features that provide for a 

species’ life-history processes and are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

Under the second prong of the Act’s 

definition of critical habitat, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

the species at the time it is listed, upon 

a determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. For example, an area formerly 

occupied by the species but that was not 

occupied at the time of listing may be 

essential to the conservation of the 

species and may be included in the 

critical habitat designation. We 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside the geographic area occupied by 

a species only when a designation 

limited to its current range would be 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the 

Endangered Species Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When we determine which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the information developed 

during the listing process for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 

Habitat is dynamic, and species may 

move from one area to another over 

time. We recognize that critical habitat 

designated at a particular point in time 

may not include all of the habitat areas 

that we may later determine are 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, a critical 

habitat designation does not signal that 

habitat outside the designated area is 

unimportant or may not be needed for 

recovery of the species. Areas that are 

important to the conservation of the 

species, both inside and outside the 

critical habitat designation, will 

continue to be subject to: (1) 

Conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) 

regulatory protections afforded by the 

requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

for Federal agencies to insure their 

actions are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any endangered 

or threatened species; and (3) the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if 

actions occurring in these areas may 

result in take of the species. Federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. These 

protections and conservation tools will 

continue to contribute to recovery of 

this species. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans (HCPs), or other species 

conservation planning efforts if new 

information available at the time of 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69329 

these planning efforts calls for a 

different outcome. 

Prudency Determination 

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as 

amended, and implementing regulations 

(50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the 

maximum extent prudent and 

determinable, the Secretary designate 

critical habitat at the time the species is 

determined to be endangered or 

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 

424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation 

of critical habitat is not prudent when 

one or both of the following situations 

exist: (1) The species is threatened by 

taking or other human activity, and 

identification of critical habitat can be 

expected to increase the degree of threat 

to the species, or (2) such designation of 

critical habitat would not be beneficial 

to the species. 

There is currently no imminent threat 

of take attributed to collection or 

vandalism for this species (see Factor B 

discussion in the final listing rule 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register), 

and identification and mapping of 

critical habitat is not expected to initiate 

any such threat. In the absence of 

finding that the designation of critical 

habitat would increase threats to a 

species, if there are any benefits to a 

critical habitat designation, then a 

prudent finding is warranted. Here, the 

potential benefits of designation 

include: (1) Triggering consultation 

under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 

for actions in which there may be a 

Federal nexus where consultation 

would not otherwise occur because, for 

example, the area is or has become 

unoccupied or the occupancy is in 

question; (2) focusing conservation 

activities on the most essential features 

and areas; (3) providing educational 

benefits to State or county governments 

or private entities; and (4) preventing 

people from causing inadvertent harm 

to the species. Therefore, because we 

have determined that the designation of 

critical habitat will not likely increase 

the degree of threat to the species and 

may provide some measure of benefit, 

we find that designation of critical 

habitat is prudent for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Critical Habitat Determinability 

Having determined that designation is 

prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

we must find whether critical habitat for 

the species is determinable. Our 

regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state 

that critical habitat is not determinable 

when one or both of the following 

situations exist: 

(i) Information sufficient to perform 

required analyses of the impacts of the 

designation is lacking, or 

(ii) The biological needs of the species 

are not sufficiently well known to 

permit identification of an area as 

critical habitat. When critical habitat is 

not determinable, the Act allows the 

Service an additional year to publish a 

critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 

1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)). 

We reviewed the available 

information pertaining to the biological 

needs of the species and habitat 

characteristics where the species is 

located. This and other information 

represent the best scientific data 

available and led us to conclude that the 

designation of critical habitat is 

determinable for the Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Physical and Biological Features 

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) 

and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which 

areas within the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time of 

listing to designate as critical habitat, 

we consider the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species and which may require 

special management considerations or 

protection. These include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derive the specific physical and 

biological features required for 

Gunnison sage-grouse from studies of 

this species’ habitat, ecology, and life 

history as described in the proposed and 

final listing rules and in greater detail in 

the 12-month finding published 

September 28, 2010 (75 FR 59804), and 

in the information presented below. As 

in the cited rules and 12-month finding, 

the information below uses scientific 

information specific to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse where available but also 

applies scientific management 

principles and scientific information for 

greater sage-grouse, a closely related 

species with similar life histories and 

habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. 

44), that are relevant to our 

determinations—a practice followed by 

the wildlife and land management 

agencies that have responsibility for 

management of both species and their 

habitat. We use sage-grouse below in 

reference to both Gunnison and greater 

sage-grouse whenever the scientific data 

and information is relevant to both 

species. 

We have determined that the 

Gunnison sage-grouse requires the 

following physical and biological 

features: 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and for Normal Behavior 

Gunnison sage-grouse require large, 

interconnected expanses of sagebrush 

plant communities that contain healthy 

understory composed primarily of 

native, herbaceous vegetation (Patterson 

1952, p. 9; Rogers 1964, p. 19; Knick et 

al. 2003, p. 623; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

4–15; Knick and Connelly 2011, entire; 

Pyke 2011, p. 532; Wisdom et al. 2011, 

entire). Gunnison sage-grouse may use a 

variety of habitats throughout their life 

cycle, such as riparian meadows, 

riparian areas with a shrub component, 

agricultural lands, and steppe 

dominated by native grasses and forbs. 

However, Gunnison sage-grouse are 

considered sagebrush obligates 

(Patterson 1952, pp. 9, 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), and the 

use of non-sagebrush habitats by sagegrouse is dependent on the presence of 

sagebrush habitats in close proximity 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–18 and 

references therein). In fact, the historical 

and current distribution of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse closely matches 

that of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 9; 

Braun 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, 

p. 364, and references therein) (see the 

final listing rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register). 

Gunnison sage-grouse move 

seasonally among various habitat types 

driven by breeding activities, nest and 

brood-rearing site requirements, 

seasonal changes in the availability of 

food resources, and response to weather 

conditions. In the 2005 Gunnison Sagegrouse Rangewide Conservation Plan 

(RCP) (GSRSC 2005, entire), annual 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat use was 

categorized into three seasons: (1) 

Breeding (2) summer–late fall and (3) 

winter (GSRSC 2005, pp. 27–31). Sagegrouse exhibit strong site fidelity 

(loyalty to a particular area) to seasonal 

habitats, including breeding, nesting, 

brood-rearing, and wintering areas, even 

when a particular area may no longer be 

of value (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3–1). 

Adult sage-grouse rarely switch interannual use among these seasonal 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

habitats once they have been selected 

(Berry and Eng 1985, pp. 238–240; 

Fischer et al. 1993, p. 1039; Young 

1994, pp. 42–43; Root 2002, p. 12; 

Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. 749), 

limiting the species’ adaptability to 

habitat changes. Consequently, there 

may be lags in the response of Gunnison 

sage-grouse to development or habitat 

changes, similar to those observed in 

other sagebrush obligate birds (Wiens 

and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). 

The pattern and scale of Gunnison 

sage-grouse annual movements, and the 

degree to which a given habitat patch 

can fulfill the species’ annual habitat 

needs, are dependent on the 

arrangement and quality of habitats 

across the landscape. Habitat structure 

and quality vary spatially over the 

landscape; therefore, some areas may 

provide habitat for a single season, 

while other areas may provide habitat 

for one or more seasons (GSRSC 2005, 

pp. 25–26). In addition, plant 

community dynamics and disturbance 

also influence habitat changes and 

variability over time. Rangewide, finescale habitat structure data on which to 

delineate seasonal habitats currently 

does not exist. A spatially explicit nest 

site selection model developed for the 

Gunnison Basin by Aldridge et al. 

(2012, entire) predicted the location of 

the best Gunnison sage-grouse nesting 

habitat. The total area of the predicted 

best nesting habitat (containing greater 

than 90 percent of an independent 

sample of nest locations) amounted to 

approximately 50 percent of the study 

area. However, this model does not 

predict other life-history requirements 

of Gunnison sage-grouse such as 

seasonal habitat needs outside of the 

nesting season (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 

403). 

Gunnison sage-grouse make relatively 

large movements on an annual basis due 

to the need for a diverse range of 

seasonal habitat types (Connelly et al. 

2000a, pp. 968–969). Maximum 

Gunnison sage-grouse annual 

movements in relation to lek capture 

have been reported as 18.5 km (11.5 mi) 

(GSRSC 2005, p. J–3), and 17.3 km (10.7 

mi) (Saher 2011, pers. comm.), and 

individual Gunnison sage-grouse 

location points can be up to 27.9 km 

(17.3 mi) apart within a given year (Root 

2002, pp. 14–15). Individual Gunnison 

sage-grouse have been documented to 

move more than 56.3 km (35 mi) to 

wintering areas in the Gunnison Basin 

(Phillips 2011, pers. comm.; Phillips 

2013, p. 4). In contrast, the maximum 

recorded movement distance of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Monticello 

population is 8.2 km (5.1 mi) (Ward 

2007), demonstrating that movement 

distances of sage-grouse likely vary by 

population and area. While it is likely 

that some areas encompassed within 

these movement boundaries are used 

only briefly as movement areas, the 

extent of these movements demonstrate 

the large scale annual habitat 

requirements of the species. 

Therefore, based on the species’ yearround reliance on sagebrush and the 

various seasonal habitat requirements 

discussed above, we identify sagebrush 

plant communities of sufficient size and 

configuration to encompass all seasonal 

habitats, including areas used to move 

between seasonal habitats, for a given 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse to 

be a physical or biological feature 

essential to the conservation of this 

species. 

Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or 

Other Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Food resources used by Gunnison 

sage-grouse vary throughout the year 

because of seasonal changes in food 

availability and specific dietary 

requirements of breeding hens and 

chicks. The diet of Gunnison sagegrouse is composed of nearly 100 

percent sagebrush in the winter, while 

forbs, insects, and sagebrush are 

important dietary components during 

the remainder of the year (Wallestad et 

al. 1975, p. 21; Barnett and Crawford 

1994, p. 117; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 

5; Young et al. 2000, p. 452). 

Pre-laying hens are particularly 

dependent on forbs and the insects 

supported by native herbaceous 

understories (Drut et al. 1994, pp. 173– 

175). The Gunnison sage-grouse hen 

pre-laying period is from approximately 

late-March to early April. Pre-laying 

habitats for sage-grouse hens 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-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). 

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). 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. 1994, p. 93; Pyle and Crawford 1996, 

p. 320; Fischer et al. 1996a, p. 194). 

Diets of 4- to 8-week-old greater sagegrouse 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). 

Decreased availability of forbs 

corresponded to a decrease in the 

number of chicks per hen and brood 

size (Barnett and Crawford 1994, p. 

117). Gunnison sage-grouse population 

dynamics appear to be linked closely to 

female reproductive success and chick 

survival (GSRSC 2005, p. G–13). In a 

recent demographic and population 

viability study of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

juvenile survival was found to be the 

most influential vital rate in the 

Gunnison Basin population. In 

northwest Colorado, dispersal, 

migration, and settlement patterns of 

juvenile greater sage-grouse—factors 

important to population persistence— 

were more influenced by limitations 

associated with local traditional 

breeding (lek) and brood-rearing areas 

than by landscape-level vegetation 

structure and composition (i.e., the 

spatial distribution and configuration of 

vegetation types) (Thompson 2012, pp. 

317, 341). The same study 

recommended restoration, creation, and 

protection of early and late broodrearing habitats to increase chick 

survival rates (Thompson 2012, p. 135). 

The importance of brood-rearing habitat 

for juvenile survival, recruitment, and 

hence, population viability of sagegrouse is clear. Habitats that support 

healthy sagebrush communities 

including herbaceous understories of 

native grasses and forbs provide such 

brood-rearing habitat essential to the 

persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. 

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. 2000a, p. 

971; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–11). In 

most areas within the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the herbaceous understory 

component of sagebrush plant 

communities typically dries out as 

summer progresses into fall. Habitats 

used by Gunnison sage-grouse in 

summer through late-fall are typically 

more mesic than surrounding habitats 

during this time of year (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 30). These areas are used primarily 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69331 

for foraging because they provide 

reliable sources of vigorous, herbaceous 

vegetation and an abundance of forbs 

and insects when these resources are 

otherwise limited on the landscape. 

Such areas include riparian 

communities, springs, seeps, mesic 

meadows, or irrigated hay meadows and 

alfalfa fields (GSRSC 2005, p. 30; 

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

al. 2000a, p. 980). However, seasonal 

foraging habitats typically receive use 

by Gunnison sage-grouse only if they are 

within 50 m (165 ft.) of surrounding 

sagebrush plant communities (Colorado 

Sage Grouse Working Group (CSGWG) 

1997, p. 13). 

In winter, 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). Various species of 

sagebrush can be consumed by sagegrouse (Remington and Braun 1985, pp. 

1056–1057; Welch et al. 1988, p. 276, 

1991; Myers 1992, p. 55). Habitats used 

by Gunnison sage-grouse during winter 

typically consist of 15 to 30 percent 

sagebrush canopy cover, similar to those 

used by greater sage-grouse (Connelly et 

al. 2000a, p. 972; Young et al. 2000, p. 

451). However, Gunnison sage-grouse 

also seasonally use some deciduous 

shrub communities (e.g., Gambel oak 

and serviceberry) (Young et al. 2000, p. 

451). Sagebrush exposure and height 

must be sufficient to provide birds 

access to food during snowy conditions 

and severe winters (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

30–31) (see Cover or Shelter). 

Based on the information above, we 

identify sagebrush plant communities 

that contain herbaceous vegetation 

consisting of a diversity and abundance 

of forbs, insects, and grasses, that fulfill 

all Gunnison sage-grouse seasonal 

dietary requirements, to be a physical or 

biological feature essential to the 

conservation of this species. We also 

identify as such features non-sagebrush 

habitats located adjacent to sagebrush 

plant communities that are used by 

Gunnison sage-grouse for foraging 

during seasonally dry periods, such as 

summer-late fall. These habitats are 

generally more mesic than surrounding 

habitat, and include wet meadows, 

riparian areas, and irrigated pastures. 

Cover or Shelter 

Predation is the most commonly 

identified cause of direct mortality for 

sage-grouse during all life stages, and 

Gunnison sage-grouse require sagebrush 

and herbaceous vegetation year-round 

for escape and hiding cover (Schroeder 

et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et al. 2000b, 

p. 228; GSGRC 2005, p. 138; Connelly 

et al. 2011b, p. 66). 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 2011, p. 97). Most raptor 

predation of sage-grouse is on juveniles 

and older age classes (GSRSC 2005, p. 

135). Juvenile sage-grouse also are killed 

by 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 2011, p. 97). Young 

(1994, p. 37) found the most common 

predators of Gunnison sage-grouse eggs 

were weasels, coyotes, and corvids. 

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). 

Females actively select nest sites with 

the presence of big sagebrush and grass 

and forb cover (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

971), and nesting success of greater 

sage-grouse is positively correlated with 

these qualities (Schroeder and Baydack 

2001, p. 25; Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). 

Likewise, reduced herbaceous cover for 

young chicks can increase their rate of 

predation (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, 

p. 27), and high shrub canopy cover at 

nest sites was related to lower levels of 

predation by visual predators, such as 

the common raven (Coates 2007, p. 148). 

However, herbaceous cover may not be 

effective in deterring olfactory predators 

such as badgers (Coates 2007, p. 149). 

Gunnison sage-grouse nearly 

exclusively use sagebrush plant 

communities during the winter season 

for thermal cover and to meet 

nutritional needs. 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 sagebrush use 

areas are 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), and we expect Gunnison sagegrouse to exhibit the same behavior. 

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 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 31). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify sagebrush plant 

communities consisting of adequate 

shrub and herbaceous structure to 

provide year-round escape and hiding 

cover, as well as areas that provide 

concealment of nests and broods during 

the breeding season, and winter season 

thermal cover, to be a physical or 

biological feature essential to the 

conservation of this species. 

Quantitative information on cover can 

be found in the Primary Constituent 

Elements for Gunnison Sage-grouse 

section below. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or 

Rearing (or Development) of Offspring 

Lek Sites—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 shrubsteppe 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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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; Lyon and Anderson 

2003, p. 489), and some Gunnison sagegrouse leks have been used since the 

1950s (Rogers 1964, pp. 35–40). 

Nesting Habitat—Gunnison sagegrouse 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 beneath a 

sagebrush canopy cover of 15 to 30 

percent (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). 

These numbers are comparable to those 

reported for greater sage-grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). Nest 

success for greater sage-grouse was 

greatest where grass cover is present 

(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). Because 

of the similarities between these two 

species, we infer that increased nest 

success in Gunnison sage-grouse also 

depends on sufficient herbaceous 

understories beneath sagebrush cover. 

However, in a recent demographic study 

of Gunnison sage-grouse, nest site 

vegetation characteristics did not have a 

strong influence on nest success in the 

Gunnison Basin and San Miguel 

populations (Davis 2012, p. 10). 

Temporal factors appeared to have the 

greatest influence on nesting success, as 

earlier season nesting tended to be more 

successful than later season nesting; the 

longer incubation occurred, the greater 

the risk of nest failure (Davis 2012, p. 1). 

Nevertheless, the best available 

scientific information overall indicates a 

link between habitat and vegetation 

characteristics and nest site selection 

and success in sage-grouse. Therefore, 

we maintain that vegetation 

characteristics are important physical 

and biological features of breeding and 

reproduction habitats for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Female Gunnison sage-grouse exhibit 

strong fidelity to nesting locations 

(Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon 2000, p. 20, 

Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 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, movement to new nesting 

areas does not necessarily result in 

increased nesting success (Connelly et 

al. 2004, pp. 3–6; Holloran and 

Anderson 2005, p. 748). As a 

consequence of their site fidelity to 

seasonal habitats, measurable 

population effects may lag behind 

negative changes in habitat, similar to 

other sagebrush obligate birds (Wiens 

and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). 

Brood-Rearing Habitat—Early broodrearing 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). 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 (Young 1994, pp. 41– 

42). 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, the birds move from 

riparian areas to mesic sagebrush plant 

communities 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 m (165 ft) from the 

edge of adjacent sagebrush stands 

(CSGWG 1997, p. 13). In the Monticello 

area, broods have been documented 

using CRP lands (Lupis 2005, p. 28). 

Therefore, based on the information 

above, we identify sagebrush plant 

communities with the appropriate shrub 

and herbaceous vegetation structure to 

meet all the needs for all Gunnison sagegrouse reproductive activities (including 

lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing) to 

be a physical or biological feature 

essential to the conservation of this 

species. 

Habitats Protected From Disturbance or 

Representative of the Historical, 

Geographical, and Ecological 

Distributions of the Species 

Based on historical records, museum 

specimens, and potential historical 

sagebrush habitat distribution, 

Gunnison sage-grouse potential 

historical range included parts of central 

and southwestern Colorado, 

northwestern New Mexico, northeastern 

Arizona, and southeastern Utah 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 370–371). 

The potential historical range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse was estimated to 

have been 21,376 square miles, or 

13,680,590 ac (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–35, 

as adapted from Schroeder et al. 2004, 

entire). However, only a portion of this 

historical range would have been 

occupied at any one time. 

According to the RCP, the species’ 

estimated current range is 1,822 square 

miles, or 1,166,075 ac, in central and 

southwestern Colorado, and 

southeastern Utah (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

32–35, as adapted from Schroeder et al. 

2004, entire). Based on these figures, the 

species’ current range would represent 

about 8.5 percent of its historical range 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 32). Similarly, 

Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 371) estimated 

the species’ current overall range to be 

10 percent of potential presettlement 

habitat (prior to Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s). As estimated 

here, the species’ current potential range 

includes an estimated 1,621,008 acres 

(ac) (655,957 hectares (ha)) in 

southwestern Colorado and 

southeastern Utah (Index Map), 

comprising 923,314 ac (349,238 ha) (57 

percent) of occupied habitat and 

697,694 ac (306,719 ha) (43 percent) of 

unoccupied habitat (Table 1). Based on 

these figures, the current potential range 

of 1,621,008 ac represents 

approximately 12 percent and occupied 

habitat represents approximately 7 

percent of the potential historical range 

of 13,680,640 ac. 

The estimates above indicate that 

approximately 88 to 93 percent of the 

historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

has been lost. We acknowledge that 

these estimates are uncertain and 

imprecise. We also recognize that only 

a portion of historical range would have 

been occupied at any one time, and that 

the distribution of sage-grouse habitat 

across the landscape is naturally 

disconnected due to the presence of 

unsuitable habitat such as forests, 

deserts, and canyons across the 

landscape (Rogers 1964, p. 19). 

Nevertheless, the best available 

information indicates a substantial 

reduction of Gunnison sage-grouse 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69333 

distribution since Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s, with evidence 

of the loss of peripheral populations 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371, and 

references therein) and a northward 

trend of extirpation (Schroeder et al. 

2004, p. 369). This significant loss in 

habitat supports our determination that 

occupied habitat alone, or a subset of 

those lands (e.g., Federal land), are 

insufficient to ensure the species’ 

persistence. 

The occupied sagebrush plant 

communities included in this 

designation contain the physical and 

biological features representative of the 

historical and geographical distribution 

of the Gunnison sage-grouse. The 

unoccupied sagebrush plant 

communities included in this 

designation were all likely historically 

occupied (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–33; 

Schroeder et al. 2004, entire) and allow 

for the expansion of the current 

geographic distribution of the species 

and potentially facilitate movements 

among populations. As discussed 

further under Rationale and Other 

Considerations, the extremely limited 

extent of sagebrush habitat throughout 

the current range of the species, 

particularly in the satellite populations, 

is a factor in our decision to include 

areas beyond currently occupied habitat 

in this critical habitat designation. 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

Under the Act and its implementing 

regulations, we are required to identify 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in areas occupied 

at the time of listing, focusing on the 

features’ primary constituent elements 

(PCEs). Primary constituent elements 

are those specific elements of physical 

and biological features that provide for 

a species’ life-history processes and are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. 

We consider all areas designated as 

occupied critical habitat here to meet 

the landscape specific PCE 1 and one or 

more of the seasonally specific PCEs (2– 

5). 

For the ‘‘seasonally specific PCEs (2– 

5), we generally adopt the values from 

the 2005 RCP (GSRSC 2005, Appendix 

H, and references therein). The 2005 

RCP provides structural habitat values 

developed using only Gunnison sagegrouse habitat use data from various 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations in all 

seasonal habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. H–2). 

Source data includes structural 

vegetation data collected in the breeding 

season (Young 1994, entire; Apa 2004, 

entire), summer-fall (Young 1994, 

entire; Woods and Braun 1995, entire; 

Commons 1997, entire; Apa 2004, 

entire), and winter (Hupp 1987, entire). 

In addition, these structural habitat 

values are specific to the Colorado 

Plateau floristic province and reflect the 

understory structure and composition 

specific to the range of Gunnison sagegrouse (GSRSC 2005, p. H–2). As such, 

these values are based on the most 

current and comprehensive, rangewide 

assessment of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat structure. 

We also note, however, that some 

lands, especially agricultural fields and 

CRP lands, meet one or more of the 

seasonally specific PCEs even without 

meeting the RCP’s structural habitat 

guidelines. This is so because in some 

of these areas there is little sagebrush 

habitat available for the birds, 

oftentimes critical seasonal habitats 

have been converted to agricultural 

fields, and when sagebrush 

communities are drying out and forbs 

are waning on the landscape, resources 

can still be available in these 

agricultural areas. Still, these 

agricultural fields are less desirable for 

the species than intact sagebrush 

communities. 

As presented in the RCP (GSRSC 

2005, pp. H6–H8), habitat structural 

values are known to vary between arid 

and mesic areas in sage-grouse habitat. 

Therefore, in the following descriptions 

and Tables 2 and 3, we provide the full 

range of these structural values to 

account for this variation. We have also 

included agricultural fields in the 

seasonally specific PCEs. 

Based on our current knowledge of 

the physical or biological features and 

habitat characteristics required to 

support the species’ life-history 

requirements, we identify the following 

primary constituent elements specific to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The basis for 

selected metrics of landscape specific 

and seasonally specific PCEs is 

discussed in detail below (see Criteria 

and Methodology Used to Identify 

Critical Habitat). 

Landscape Specific Primary Constituent 

Element 

Primary Constituent Element 1— 

Extensive sagebrush landscapes capable 

of supporting a population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. In general, this includes 

areas with vegetation composed 

primarily of sagebrush plant 

communities (at least 25 percent of the 

land is dominated by sagebrush cover 

within a 0.9-mi (1.5-km) radius of any 

given location), of sufficient size and 

configuration to encompass all seasonal 

habitats for a given population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and facilitate 

movements within and among 

populations. These areas also occur 

wholly within the potential historical 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted from 

Schroeder et al. 2004, entire). 

Seasonally Specific Primary Constituent 

Elements 

Primary Constituent Element 2— 

Breeding habitat composed of sagebrush 

plant communities that, in general, have 

the structural characteristics within the 

ranges described in the following table. 

Habitat structure values are average 

values over a project area. Breeding 

habitat includes lek, nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitats used typically 

March 15 through July 15 (GSRSC 2005, 

p. H–3). Early brood-rearing habitat may 

include agricultural fields. 

TABLE 2—BREEDING HABITAT STRUCTURAL GUIDELINES FOR GUNNISON

SAGE-GROUSE a

Vegetation variable Amount 

in habitat 

Sagebrush Canopy Cover 10–25 percent. 

Non-sagebrush Canopy 

Cover b.

5–15 percent. 

Total Shrub Canopy Cover 15–40 percent. 

Sagebrush Height .............. 9.8–19.7 in (25– 

50 cm). 

Grass Cover ...................... 10–40 percent. 

Forb Cover ......................... 5–40 percent. 

Grass Height ...................... 3.9–5.9 in (10– 

15 cm). 

Forb Height ........................ 2.0–5.9 in (5–15 

cm). 

a Derived from GSRSC 2005, p. H–6, which 

depicts structural values for both arid and 

mesic areas in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Here we provide the full range of these structural values to account for this variation. b Includes shrubs such as horsebrush 

(Tetradymia spp.), rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus spp.), bitterbrush (Purshia 

spp.), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), 

greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), winterfat 

(Eurotia lanata), Gambel’s oak (Quercus 

gambelii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), 

and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). 

Primary Constituent Element 3— 

Summer-late fall habitat composed of 

sagebrush plant communities that, in 

general, have the structural 

characteristics within the ranges 

described in the following table. Habitat 

structure values are average values over 

a project area. Summer-fall habitat 

includes sagebrush communities having 

the referenced habitat structure values, 

as well as agricultural fields and wet 

meadow or riparian habitat types. Wet 

meadows and riparian habitats are also 

included qualitatively under PCE 5 

below. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—SUMMER-LATE FALL HABITAT STRUCTURAL GUIDELINES FOR

GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE a b

Vegetation variable Amount 

in habitat 

Sagebrush Canopy Cover 5–20 percent. 

Non-sagebrush Canopy 

Coverc.

5–15 percent. 

Total Shrub Canopy Cover 10–35 percent. 

Sagebrush Height .............. 9.8–19.7 in (25– 

50 cm). 

Grass Cover ...................... 10–35 percent. 

Forb Cover ......................... 5–35 percent. 

Grass Height ...................... 3.9–5.9 in (10– 

15 cm). 

Forb Height ........................ 1.2–3.9 in (3–10 

cm). 

aStructural habitat values provided in this 

table do not include wet meadow or riparian 

habitats. Therefore, we address these habitat 

types under Primary Constituent Element 5 

below. b Derived from GSRSC 2005, p. H–7, which 

depicts structural values for both arid and 

mesic areas in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Here we provide the full range of these structural values to account for this variation. c Includes shrubs such as horsebrush 

(Tetradymia spp.), rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus spp.), bitterbrush (Purshia 

spp.), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), 

greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), winterfat 

(Eurotia lanata), Gambel’s oak (Quercus 

gambelii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), 

and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). 

Primary Constituent Element 4— 

Winter habitat composed of sagebrush 

plant communities that, in general, have 

sagebrush canopy cover between 30 to 

40 percent and sagebrush height of 15.8 

to 21.7 in (40 to 55 cm). These habitat 

structure values are average values over 

a project area. Winter habitat includes 

sagebrush areas within currently 

occupied habitat that are available (i.e., 

not covered by snow) to Gunnison sagegrouse during average winters (GSRSC 

2005, p. H–3). 

Primary Constituent Element 5— 

Alternative, mesic habitats used 

primarily in the summer-late fall season, 

such as riparian communities, springs, 

seeps, and mesic meadows (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 30, H–7; Schroeder et al. 1999, 

p. 4; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 980). 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protection 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the specific areas within 

the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing contain 

features that are essential to the 

conservation of the species and which 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. All areas 

being designated as critical habitat as 

described below may require some level 

of management to address the current 

and future threats to the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

In all of the described units, special 

management may be required to ensure 

that the habitat is able to provide for the 

biological needs of the species. 

A detailed discussion of the current 

and foreseeable threats to Gunnison 

sage-grouse can be found in the final 

listing rule, published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register, in the section 

titled Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species. In general, the features 

essential to the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse may require 

special management considerations or 

protection to address or ameliorate the 

following significant threats and their 

interactions: The small population size 

and structure of most Gunnison sagegrouse populations; habitat decline, 

including habitat loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of sagebrush habitats; 

drought and climate change; and 

disease. The special management 

considerations needed for each critical 

habitat unit that is being designated are 

described below. 

Special management considerations 

or protection may be required to address 

these threats in designated critical 

habitat. Based on our analysis of threats 

to Gunnison sage-grouse, continued or 

future management activities that could 

ameliorate these threats include, but are 

not limited to: Comprehensive land-use 

planning and implementation that 

prevents a net decrease in the extent 

and quality of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat through the prioritization and 

protection of habitats and monitoring; 

protection of lands by fee title 

acquisition or the establishment of 

permanent CEs; management of 

recreational use to minimize direct 

disturbance and habitat loss; activities 

to control invasive weed and invasive 

native plant species; management of 

domestic and wild ungulate use so that 

overall habitat meets or exceeds 

Gunnison sage-grouse structural habitat 

guidelines; monitoring of predator 

communities and management as 

appropriate; coordinated and monitored 

habitat restoration or improvement 

projects; and wildfire suppression, 

particularly in Wyoming big sagebrush 

communities. In some cases, continuing 

current land management practices may 

be appropriate and beneficial for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. For instance, 

continued irrigation and maintenance of 

hay and alfalfa fields on private lands 

near sagebrush habitats may help 

provide or enhance mesic, brood-rearing 

habitats for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

While this is a list of special 

management considerations or 

protections that are needed, the Service 

acknowledges the ongoing and pending 

conservation efforts of all entities across 

the range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, 

such as the Sage Grouse Initiative led by 

the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and its many partners. 

Conservation efforts by those entities on 

private lands are described in detail 

under Factor A in our final listing rule 

for Gunnison sage-grouse elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. 

Additionally, management of critical 

habitat lands can increase the amount of 

suitable habitat and enhance 

connectivity among Gunnison sagegrouse populations through the 

restoration of areas that were once 

dominated by sagebrush plant 

communities. The limited extent of 

sagebrush habitats throughout the 

species’ current range emphasizes the 

need for additional habitat for the 

species to be able to expand into, 

allowing for species’ conservation. 

Furthermore, additional sagebrush 

habitat will also allow the grouse to 

adjust to changes in habitat availability 

that may result from climate change. 

Criteria and Methods Used To Identify 

and Map Critical Habitat 

As required by section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act, we use the best scientific data 

available to designate critical habitat. In 

accordance with the Act and our 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(b), we review available 

information pertaining to the habitat 

requirements of the species and identify 

occupied areas at the time of listing that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species. If, after 

identifying currently occupied areas, we 

determine that those areas are 

inadequate to ensure conservation of the 

species, in accordance with the Act and 

our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12(e), we then consider whether 

designating additional areas—outside 

those currently occupied—are essential 

to the conservation of the species. Based 

on this analysis, we are designating 

critical habitat in areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing (currently 

occupied). We also are designating 

specific areas outside the geographical 

area currently occupied by the species, 

including areas that were historically 

occupied but are presently unoccupied, 

because we find that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species (see Rationale and Other 

Considerations). In an attempt to better 

explain our criteria in response to 

public comments, we are providing a 

new format for our criteria. Therefore, 

this section looks different from our 

proposed critical habitat rule. Although 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69335 

the explanation presented here is 

different in format, our criteria and the 

designation resulting from these criteria 

is the same. We have also expanded our 

description of the criteria to add 

additional clarity. 

For occupied habitat, we based our 

identification of lands that contain the 

PCEs for Gunnison sage-grouse on 

polygons delineated and defined by 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and 

the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) as part of the 2005 RCP Habitat 

Mapping project (GSRSC 2005, p. 54), 

and as updated by subsequent CPW 

mapping (CPW 2013e, spatial data). 

Gunnison sage-grouse polygons mapped 

in the 2005 RCP were derived from a 

combination of telemetry locations, 

sightings of sage-grouse or sage-grouse 

sign, local biological expertise, GIS 

analysis, or other data sources (GSRSC 

2005, p. 54; CDOW 2009e, p. 1). We 

consider polygons designated as 

‘‘occupied habitat’’ (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; 

CPW 2013e, spatial data) to be the area 

occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse at 

the time of the listing. These occupied 

polygons, lek locations, and the habitat 

guidelines laid out in the RCP, allowed 

us to determine where the PCEs for 

Gunnison sage-grouse existed (see 

Primary Constituent Elements for 

Gunnison Sage-grouse). Unfortunately, 

maps of where seasonally specific PCEs 

exist on the landscape are not available. 

Therefore, we additionally looked at the 

Gunnison Basin habitat prioritization 

tool (BLM 2013b, Appendix F), and 0.6 

and 4 mile buffers around lek locations 

(as described in the RCPs disturbance 

guidelines (GSRSC 2005, Appendix I) in 

our evaluation to better consider the 

seasonally specific PCEs. Further, we 

utilized this occupied habitat to develop 

our habitat suitability analysis (used for 

unoccupied habitat below in criterion 4) 

and generally, this habitat suitability 

criterion analysis correlates with PCE 1. 

We based our model and 

identification of unoccupied critical 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse on four 

criteria: (1) The distribution and range 

of the species; (2) potential occupancy 

of the species; (3) proximity and 

potential connectivity between 

occupied habitats; and (4) suitability of 

the habitat for the species. 

Distribution and Range of the Species 

(Criterion 1) 

We first limited our consideration and 

analysis of unoccupied critical habitat 

to the species’ potential historical range 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted 

from Schroeder et al. 2004, entire) 

(potential historical range is described 

in detail in our final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register). In other 

words, the entirety of designated 

unoccupied critical habitat (and 

occupied critical habitat) in this final 

rule occurs within the boundaries of the 

species’ historical range. However, we 

further narrowed our consideration of 

unoccupied critical habitat within the 

historical range by evaluating potential 

occupancy of the species, habitat 

connectivity, and habitat suitability. 

Potential Occupancy of the Species 

(Criterion 2) 

We based our identification of 

unoccupied habitats for Gunnison sagegrouse on maps and polygons of 

‘‘potential’’ and ‘‘vacant/unknown’’ 

habitat delineated and defined by the 

CPW and UDWR. Habitat maps were 

completed in support of the 2005 RCP 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102). The 2005 

RCP defined two unoccupied habitat 

categories, ‘‘potential habitat,’’ and 

‘‘vacant or unknown habitat’’ (GSRSC 

2005, p. 54). The RCP defined potential 

habitat as ‘‘unoccupied habitats that 

could be suitable for occupation of sagegrouse if practical restoration were 

applied,’’ and is most commonly former 

sagebrush areas overtaken by pin ̃ onjuniper woodlands. The RCP defines 

vacant or unknown habitat category as 

‘‘suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is 

separated (not contiguous) from 

occupied habitats that either has not 

been adequately inventoried, or has not 

had documentation of sage-grouse 

presence in the past 10 years.’’ 

We used the ‘‘potential’’ and ‘‘vacant 

or unknown’’ habitat polygons (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 54–102) to evaluate 

unoccupied areas as potential critical 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. Due to 

limited information available for these 

areas, we assumed that both types are 

equal in value and importance to the 

species (i.e., one was not ranked or 

weighted as being more important than 

the other). We then combined and 

classified these two types as unoccupied 

habitat for consideration in our analysis 

and in this critical habitat designation. 

As described in more detail below, we 

further evaluated these areas as 

potential critical habitat based on their 

adjacency or proximity to currently 

occupied habitat (potential connectivity 

between and within populations, 

criterion 3); and suitability, defined by 

large areas with dominated by sufficient 

sagebrush cover at the landscape scale 

(criterion 4). 

Unoccupied habitat in this critical 

habitat designation differs from the RCP 

mapped unoccupied habitats (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 54–102), in some instances 

adding or omitting certain areas of 

unoccupied habitat, based on our 

adopted criteria and methodology. Some 

RCP-identified areas were not included 

in the designation due to distance of the 

locations from occupied range (i.e., 

failed criterion 3), where movement of 

sage-grouse is either not known or 

anticipated (e.g., peripheral unoccupied 

habitat north and northeast of the 

Crawford population of Gunnison sagegrouse). There were areas where only a 

part of the potential or vacant/unknown 

habitat met our suitability criterion (4). 

In these cases, the entire polygon was 

still included in the designation, with 

one exception. One RCP potential 

polygon was very large and extended 

into Montezuma County. The portion of 

the polygon that fell within Montezuma 

County had little suitability (less than 

20 percent of the almost 95,000 ac) and 

the suitable habitat was almost all more 

than 18.5 km away from occupied 

habitat. For these reasons, we modified 

this very large polygon so it no longer 

included Montezuma County. 

Proximity and Potential Connectivity 

(Criterion 3) 

To account for proximity to and 

potential connectivity with occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, we only 

considered unoccupied areas as critical 

habitat if they occur within 

approximately 18.5 km (11.5 mi) of 

occupied habitat (using ‘‘shortest 

distance’’) as presented in the RCP 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. J–3). Therefore, 

outside of occupied habitat, we 

conclude these areas have the highest 

likelihood of Gunnison sage-grouse use 

and occupation. Other studies have 

suggested similar maximum seasonal 

(not dispersal) movement distances, 

supporting our use of 18.5 km for 

connectivity. For example, Connelly et 

al. (2000a, p. 978) recommended 

protection of breeding habitats within 

18 km of active leks in migratory sagegrouse populations. 

The maximum dispersal distance of 

greater sage-grouse in northwest 

Colorado is about 20.0 km (12.4 mi) and, 

therefore, it was suggested that 

populations within this distance could 

maintain gene flow and connectivity 

(Thompson 2012, pp. 285–286). It was 

hypothesized that isolated patches of 

suitable habitats within 18 km (11.2 mi) 

provide for connectivity between sagegrouse populations; however, 

information on how sage-grouse actually 

disperse and move through landscapes 

is lacking (Knick and Hanser 2011, pp. 

402, 404). Gunnison sage-grouse birds 

have been measured moving up to 35 mi 

(56 km), but these dispersal events 

appear to be less frequent. 

We recognize that Gunnison sagegrouse movement behavior and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69336 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

distances likely vary widely by 

population and area, potentially as a 

function of population dynamics, 

limited or degraded habitats, and 

similar factors; and that movements 

have been documented as being much 

greater or less than 18.5 km in some 

cases (see our final rule to list Gunnison 

sage-grouse elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register for more discussion). 

However, the best available information 

indicates 18.5 km is a reasonable 

estimate of the maximum distance 

required between habitats and 

populations to ensure connectivity for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, or facilitate 

future expansion of the species range— 

hence, our selection of this metric in our 

evaluation of areas as potential critical 

habitat. 

Habitat Suitability (Criterion 4) 

Gunnison and greater sage-grouse 

occupancy, survival, and persistence are 

dependent on the availability of 

sufficient sagebrush habitat on a 

landscape scale (Patterson 1952, p. 9; 

Braun 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, 

p. 364; Knick and Connelly 2011, entire; 

Aldridge et al. 2012, entire; Wisdom et 

al. 2011, entire). Aldridge et al. (2008b, 

pp. 989–990) reported that at least 25 

percent of the landscape needed to be 

dominated by sagebrush cover within a 

30-km (18.6-mi) radius for long-term 

persistence of sage-grouse populations. 

Wisdom et al. (2011, pp. 465–467) 

indicated that areas where at least 27 

percent of the landscape was dominated 

by sagebrush cover within an 18-km 

(11.2-mi) radius scale age-grouse 

populations had a higher probability of 

persistence. Combined these studies 

indicate that approximately 25 percent 

of the landscape needs to be dominated 

by sagebrush cover to ensure sagegrouse persistence. On a finer scale, 

spatial modeling by Aldridge et al. 

(2012, p. 400) indicated that Gunnison 

sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin 

selected for nesting areas with adequate 

sagebrush cover (5 percent or more was 

dominated by sagebrush cover) at 

landscape scales (defined as 1.5-km 

radius areas). 

As discussed above, we have a basic 

understanding of the species’ needs for 

connectivity of habitat and populations 

(18.5 km or less separation between 

occupied habitats or populations) (see 

Proximity and Potential Connectivity 

(Criterion 3)). The scientific literature 

also indicates that habitat suitability is 

dependent on large landscapes (18- to 

30-km radius area) where 25 percent or 

greater of the area is dominated by 

sagebrush cover (Wisdom et al. 2011, 

pp. 465–467; Aldridge et al. 2008b, pp. 

989–990). At finer scales (1.5-km radius 

area) and during the breeding season, at 

least 5 percent of the landscape needs 

to be dominated by sagebrush to be 

preferred by nesting sage-grouse 

(Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 400). These 

studies and figures demonstrate the 

uncertainty in how large landscapes 

must be to support Gunnison sagegrouse populations, at what scale 

habitat selection occurs and, therefore, 

at what scale habitat should be 

evaluated and mapped. 

To address this uncertainty, we used 

GIS to evaluate Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitats at multiple spatial scales and 

compared the results to our current 

knowledge of the species’ range and 

habitat. We applied a moving windows 

analysis (ESRI ‘‘Neighborhood 

Analysis’’ Tool) to three prominent 

sagebrush landcover types in Gunnison 

sage-grouse range (Intermountain Basin 

big sagebrush shrubland, Intermountain 

Basin montane sagebrush steppe, and 

Colorado Plateau mixed low sagebrush 

shrubland) isolated (reclassified) from 

the SWReGAP land cover raster dataset 

(30-meter resolution) (USGS 2004, 

entire). Several other regional sagebrush 

land cover types were not included in 

our analysis either because they occur 

outside of Gunnison sage-grouse range 

or are limited in extent or land cover 

types and are generally considered less 

important to the species. We then 

quantified the land cover of these 

sagebrush habitat types at 54 km, 18 km, 

5 km, and 1.5 km radii scales (33.6 mi, 

11.2 mi, 3.1 mi, and 0.9 mi radii, 

respectively) to identify and map areas 

where at least 25 percent of the 

landscape is dominated by sagebrush 

cover (based on Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

465–467; and Aldridge et al. 2008b, pp. 

989–990). 

To determine which scale was most 

applicable for unoccupied habitats, we 

overlaid the various scale (54 km, 18 

km, 5 km, and 1.5 km radii) analyses 

with occupied habitat. We found that 

modeling at the finer 1.5-km scale was 

necessary to identify or ‘‘capture’’ all 

areas of known occupied range, 

particularly in the smaller satellite 

populations where sagebrush habitat is 

generally limited in extent. Larger scales 

failed to capture areas we know to 

contain occupied and suitable habitats 

(e.g., at the 54-km scale, only the 

Gunnison Basin area contained areas 

where at least 25 percent of the 

landscape is dominated by sagebrush 

cover) (USFWS 2013d, p. 3). Although 

in our final listing rule, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we found that using a 1.5-km radius 

(window) analysis was not appropriate 

for evaluating the effects of residential 

development, for our habitat suitability 

analysis, we found that, at the 1.5-km 

radius scale (or window) (based on 

Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 400), mapping 

areas where at least 25 percent of the 

landscape is dominated by sagebrush 

cover (based on Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

465–467; and Aldridge et al. 2008b, pp. 

989–990) provided the best estimation 

of our current knowledge of Gunnison 

sage-grouse occupied range and suitable 

habitat. 

Based on the information and results 

above, to evaluate habitat suitability for 

unoccupied Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat, we applied the 1.5-km scale and 

25 percent dominant sagebrush land 

cover attributes. This means that areas 

found to be suitable as unoccupied 

critical habitat contain large portions 

where at least 25 percent of the 

landscape is dominated by sagebrush 

cover within a 1.5-km (0.9-mi) radius. 

Rationale and Other Considerations 

The best available information 

suggests that currently occupied habitat 

is inadequate for the conservation of the 

species. The RCP evaluated the linear 

relationship between the mean high 

count of males on leks and the amount 

of available habitat of ‘‘average quality’’ 

in each Gunnison sage-grouse 

population, and predicted a habitat area 

in excess of 100,000 acres is needed to 

support a population of 500 birds 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 197). In the absence of 

habitat loss, inbreeding depression, and 

disease, population viability modeling 

for Gunnison sage-grouse predicted that 

individual populations greater than 500 

birds may be viable (have a low 

probability of extinction) over a 50-year 

time period (GSRSC 2005, p. 170). 

These data suggest that an individual 

habitat patch, or the cumulative area of 

two or more smaller habitat patches in 

close proximity, may need to be in 

excess of 100,000 ac (40,500 ha) to 

support a viable population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. This model did not take 

into account the inherent variance in 

habitat structure and quality over the 

landscape, however, and detailed 

habitat structure and quality data are 

lacking. Therefore, we consider the 

modeled minimum habitat area to be an 

approximation. 

The currently occupied habitat areas, 

for the Pin ̃ on Mesa, Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa and Crawford 

populations, which range in size from 

35,015 ac (14,170 ha) to 44,678 ac 

(18,080 ha) are smaller than the RCP 

model’s predicted minimum required 

area (Table 1). The currently occupied 

habitat areas in the Monticello-Dove 

Creek and the San Miguel Basin 

populations population are 112,543 ac 

(45,544 ha) and 101,750 ac (16,805 ha), 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69337 

respectively (Table 1). These areas only 

slightly exceed the model’s predicted 

minimum required area. While 

correlative in nature, together these data 

suggest that the currently occupied 

habitat area for at least three 

populations included in this final 

designation is insufficient for long-term 

population viability, and may be 

minimally adequate for two 

populations. Declining trends in the 

abundance of Gunnison sage-grouse 

outside of the Gunnison Basin further 

indicate that currently occupied habitat 

for the five satellite populations areas 

included in this final designation may 

be less than the minimum amount of 

habitat necessary for these populations’ 

long-term viability. 

Occupied habitat within the 

Gunnison Basin population is much 

larger (592,168 ac (239,600 ha)) than the 

RCP model’s predicted minimum 

required area. However, extensive 

sagebrush landscapes capable of 

supporting a wide array of seasonal 

habitats and annual migratory patterns 

for Gunnison sage-grouse are rare across 

the species’ range. The Gunnison Basin 

population is extremely important for 

the species’ survival, because it contains 

approximately 63 percent of the 

occupied habitat and 84 percent of the 

birds rangewide (see our final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse as threatened, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register). Therefore, based on the best 

available data, we determined that 

currently unoccupied areas in this 

population are essential for the 

persistence and conservation of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. With the satellite 

populations declining, providing more 

stability for the Gunnison Basin 

population through additional expanses 

of sagebrush landscapes is essential for 

the conservation of the species. Further, 

these unoccupied areas of sagebrush 

expanses also provide potential 

connectivity to the Crawford and Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

populations to the west. The small piece 

of unoccupied habitat to the east of the 

Gunnison Basin provides a link between 

those birds in occupied habitat to the 

north and west. 

With the exception of the Gunnison 

Basin critical habitat unit (CHU), CHUs 

for Gunnison sage-grouse collectively 

contain relatively small, and in some 

cases, isolated, populations of the 

species. Thus, we determined that all 

currently occupied areas, (except the 

Poncha Pass population area, which 

does not meet PCE 1), as well as some 

currently unoccupied areas, are 

essential for the persistence and 

conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse and help to meet the landscape 

specific habitat criteria set forth above. 

The best available information indicates 

that, with implementation of special 

management considerations, the CHUs, 

including the designated unoccupied 

areas, are sufficient to provide for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied critical habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin provides for dispersal 

of birds from this larger population to 

outlying areas and satellite populations. 

We believe that the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa unit is particularly 

important as a linkage area between the 

Gunnison Basin and the Crawford and 

San Miguel population, and contains 

both occupied and unoccupied critical 

habitat. Furthermore, unoccupied 

critical habitat across the range of the 

species offers the potential for range 

expansion and migration, whether 

associated with environmental (e.g., 

climate change), demographic (e.g., 

population growth), or catastrophic 

(e.g., large fires) factors. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

lands covered by buildings, pavement, 

and other manmade structures because 

such lands lack physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Therefore, we 

have determined that lands covered by 

existing manmade structures on the 

effective date of this rule do not meet 

the definition of critical habitat in 

Section 3(5)(a) of the Act, and should 

not be included in the final designation. 

For this reason, we did not include 

moderately to highly developed lands 

around the City of Gunnison and Dove 

Creek in the final designation. 

The scale of the maps we prepared 

under the parameters for publication 

within the Code of Federal Regulations 

may not reflect that developed lands are 

not included in the final critical habitat 

designation. Any lands covered by 

buildings, pavement, and other 

manmade structures on the effective 

date of this rule left inside critical 

habitat boundaries shown on the maps 

of this final rule have been removed by 

text in the final rule, and are not 

designated as critical habitat. Therefore, 

a Federal action involving the lands that 

are removed by text will not trigger 

section 7 consultation with respect to 

critical habitat and the requirement of 

no adverse modification, unless the 

specific action would affect the essential 

physical and biological features in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

We are designating as critical habitat 

lands that we have determined are 

occupied at the time of listing (with the 

exception of the Poncha Pass area), and 

contain the physical or biological 

features to support life-history processes 

essential to the conservation of the 

species. Because we conclude that the 

designation of lands occupied at the 

time of listing, standing alone, is not 

adequate to conserve the species, we are 

also designating lands outside of the 

geographical area occupied at the time 

of listing that we have determined are 

essential for the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Units were designated based on the 

physical and biological features being 

present to support Gunnison sagegrouse life-history processes. All units 

individually contain all of the identified 

elements of physical and biological 

features, and each unit as a whole 

supports multiple life-history processes. 

In a critical habitat determination, the 

Service determines what scale is most 

meaningful to identifying specific areas 

that meet the definition of ‘‘critical 

habitat’’ under the Act. For example, for 

a wide-ranging, landscape species 

covering a large area of occupied and 

potential habitat across several States 

(such as the Gunnison sage-grouse), a 

relatively coarse-scale analysis is 

appropriate and sufficient to designate 

critical habitat as defined by the Act, 

while for a narrow endemic species, 

with specialized habitat requirements 

and relatively few discrete occurrences, 

it might be appropriate to engage in a 

relatively fine-scale analysis for the 

designation of critical habitat. 

The critical habitat designation is 

defined by the maps, as modified by any 

accompanying regulatory text, presented 

at the end of this final rule. We include 

more detailed information on the 

boundaries of the critical habitat 

designation in this preamble to the rule. 

We will make the coordinates on which 

each map is based available to the 

public on http://www.regulations.gov at 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0111, on 

our Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

mountain-prairie/species/birds/

gunnisonsagegrouse/, and at the field 

office responsible for the designation 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

above). 

Reasons for Removing Poncha Pass as a 

Critical Habitat Unit 

Although we previously proposed 

designating a critical habitat unit in 

Poncha Pass, information received since 

the publication of the proposed rule 

(CPW 2013e, p. 1; CPW 2014d, p. 2; 

CPW 2014e, p. 2; CPW 2014 f, p. 2) has 

caused us to reevaluate the 

appropriateness of including the unit. 

Poncha Pass is thought to have been 

part of the historical distribution of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. There were no 

grouse there, however, when a 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69338 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

population was established via 

transplant from 30 Gunnison Basin 

birds in 1971 and 1972. In 1992, hunters 

harvested at least 30 grouse from the 

population when CPW inadvertently 

opened the area to hunting. We have no 

information on the population’s trends 

until 1999, when the population was 

estimated at roughly 25 birds. In one 

year the population declined to less 

than 5 grouse, after which more grouse 

were brought in, again from the 

Gunnison Basin, in 2000 and 2001. In 

2002, the population rose to just over 40 

grouse, but starting in 2006, the 

population again started declining until 

no grouse were detected in lek surveys 

in the spring of 2013 (after publication 

of the proposed critical habitat rule). 

Grouse were again brought in in the fall 

of 2013 and 2014 (CPW 2014e, p. 1), and 

six grouse were counted in the Poncha 

Pass population during the spring 2014 

lek count (CPW 2014d, p.2); however, 

no subsequent evidence of reproduction 

was found (CPW 2014f, p. 2). 

We now conclude that the Poncha 

Pass area, for reasons unknown, is not 

a landscape capable of supporting a 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse and 

therefore does not meet PCE 1. Because 

the population has repeatedly declined 

to the point of extirpation and is not 

self-sustaining, something in the unit is 

not providing the wide array of habitats 

that support seasonal movement 

patterns and provide for all the life 

history needs of the Gunnison sagegrouse. While we do not consider 

currently stable populations as being a 

litmus test for designation, we carefully 

considered the unique history of the 

grouse’s repeated extirpation from this 

particular area, as well as the lack of 

evidence of the landscape functions 

described by PCE 1, in reaching our 

conclusion that this area does not meet 

PCE 1 and should not be designated as 

critical habitat. 

We have reached this conclusion for 

the following reasons: (1) The 

population was extirpated before 1971, 

declined to fewer than 5 birds by 2000, 

and was again extirpated in 2013 (had 

more grouse not been reintroduced in 

2013 and 2014, there would be no 

grouse currently in the Poncha Pass 

area), (2) to the extent that any of the 

reintroduced birds or their offspring 

currently survive, the population has 

demonstrated (through the need for 

repeated transplant efforts) that it is not 

self-sustaining or viable (always with 

fewer than 50 birds since counts began), 

and (3) we expect that this population 

will require repeated augmentations to 

avoid yet another extirpation. 

Because this unit is not meeting PCE 

1, and therefore does not have the 

necessary physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the grouse, we conclude that the Poncha 

Pass unit does not meet the ESA’s 

definition of ‘‘critical habitat.’’ 

Therefore, we are removing the entire 

unit from the final critical habitat 

designation. 

Final Critical Habitat Designation 

The critical habitat areas described 

below constitute our current best 

assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. We are 

designating approximately 1,429,551 ac 

(578,515 ha) of critical habitat across six 

units for Gunnison sage-grouse (Table 

1). These six units correspond to six of 

the seven Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, including: (1) MonticelloDove Creek, (2) Pin ̃ on Mesa, (3) San 

Miguel Basin, (4) Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa, (5) Crawford, and 

(6) Gunnison Basin. We consider 

approximately 55 percent of all critical 

habitat to be currently occupied and 45 

percent to be currently unoccupied by 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Table 4). Of this 

critical habitat designation, 

approximately 55 percent occurs on 

Federal land; 43 percent occurs on 

private land; 2 percent occurs on State 

land; and less than 0.1 percent occurs 

on city and county land (Table 5). Table 

4 provides the size and occupancy 

status of Gunnison sage-grouse for each 

critical habitat unit; Table 5 provides 

land ownership and occupancy status of 

Gunnison sage-grouse for each critical 

habitat unit. Calculated acres reflect 

exclusions from this final critical habitat 

designation, including private lands 

under CE, properties with a CI under the 

CCAA as of the effective date of this 

rule, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s 

Pinecrest Ranch (see Exclusions below). 

TABLE 4—SIZE AND CURRENT OCCUPANCY STATUS OF GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE IN DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

UNITS a b

[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries.] 

Critical habitat unit Acres Hectares 

Unit 

percent of 

total acres 

Occupied? Acres Hectares 

Percent 

of individual 

unit 

Percent 

of all 

units 

Monticello-Dove Creek ................................. 343,000 138,807 24 .0 Yes .......... 107,061 43,326 31.2 7.5 

No ............ 235,940 95,481 68.8 16.5 

Pin ̃on Mesa .................................................. 207,792 84,087 14 .5 Yes .......... 28,820 11,663 13.9 2.0 

No ............ 178,972 72,424 86.1 12.5 

San Miguel Basin ......................................... 121,929 49,343 8 .5 Yes .......... 81,514 32,988 66.9 5.7 

No ............ 40,414 16,355 33.1 2.8 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ............ 52,544 21,264 3 .7 Yes .......... 33,675 13,628 64.1 2.4 

No ............ 18,869 7,636 35.9 1.3 

Crawford ....................................................... 83,671 33,860 5 .9 Yes .......... 32,632 13,206 39.0 2.3 

No ............ 51,039 20,655 61.0 3.6 

Gunnison Basin ............................................ 620,616 251,154 43 .4 Yes .......... 500,909 202,711 80.7 35.0 

No ............ 119,707 48,444 19.3 8.4 

All Units ........................................................ 1,429,551 578,515 100 Yes .......... 784,611 317,521 54.9 54.9 

No ............ 644,940 260,994 45.1 45.1 

aArea sizes may not sum precisely due to rounding. 

bArea sizes reflect lands excluded in this final critical habitat designation including private lands under CE, CCAA properties, and the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe’s Pinecrest Ranch. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69339 

TABLE 5—LAND OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY STATUS OF GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE IN DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

UNITS a b

Critical habitat unit Occupied? 

Federal State City and county Private 

Percent 

of subunit 

Percent 

of unit 

Percent 

of subunit 

Percent 

of unit 

Percent 

of subunit 

Percent 

of unit 

Percent 

of subunit 

Percent 

of unit 

Monticello-Dove Creek ............... Yes .......... 7.9 13.0 3.1 1.0 ................ ................ 89.0 86.0 

No ............ 15.3 ................ 0.0 ................ ................ ................ 84.7 ................

Pin ̃on Mesa ................................ Yes .......... 44.9 73.3 0.0 0.0 ................ ................ 55.1 26.6 

No ............ 77.9 ................ 0.0 ................ ................ ................ 22.0 ................

San Miguel Basin ....................... Yes .......... 45.5 40.6 18.4 12.3 ................ ................ 36.1 47.1 

No ............ 30.7 ................ 0.0 ................ ................ ................ 69.3 ................

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa.

Yes .......... 14.5 18.8 12.1 7.7 ................ ................ 73.5 73.5 

No ............ 26.5 ................ 0.0 ................ ................ ................ 73.5 ................

Crawford ..................................... Yes .......... 81.3 52.6 0.0 0.0 ................ ................ 18.7 47.4 

No ............ 34.3 ................ 0.0 ................ ................ ................ 65.7 ................

Gunnison Basin .......................... Yes .......... 79.2 77.5 2.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 18.0 20.2 

No ............ 70.3 ................ 0.3 ................ ................ ................ 29.3 ................

All Units ...................................... Yes .......... 62.0 54.6 4.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 33.4 42.8 

No ............ 45.7 ................ 0.1 ................ ................ ................ 54.2 ................

Total .................................... .................. 54.6 54.6 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 42.8 42.8 

aPercentages may not sum precisely due to rounding. 

bPercentages reflect lands excluded in this final critical habitat designation including private lands under CE, CCAA properties, and the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe’s Pinecrest Ranch (see Exclusions). 

We present below a general 

description for all critical habitat units, 

followed by brief descriptions of each 

individual unit, and reasons why they 

meet the definition of critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Various 

protection efforts on lands within these 

units are described in our final rule to 

list Gunnison sage-grouse as threatened, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register; in that publication, see the 

following sections: Other Regulatory 

Mechanisms: Conservation Easements; 

and Related Conservation Programs and 

Efforts. 

Unit Descriptions 

All units were likely historically 

occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted 

from Schroeder et al. 2004, entire), but 

we recognize that only portions of these 

units would have been occupied at any 

one time. As discussed above, we found 

that all lands identified as critical 

habitat are essential to the conservation 

of the Gunnison sage-grouse for the 

following reasons: 

(1) The loss of sagebrush habitats 

within the potential presettlement range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse is associated 

with a substantial reduction in the 

species range (88 to 93 percent). The 

best available information indicates a 

substantial reduction of Gunnison sagegrouse distribution since Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s, with evidence 

of the loss of peripheral populations 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371, and 

references therein) and a northward 

trend of extirpation (Schroeder et al. 

2004, p. 369). 

(2) The Gunnison Basin population is 

the most important population for the 

species’ survival with approximately 63 

percent of occupied habitat, 

approximately 60 percent of the leks, 

and 84 percent of the rangewide 

population. It has been relatively stable 

based on the last 19 years of lek counts 

(but see Effective Population Size and 

Population Viability Analyses in the 

Factor E discussion in the final listing 

rule published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register). 

(3) In contrast to the Gunnison Basin 

population, the remaining five 

populations included in this final 

designation are much smaller and all 

but two have declined substantially 

from 1996 to 2014, despite transplant 

efforts in most of these areas since 2000 

(CPW 2014c, entire); also see Current 

Distribution and Population Estimates 

and Trends in our final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

These five populations are currently 

geographically isolated and are 

genetically at risk. The San Miguel 

Basin Gunnison sage-grouse effective 

population size is below the level at 

which inbreeding depression has been 

observed to occur. Because the 

remaining Gunnison sage-grouse 

satellite populations are smaller than 

the San Miguel population, they are 

likely small enough to induce 

inbreeding depression, and could be 

losing adaptive potential (Stiver et al. 

2008, p. 479). The majority of the 

satellite populations are still rebounding 

from declines that coincided with a 

drought cycle from 1999 to 2003 (CPW 

2014c, entire). Our analysis in our final 

rule to list the Gunnison sage-grouse 

suggests that resiliency is limited in the 

satellite populations (for more 

discussion, see Small Population Size 

and Structure section in the final listing 

rule published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register). 

(4) Existing small populations are at 

higher risk of extirpation due to 

stochastic events. The smaller 

populations are important to the longterm viability of Gunnison sage-grouse 

because they: (1) Increase species 

abundance rangewide; (2) minimize the 

threat of catastrophic events to the 

species since the populations are widely 

distributed across the landscape; and (3) 

likely provide additional genetic 

diversity not found in the Gunnison 

Basin (with the exception of the Poncha 

Pass population) (GSRSC 2005, p. 199). 

Thus, multiple populations are needed 

to provide population redundancy, and 

to increase the species’ chances of 

survival in the face of environmental, 

demographic, and genetic stochastic 

factors and random catastrophic events 

(extreme drought, fire, disease, etc.). 

Multiple populations across a broad 

geographic area provide insurance 

against catastrophic events, and the 

aggregate number of individuals across 

all populations increases the probability 

of demographic persistence and 

preservation of overall genetic diversity 

(with the exception of the Poncha Pass 

population) by providing an important 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

genetic reservoir (representation) 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 179) (see the Small 

Population Size and Structure section in 

the final listing rule, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register). 

(5) Currently occupied habitat area for 

five of the six populations included in 

this final designation (with the 

exception of the Gunnison Basin 

population) may be less than the 

minimum amount of habitat necessary 

for the long-term viability of each 

population. 

Designation of critical habitat limited 

to the Gunnison sage-grouse’s present 

occupied range would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Therefore, we are designating areas of 

potential historical habitat that are not 

known to be currently occupied, for the 

following reasons: 

(1) Current population sizes of the 

five smaller Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations included in this final 

designation are at such low levels that 

they must increase in order to ensure 

long-term survival (GSRSC 2005, p. G– 

22). While the occupied portions of the 

critical habitat units provide habitat for 

current populations, currently 

unoccupied areas will provide habitat 

for population expansion either through 

natural means, or by reintroduction, 

thus reducing threats due to naturally 

occurring events. 

(2) Occupied habitat within the 

Gunnison Basin population is much 

larger (592,168 ac (239,600 ha)) than the 

RCP model’s predicted minimum 

required area. However, extensive 

sagebrush landscapes capable of 

supporting a wide array of seasonal 

habitats and annual migratory patterns 

for Gunnison sage-grouse are rare across 

the species’ range. The Gunnison Basin 

population is the largest population, 

and the population is extremely 

important for the species’ survival. With 

the satellite populations declining, 

providing more stability for the 

Gunnison Basin population through 

additional expanses of sagebrush 

landscapes is essential for the 

conservation of the species. Further, 

these unoccupied areas of sagebrush 

expanses also provide potential 

connectivity to the Crawford and Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

populations to the west. The small piece 

of unoccupied habitat to the east of the 

Gunnison Basin provides a link between 

those birds in occupied habitat to the 

north and west. 

(3) Population expansion either 

through natural means or by 

reintroduction into the five small CHUs 

is necessary to increase the long-term 

viability and decrease the risk of 

extirpation of the populations in these 

units through stochastic events, such as 

fires or drought, as the current, isolated 

populations are each at high risk of 

extirpation from such stochastic events 

(GSRSC 2005, p. G–22), particularly 

because of their small sizes and 

restricted ranges. 

(4) Unoccupied portions of all six 

CHUs decrease the geographic isolation 

of the current geographic distribution of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse by increasing 

the connectivity between occupied 

habitats and populations. 

(5) Unoccupied portions of units are 

in areas that were occupied in the past 

and are located within the historical 

range of the species such that they will 

serve as corridors, or movement areas, 

between currently occupied areas. All 

unoccupied subunits lie within 18.5 km 

of an occupied area. We considered 

unoccupied areas as critical habitat if 

they, among other things, are located 

within approximately 18.5 km (11.5 mi) 

of occupied habitat based on typical 

sage-grouse movement distances 

(Connelly 2000a, p. 978; GSRSC 2005, p. 

J–5) because these areas have the 

highest likelihood of receiving 

Gunnison sage-grouse use and potential 

for occupied habitat expansion. 

Unit 1: Monticello-Dove Creek 

Unit 1 consists of 343,000 ac (138,807 

ha) of Federal, State, and private lands 

in San Juan County, Utah; and 

Montrose, San Miguel, and Dolores 

Counties, Colorado. Approximately 13 

percent of the land area within the unit 

is managed by Federal agencies, 1 

percent is owned by the State of 

Colorado and the State of Utah, and the 

remaining 86 percent comprises private 

lands. We consider 33 percent of this 

unit to be currently occupied by 

Gunnison sage-grouse, based on 

mapping developed for the 2005 RCP, as 

updated (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; CPW 

2013e, spatial data). Tables 4 and 5 

provide detailed acreage estimates for 

all critical habitat units. 

The occupied portion of the 

Monticello-Dove Creek Unit contains 

the physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse, but these areas 

are interspersed within lands in 

agricultural production. Within the 

occupied portion of this Unit, 

approximately 23,220 ha (57,377 ac) or 

51 percent of the area is currently in 

agricultural production (USGS 2004, 

entire). However, a significant portion of 

the agricultural lands within the Unit 

are enrolled in the USDA Farm Service 

Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP), which is a land conservation 

program where farmers agree to remove 

environmentally sensitive lands from 

agricultural production in exchange for 

a yearly rental payment. Many CRP 

lands are used by Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Ward 

2007, p. 15). 

Factors potentially affecting the 

physical and biological features of the 

Monticello-Dove Creek Unit include, 

but are not limited to: Habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation 

resulting from conversion to agriculture; 

climate change, drought-related effects; 

oil and gas production and associated 

infrastructure; the proliferation of 

predators of Gunnison sage-grouse; the 

spread of invasive plant species and 

associated changes in sagebrush plant 

community structure and dynamics; and 

past and present grazing management 

that degrades or eliminates vegetation 

structure; all of which can result in the 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

sagebrush plant communities. Special 

management actions that may be needed 

to address these threats include, but are 

not limited to: The rangewide 

prioritization and protection of crucial 

seasonal habitats from development and 

agricultural conversion; the control of 

invasive plant species and restoration of 

historic plant community structure and 

dynamics, including altered fire regimes 

and other natural disturbance factors; 

and the implementation of grazing 

regimes that result in proper vegetation 

structure for Gunnison sage-grouse lifehistory needs in areas used for domestic 

and wild ungulate grazing and 

browsing. 

Limiting the designation of critical 

habitat in this unit only to currently 

occupied areas would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, we are designating 

currently unoccupied areas that we 

conclude are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied habitat comprises 

approximately 69 percent of the unit, 

including lands defined in the 2005 RCP 

as potential habitat or vacant or 

unknown habitat (GSRSC 2005, p. 54) 

and other unoccupied areas that met our 

criteria for critical habitat (see Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). We acknowledge, 

however, that portions of these 

unoccupied lands are locally unsuitable 

as habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. For 

instance, some areas within the critical 

habitat unit are dominated by pin ̃onjuniper communities (Messmer 2013, p. 

17). As described earlier, critical habitat 

was identified on a landscape scale, and 

includes areas with varying amounts of 

overall sagebrush cover, plus habitat 

types that may facilitate bird 

movements and dispersal. These areas 

are also located adjacent to occupied 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69341 

habitat or are located immediately 

between surrounding populations. In 

addition to contributing to the 

fulfillment of the landscape scale 

habitat needs of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

these areas provide habitat for future 

population growth and reestablishment 

of portions of presettlement range, and 

facilitate movement between other units 

and within the unit. 

Some unoccupied habitat areas within 

this unit consist of lands that recently 

supported sagebrush-dominant plant 

communities but are currently in 

agricultural production or are currently 

subject to encroachment by coniferous 

trees or shrubs, most commonly pin ̃ onjuniper or mountain shrub plant 

communities. These areas require 

management to reestablish or enhance 

sagebrush communities to support the 

primary constituent elements of 

Gunnison sage-grouse nesting or broodrearing habitats. However, in their 

current state, these areas provide 

essential habitat for inter-population 

movements and thus may reduce 

population isolation and increase 

genetic exchange among populations. 

Unit 2: Pin ̃ on Mesa 

Unit 2, the Pin ̃ on Mesa Unit, consists 

of 207,792 ac (84,087 ha) of Federal, 

State, and private lands in Grand 

County, Utah, and Mesa County, 

Colorado. Approximately 73 percent of 

the land area within the unit is managed 

by Federal agencies, less than 1 percent 

is owned by the State of Utah, and 27 

percent comprises private lands. We 

consider 14 percent of this unit to be 

currently occupied by Gunnison sagegrouse, based on mapping developed for 

the 2005 RCP and subsequently (GSRSC 

2005, p. 54; CPW 2013e, spatial data). 

Tables 4 and 5 provide detailed 

estimates for all critical habitat units. 

The occupied portion of the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

Unit contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Factors potentially affecting the 

physical and biological features of the 

Pin ̃ on Mesa Unit include, but are not 

limited to: Residential and commercial 

development including associated landclearing activities for the construction of 

access roads, utilities, and fences; 

increased recreational use of roads and 

trails; the proliferation of predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse; climate change, 

drought-related effects; the spread of 

invasive plant species and associated 

changes in sagebrush plant community 

structure and dynamics; and past and 

present grazing management that 

degrades or eliminates vegetation 

structure; all of which can result in the 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

sagebrush plant communities. Special 

management actions that may be needed 

to address these threats include, but are 

not limited to: The rangewide 

prioritization and protection of crucial 

seasonal habitats subject to future 

residential and commercial 

development and increasing 

recreational use of roads and trails; the 

control of invasive plant species and 

restoration of historical plant 

community structure and dynamics, 

including altered fire regimes and other 

natural disturbance factors; and the 

implementation of grazing regimes that 

result in proper vegetation structure for 

Gunnison sage-grouse life-history needs 

in areas used for domestic and wild 

ungulate grazing and browsing. 

Limiting the designation of critical 

habitat in this unit only to currently 

occupied areas would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, we are designating 

currently unoccupied areas that we 

conclude are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied habitat comprises 

approximately 86 percent of the unit, 

including lands defined in the 2005 RCP 

as potential habitat or vacant or 

unknown habitat (GSRSC 2005, p. 54) 

and other unoccupied areas that met our 

criteria for critical habitat (see Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). These areas consist of 

lands with varying amounts of overall 

sagebrush cover, or have habitat types 

suitable for movements and dispersal. 

These areas are also located adjacent to 

occupied habitat or are located 

immediately between surrounding 

populations. In addition to contributing 

to the fulfillment of the landscape 

specific habitat needs of Gunnison sagegrouse, these areas provide habitat for 

future population growth and 

reestablishment of portions of 

presettlement range, and facilitate or 

allow movement between other units 

and within the unit. Some unoccupied 

habitat areas within this unit consist of 

lands that recently supported sagebrushdominant plant communities but are 

currently in agricultural production or 

are currently subject to encroachment 

by coniferous trees or shrubs, most 

commonly pin ̃on-juniper or mountain 

shrub plant communities. These areas 

require management to reestablish or 

enhance sagebrush communities to 

support the primary constituent 

elements of Gunnison sage-grouse 

nesting or brood-rearing habitat. 

However, in their current state, these 

areas provide essential habitat for interpopulation movements and thus may 

reduce population isolation and 

increase genetic exchange among 

populations. 

Unit 3: San Miguel Basin 

Unit 3, the San Miguel Basin Unit, 

consists of 121,929 ac (49,343 ha) of 

Federal, State, and private lands in 

Montrose, San Miguel, and Ouray 

counties, Colorado. Approximately 41 

percent of the land area within the unit 

is managed by Federal agencies, 12 

percent is owned by the State of 

Colorado, and 47 percent comprises 

private lands. We consider 67 percent of 

this unit to be currently occupied by 

Gunnison sage-grouse, based on 

mapping developed for the 2005 RCP 

and subsequently (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; 

CPW 2013e, spatial data). Tables 4 and 

5 provide detailed estimates for all 

critical habitat units. The occupied 

portion of the San Miguel Basin Unit 

contains the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Factors potentially affecting the 

physical and biological features within 

the San Miguel Basin Unit include, but 

are not limited to: Residential and 

commercial development including 

associated land-clearing activities for 

the construction of access roads, 

utilities, and fences; increased 

recreational use of roads and trails; the 

proliferation of predators of Gunnison 

sage-grouse; climate change, droughtrelated effects; the spread of invasive 

plant species and associated changes in 

sagebrush plant community structure 

and dynamics; past and present grazing 

management that degrades or eliminates 

vegetation structure; and oil and gas 

development and associated 

infrastructure, all of which can result in 

the loss, degradation, or fragmentation 

of sagebrush plant communities. Special 

management actions that may be needed 

to address these threats include, but are 

not limited to: The rangewide 

prioritization and protection of crucial 

seasonal habitats subject to future 

residential and commercial 

development (including oil and gas 

development) and increasing 

recreational use of roads and trails; the 

control of invasive plant species and 

restoration of historical plant 

community structure and dynamics, 

including altered fire regimes and other 

natural disturbance factors; and the 

implementation of grazing regimes that 

result in proper vegetation structure for 

Gunnison sage-grouse life-history needs 

in areas used for domestic and wild 

ungulate grazing and browsing. 

Limiting the designation of critical 

habitat in this unit only to currently 

occupied areas would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Accordingly, we are designating 

currently unoccupied areas that we 

conclude are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied habitat comprises 

approximately 33 percent of the unit 

including lands defined in the 2005 RCP 

as potential habitat or vacant or 

unknown habitat (GSRSC 2005, p. 54) 

and other unoccupied areas that met our 

criteria for critical habitat (see Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). These areas consist of 

lands with varying amounts of overall 

sagebrush cover, or have habitat types 

suitable for movements and dispersal. 

These areas are also located adjacent to 

occupied habitat or are located 

immediately between surrounding 

populations. In addition to contributing 

to the fulfillment of the landscape scale 

habitat needs of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

these areas provide habitat for future 

population growth and reestablishment 

of portions of presettlement range, and 

facilitate or allow movement between 

other units and within the unit. 

Some unoccupied habitat areas within 

this unit consist of lands that recently 

supported sagebrush-dominant plant 

communities but are currently in 

agricultural production or are currently 

subject to encroachment by coniferous 

trees or shrubs, most commonly pin ̃ onjuniper or mountain shrub plant 

communities. These areas require 

management to reestablish or enhance 

sagebrush communities to support the 

primary constituent elements of 

Gunnison sage-grouse nesting or broodrearing habitat. However, in their 

current state, these areas provide 

essential habitat for inter-population 

movements and thus may reduce 

population isolation and increase 

genetic exchange among populations. 

Unit 4: Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa 

Unit 4, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa Unit, consists of 52,544 ac (21,264 

ha) of Federal, State, and private lands 

in Montrose, Ouray, and Gunnison 

Counties, Colorado. Approximately 19 

percent of the land area within the unit 

is managed by Federal agencies, 8 

percent is owned by the State of 

Colorado, and 74 percent comprises 

private lands. We consider 64 percent of 

this unit to be currently occupied by 

Gunnison sage-grouse, based on 

mapping developed for the 2005 RCP 

and subsequently (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; 

CPW 2013e, spatial data). Tables 4 and 

5 provide detailed estimates for all 

critical habitat units. The occupied 

portion of the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa Unit contains the physical 

and biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Due to the amount of private land 

within this population, and the small 

size and scattered nature of the 

individual populations, we do not 

consider that having a viable population 

in this area to be necessary for the 

conservation of the species. However, 

we conclude that this population area 

currently provides a key linkage area 

between the Gunnison Basin and the 

Crawford and San Miguel populations. 

Data indicates that current gene flow 

between populations is very low (OylerMcCance et al. 2005, p. 635), but if 

potentially suitable habitat is restored in 

these population areas, then the Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population area could provide 

connectivity for gene flow between 

these populations. Therefore, we are 

finalizing critical habitat in this unit 

primarily for the purpose of facilitating 

connectivity between Gunnison Basin 

and the two smaller populations. 

Factors potentially affecting the 

physical and biological features of the 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

Unit include, but are not limited to: 

Residential and commercial 

development including associated landclearing activities for the construction of 

access roads, utilities, and fences; 

increased recreational use of roads and 

trails; the proliferation of predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse; the spread of 

invasive plant species and associated 

changes in sagebrush plant community 

structure and dynamics; climate change, 

drought-related effects; and past and 

present grazing management that 

degrades or eliminates vegetation 

structure; all of which can result in the 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

sagebrush plant communities. Special 

management actions that may be needed 

to address these threats include, but are 

not limited to: The rangewide 

prioritization and protection of crucial 

seasonal habitats subject to future 

residential and commercial 

development and increasing 

recreational use of roads and trails; the 

control of invasive plant species and 

restoration of historical plant 

community structure and dynamics, 

including altered fire regimes and other 

natural disturbance factors; and the 

implementation of grazing regimes that 

result in proper vegetation structure for 

Gunnison sage-grouse life-history needs 

in areas used for domestic and wild 

ungulate grazing and browsing. 

Limiting the designation of critical 

habitat in this unit only to currently 

occupied areas would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, we are designating 

currently unoccupied areas that we 

conclude are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied habitat comprises 

approximately 36 percent of the unit 

including lands defined in the 2005 RCP 

as potential habitat or vacant or 

unknown habitat (GSRSC 2005, p. 54) 

and other unoccupied areas that met our 

criteria as critical habitat (see Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). These areas consist of 

lands with varying amounts of overall 

sagebrush cover, or have habitat types 

suitable for movements and dispersal. 

These areas are also located adjacent to 

occupied habitat or are located 

immediately between surrounding 

populations. In addition to contributing 

to the fulfillment of the landscape scale 

habitat needs of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

these areas provide an important linkage 

area between populations. 

Some unoccupied habitat areas within 

this unit consist of lands that recently 

supported sagebrush-dominant plant 

communities but are currently in 

agricultural production or are currently 

subject to encroachment by coniferous 

trees or shrubs, most commonly pin ̃ onjuniper or mountain shrub plant 

communities. These areas require 

management to reestablish or enhance 

sagebrush communities to support the 

primary constituent elements of 

Gunnison sage-grouse nesting or broodrearing habitat. However, in their 

current state, these areas provide 

essential habitat for inter-population 

movements and thus may reduce 

population isolation and increase 

genetic exchange among populations. 

Unit 5: Crawford 

Unit 5, the Crawford Unit, consists of 

83,671 ac (33,860 ha) of Federal and 

private lands in Delta, Montrose, and 

Gunnison Counties, Colorado. 

Approximately 53 percent of the land 

area within the unit is managed by 

Federal agencies, and 47 percent 

comprises private lands. We consider 39 

percent of this unit to be currently 

occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse, 

based on mapping developed for the 

2005 RCP and subsequently (GSRSC 

2005, p. 54; CPW 2013e, spatial data). 

Tables 4 and 5 provide detailed 

estimates for all critical habitat units. 

The occupied portion of the Crawford 

Unit contains the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Factors potentially affecting the 

physical and biological features of the 

Crawford Unit include, but are not 

limited to: Residential and commercial 

development including associated landVerDate Sep<11>2014 13:32 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR3.SGM 20NOR3

rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69343 

clearing activities for the construction of 

access roads, utilities, and fences; 

increased recreational use of roads and 

trails; the proliferation of predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse; climate change, 

drought-related effects; the spread of 

invasive plant species and associated 

changes in sagebrush plant community 

structure and dynamics; and past and 

present grazing management that 

degrades or eliminates vegetation 

structure; all of which can result in the 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

sagebrush plant communities. Special 

management actions that may be needed 

to address these threats include, but are 

not limited to: The rangewide 

prioritization and protection of crucial 

seasonal habitats subject to future 

residential and commercial 

development and increasing 

recreational use of roads and trails; the 

control of invasive plant species and 

restoration of historical plant 

community structure and dynamics, 

including altered fire regimes and other 

natural disturbance factors; and the 

implementation of grazing regimes that 

result in proper vegetation structure for 

Gunnison sage-grouse life-history needs 

in areas used for domestic and wild 

ungulate grazing and browsing. 

Limiting the designation of critical 

habitat in this unit only to currently 

occupied areas would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, we are designating 

currently unoccupied areas that we 

conclude are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied habitat comprises 

approximately 61 percent of the unit 

including lands defined in the 2005 RCP 

as potential habitat or vacant or 

unknown habitat (GSRSC 2005, p. 54) 

and other unoccupied areas that met our 

criteria for critical habitat (see Criteria 

and Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). These areas consist of 

lands with varying amounts of overall 

sagebrush cover, or have habitat types 

suitable for movements and dispersal. 

These areas are also located adjacent to 

occupied habitat or are located 

immediately between surrounding 

populations. In addition to contributing 

to the fulfillment of the landscape scale 

habitat needs of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

these areas provide habitat for future 

population growth and reestablishment 

of portions of presettlement range, and 

facilitate or allow movement between 

other units and within the unit. 

Some unoccupied habitat areas within 

this unit consist of lands that recently 

supported sagebrush-dominant plant 

communities but are currently in 

agricultural production or are currently 

subject to encroachment by coniferous 

trees or shrubs, most commonly pin ̃ onjuniper or mountain shrub plant 

communities. These areas require 

management to reestablish or enhance 

sagebrush communities to support the 

primary constituent elements of 

Gunnison sage-grouse nesting or broodrearing habitat. However, in their 

current state, these areas provide 

essential habitat for inter-population 

movements and thus may reduce 

population isolation and increase 

genetic exchange among populations. 

Unit 6: Gunnison Basin 

Unit 6, the Gunnison Basin Unit, 

consists of 620,616 ac (251,154 ha) of 

Federal, State, local government, and 

private lands in Gunnison, Hinsdale, 

Montrose, and Saguache Counties, 

Colorado. Approximately 78 percent of 

the land area within the unit is managed 

by Federal agencies, 2 percent is owned 

by the State of Colorado, less than 0.1 

percent is owned by Gunnison County 

and the City of Gunnison, and 20 

percent comprises private lands. We 

consider 81 percent of this unit to be 

currently occupied, based on mapping 

developed for the 2005 RCP and 

subsequently (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; CPW 

2013e, spatial data). Tables 4 and 5 

provide detailed estimates for all critical 

habitat units. The Gunnison Basin 

contains the largest remaining expanse 

of sagebrush plant communities within 

the occupied range of Gunnison sagegrouse. The occupied portion of the 

Gunnison Basin Unit contains the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Factors potentially affecting the 

physical and biological features of the 

Gunnison Basin Unit include, but are 

not limited to: Residential and 

commercial development including 

associated land-clearing activities for 

the construction of access roads, 

utilities, and fences; increased 

recreational use of roads and trails; 

climate change, drought-related effects; 

the proliferation of predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse; the spread of 

invasive plant species and associated 

changes in sagebrush plant community 

structure and dynamics; and past and 

present grazing management that 

degrades or eliminates vegetation 

structure; all of which can result in the 

loss, degradation, or fragmentation of 

sagebrush plant communities. Special 

management actions that may be needed 

to address these threats include, but are 

not limited to: The rangewide 

prioritization and protection of crucial 

seasonal habitats subject to future 

residential and commercial 

development and increasing 

recreational use of roads and trails; the 

control of invasive plant species and 

restoration of historical plant 

community structure and dynamics, 

including altered fire regimes and other 

natural disturbance factors; and the 

implementation of grazing regimes that 

result in proper vegetation structure for 

Gunnison sage-grouse life-history needs 

in areas used for domestic and wild 

ungulate grazing and browsing. 

Limiting the designation of critical 

habitat in this unit only to currently 

occupied areas would be inadequate to 

ensure the conservation of the species. 

Accordingly, we are designating 

currently unoccupied areas that we 

conclude are essential for the 

conservation of the species. Designated 

unoccupied habitat comprises 

approximately 19 percent of the unit 

including lands defined in the 2005 RCP 

as potential habitat or vacant or 

unknown habitat (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; 

CPW 2013e, spatial data) and other 

unoccupied areas that met our criteria 

for critical habitat (see Criteria and 

Methods Used to Identify and Map 

Critical Habitat). These areas consist of 

lands with varying amounts of overall 

sagebrush cover, or have habitat types 

suitable for movements and dispersal. 

These areas are also located adjacent to 

occupied habitat or are located 

immediately between surrounding 

populations. 

Occupied habitat within the 

Gunnison Basin population is much 

larger (592,168 ac (239,600 ha)) than the 

RCP model’s predicted minimum 

required area. However, extensive 

sagebrush landscapes capable of 

supporting a wide array of seasonal 

habitats and annual migratory patterns 

for Gunnison sage-grouse are rare across 

the species’ range. The Gunnison Basin 

population is the largest population, 

and the population is extremely 

important for the species’ survival. With 

the satellite populations declining, 

providing more stability for the 

Gunnison Basin population through 

additional expanses of sagebrush 

landscapes is essential for the 

conservation of the species. Further, 

these unoccupied areas of sagebrush 

expanses also provide potential 

connectivity to the Crawford and Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

populations to the west. The small piece 

of unoccupied habitat to the east of the 

Gunnison Basin provides a link between 

those birds in occupied habitat to the 

north and west. 

Some unoccupied habitat areas within 

this unit consist of lands that recently 

supported sagebrush-dominant plant 

communities but are currently in 

agricultural production or are currently 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

subject to encroachment by coniferous 

trees or shrubs, most commonly pin ̃ onjuniper or mountain shrub plant 

communities. These areas require 

management to reestablish or enhance 

sagebrush communities to support the 

primary constituent elements of 

Gunnison sage-grouse nesting or broodrearing habitat. However, in their 

current state, these areas provide 

essential habitat for inter-population 

movements and thus may reduce 

population isolation and increase 

genetic exchange among populations. 

The maintenance and enhancement of 

inter-population connectivity is 

particularly important for the Gunnison 

Basin because it is the largest 

population in the species’ range and is, 

therefore, the most likely source of 

dispersal of Gunnison sage-grouse to 

other populations. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they fund, 

authorize, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act 

requires Federal agencies to confer with 

the Service on any agency action that is 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of any species proposed to be 

listed under the Act or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

proposed critical habitat. 

Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit 

Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 

previous regulatory definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 

Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this 

regulatory definition when analyzing 

whether an action is likely to destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat. Under 

the statutory provisions of the Act, we 

determine destruction or adverse 

modification on the basis of whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. We note that the Service has 

proposed to amend the definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat’’ to (1) more explicitly tie 

the definition to the stated purpose of 

the Act; and, (2) more clearly contrast 

the definitions of ‘‘destruction or 

adverse modification’’ and ‘‘jeopardize 

the continued existence of’ (79 FR 

27060). 

If a Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. Examples of actions that are 

subject to the section 7 consultation 

process are actions on State, tribal, 

local, or private lands that require a 

Federal permit (such as a permit from 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the 

Service under section 10 of the Act) or 

that involve some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency). 

Federal actions not affecting listed 

species or critical habitat, and actions 

on State, tribal, local, or private lands 

that are not federally funded or 

authorized, do not require section 7 

consultation. 

As noted earlier, when determining 

the critical habitat boundaries for this 

rule, we made every effort to avoid 

including lands covered by buildings, 

pavement, and other manmade 

structures (as of the effective date of this 

rule), based on our determination that 

such lands lack physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and therefore do 

not meet the definition of critical habitat 

in Section 3(5)(a) of the Act. The scale 

of the maps we prepared under the 

parameters for publication within the 

Code of Federal Regulations, however, 

may not reflect our determination that 

such lands are not included in the final 

designation. As a result, we have 

included text in the final rule to make 

this point clear. A Federal action 

involving these lands would not trigger 

section 7 consultation with respect to 

critical habitat and the requirement of 

no adverse modification unless the 

specific action would affect the physical 

and biological features in the adjacent 

critical habitat, or otherwise affect the 

species. 

As a result of section 7 consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, or are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species and/or destroy or 

adversely modify critical habitat, we 

provide reasonable and prudent 

alternatives to the project, if any are 

identifiable, that would avoid the 

likelihood of jeopardy and/or 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable 

and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR 

402.02) as alternative actions identified 

during consultation that: 

(1) Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

(2) Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

(3) Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of the listed species 

and/or avoid the likelihood of 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives 

can vary from slight project 

modifications to extensive redesign or 

relocation of the project. Costs 

associated with implementing a 

reasonable and prudent alternative are 

similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in certain circumstances, 

including where we have listed a new 

species or designated critical habitat 

that may be affected, if the Federal 

agency has retained discretionary 

involvement or control over the action 

(or the agency’s discretionary 

involvement or control is authorized by 

law). Consequently, Federal agencies 

sometimes may need to request 

reinitiation of consultation with us on 

actions for which formal consultation 

has been completed, if those actions 

with discretionary involvement or 

control may affect subsequently listed 

species or designated critical habitat. 

On April 21, 2014, the Service 

received a request from NRCS for 

conferencing under authority of Section 

7 of the Act on the NRCS’s Farm Bill 

program activities, including the SageGrouse Initiative and associated 

procedures, conservation practices, and 

conservation measures. The focus of the 

resulting conference opinion (which 

will be converted to a biological opinion 

once the Gunnison sage-grouse is listed) 

will be on the effects of NRCS programs 

on the Gunnison sage-grouse and the 

areas to be designated as critical habitat 

for this species. The Service continues 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69345 

to work closely with NRCS on 

developing the conference opinion and 

anticipates that it will be issued as a 

final opinion prior to the effective date 

of the final listing determination for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The resulting 

opinion will provide Endangered 

Species Act compliance for both NRCS 

and current and future participating 

landowners enrolled in conservation 

programs and implementing 

conservation practices affecting 

Gunnison sage-grouse or its designated 

critical habitat, as analyzed within the 

conference opinion. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species. Activities that may destroy or 

adversely modify occupied critical 

habitat are those that alter the physical 

and biological features to an extent that 

appreciably reduces the conservation 

value of critical habitat for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. As discussed above, the 

role of critical habitat is to support lifehistory needs of the species and provide 

for the conservation of the species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

proposed or final regulation that 

designates critical habitat, activities 

involving a Federal action that may 

destroy or adversely modify such 

habitat, or that may be affected by such 

designation. 

Activities that may affect critical 

habitat, when carried out, funded, or 

authorized by a Federal agency, should 

result in consultation for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse. These activities include, 

but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions carried out, funded or 

authorized by a Federal agency that 

would result in the loss of sagebrush 

overstory plant cover or height. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, the removal of native shrub 

vegetation by any means for any 

infrastructure construction project; 

direct conversion to agricultural land 

use; habitat improvement or restoration 

projects involving mowing, brushbeating, Dixie harrowing, disking, 

plowing, herbicide applications such as 

Tebuthiuron (Spike), or prescribed 

burning; and fire suppression activities. 

These activities could eliminate or 

reduce the habitat necessary for the 

production and survival of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

(2) Actions carried out, funded or 

authorized by a Federal agency that 

would result in the loss or reduction in 

native herbaceous understory plant 

cover or height, and a reduction or loss 

of associated arthropod communities. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, livestock grazing, the 

application of herbicides or insecticides, 

prescribed burning and fire suppression 

activities, and seeding of nonnative 

plant species that would compete with 

native species for water, nutrients, and 

space. These activities could eliminate 

or reduce the quantity and quality of 

habitat necessary for Gunnison sagegrouse nesting and production through 

a reduction in food quality and quantity, 

and increased exposure to predation. 

(3) Actions carried out, funded or 

authorized by a Federal agency that 

would result in Gunnison sage-grouse 

avoidance of an area during one or more 

seasonal periods. Such activities could 

include, but are not limited to, the 

construction of vertical structures such 

as power lines, fences, communication 

towers, and buildings; management of 

motorized and nonmotorized 

recreational use; and activities such as 

well drilling, operation, and 

maintenance, which would entail 

significant human presence, noise, and 

infrastructure. These activities could 

result in the direct or functional loss of 

habitat if they result in Gunnison sagegrouse avoidance or more limited use of 

otherwise suitable habitat in the 

vicinity. 

Exemptions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) provides that: 

‘‘The Secretary shall not designate as 

critical habitat any lands or other 

geographic areas owned or controlled by 

the Department of Defense, or 

designated for its use, that are subject to 

an integrated natural resources 

management plan [INRMP] prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

There are no Department of Defense 

lands with a completed INRMP within 

this critical habitat designation. 

Exclusions 

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

On August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51503) the 

Services published a proposed rule to 

revise 50 CFR 424.19. In that rule the 

Services proposed to elaborate on the 

process and standards for implementing 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The final rule 

was published on August 28, 2013 (78 

FR 53058). The revisions to 50 CFR 

424.19 provide the framework for how 

the Services intend to implement 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. A proposed 

policy meant to complement those 

revisions and provide further 

clarification as to how we will 

implement section 4(b)(2) when 

designating critical habitat was 

published on May 12, 2014 (79 FR 

27052). This draft policy further details 

the discretion available to the Services 

(acting for the Secretaries) and provides 

detailed examples of how we consider 

partnerships and conservation plans, 

conservation plans permitted under 

section 10 of the Act, tribal lands, 

national security and homeland security 

impacts and military lands, Federal 

lands, and economic impacts in the 

exclusion process when we undertake a 

discretionary exclusion analysis. The 

draft policy tracks prior and current 

Service practices regarding the 

consideration of exclusions under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. While the 

Service is not formally following the 

draft policy, the Service continues to 

follow past practices when considering 

exclusions and excluding areas under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act. 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary shall designate and make 

revisions to critical habitat on the basis 

of the best available scientific data after 

taking into consideration the economic 

impact, national security impact, and 

any other relevant impact of specifying 

any particular area as critical habitat. 

The Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if she determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless she 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. The statute on its face, as well 

as the legislative history, are clear that 

the Secretary has broad discretion 

regarding which factor(s) to use in 

making an exclusion determination and 

how much weight to give to any factor. 

In considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

identify the benefits of including the 

area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and evaluate whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If the analysis 

indicates that the benefits of exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the 

Secretary may exercise her discretion to 

exclude the area only if such exclusion 

would not result in the extinction of the 

species. 

When identifying the benefits of 

inclusion for an area, we consider, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

among other things, the additional 

regulatory benefits that area would 

receive from the protection from adverse 

modification or destruction as a result of 

actions with a Federal nexus; the 

educational benefits of mapping 

essential habitat for recovery of the 

listed species; and any benefits that may 

result from a designation due to State or 

Federal laws that may apply to critical 

habitat. 

When identifying the benefits of 

exclusion, we consider, among other 

things, whether exclusion of a specific 

area is likely to result in conservation; 

the continuation, strengthening, or 

encouragement of partnerships; or 

implementation of a management plan 

that provides equal to or more 

conservation than a critical habitat 

designation would provide. 

In the case of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

the benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of Gunnison sagegrouse presence and the importance of 

habitat protection, and in cases where a 

Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for Gunnison sage-grouse due 

to the protection from adverse 

modification or destruction of critical 

habitat. Approximately 55 percent of the 

critical habitat designation for Gunnison 

sage-grouse occurs on Federal land; 43 

percent occurs on private land; 3 

percent occurs on State land; and less 

than 0.1 percent occurs on city and 

county land. We anticipate that 

consultations under section 7 of the Act 

for activities on these Federal lands and 

for activities with a Federal nexus on 

other lands will help avoid and 

minimize impacts on critical habitat and 

Gunnison sage-grouse, thereby 

promoting the species’ recovery. 

Because this designation provides 

specific areas on maps that are available 

to the public, the critical habitat 

designation on non-Federal lands (45 

percent) will also increase public 

awareness and promote conservation of 

the species and its habitat. 

After identifying the benefits of 

inclusion and the benefits of exclusion, 

we carefully weigh the two sides to 

evaluate whether the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. 

If our analysis indicates that the benefits 

of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

inclusion, we then determine whether 

exclusion would result in extinction. If 

exclusion of an area from critical habitat 

will result in extinction, we will not 

exclude it from the designation. 

Based on the information provided by 

entities seeking exclusion, as well as 

any additional public comments 

received, we evaluated whether certain 

lands in each unit of the critical habitat 

designation (1,621,008 ac (655,957 ha)) 

were appropriate for exclusion from this 

final designation pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act. For the reasons 

discussed below, we are excluding a 

total of 191,460 ac (77,481 ha) of private 

land from the critical habitat 

designation for Gunnison sage-grouse, 

including 122,037 ac (49,387 ha) of land 

under permanent CE as of August 28, 

2013 according to Lohr and Gray (2013); 

81,156 ac (32,843 ha) of lands with 

completed Certificates of Inclusion (CIs) 

under the Gunnison sage-grouse CCAA 

(of which 24,464 ac (9,900 ha) overlaps 

with CEs) as of the effective date of this 

rule; and 12,727 ac (5,150 ha) of land 

owned by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

that is subject to a species’ conservation 

plan. Tables 6 and 7 below provide 

approximate areas of lands that meet the 

definition of critical habitat but are 

being excluded under section 4(b)(2) of 

the Act from the final critical habitat 

rule. Exclusions are depicted in the 

critical habitat maps. Private land 

boundaries may not be exact due to 

mapping inconsistencies between land 

survey data, Geographic Information 

System (GIS) coordinates, and differing 

mapping layers provided. The private 

lands subject to the identified 

conservation agreements or easements 

are intended for exclusions and adjacent 

lands are not. 

TABLE 6—AREAS EXCLUDED FROM CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT * 

Critical habitat unit Occupied? 

Certificates of 

inclusion (CI) 

under CCAAa

Conservation 

easement (CE)b

CCAA and CE 

overlap 

Tribal c Total exclusions 

Acres Hectares 

Acres Hectares Acres Hectares 

Acres Hectares Acres Hectares 

Monticello-Dove Creek ......................... Yes ............. .............. .............. 5,482 2,218 .............. .............. .............. .............. 5,482 2,218 

No ............... .............. .............. 469 190 .............. .............. .............. .............. 469 190 

Pin ̃on Mesa ........................................... Yes ............. 8,512 3,445 15,317 6,199 7,971 3,226 .............. .............. 15,858 6,417 

No ............... 4,619 1,869 21,876 8,853 4,218 1,707 .............. .............. 22,277 9,015 

San Miguel Basin ................................. Yes ............. 13,694 5,542 6,961 2,817 420 170 .............. .............. 20,235 8,189 

No ............... .............. .............. 1,110 449 .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,111 450 

Cerro Summit-Cimaron-Sims Mesa ..... Yes ............. .............. .............. 3,484 1,410 .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,485 1,410 

No ............... .............. .............. 511 207 .............. .............. .............. .............. 511 207 

Crawford ............................................... Yes ............. 1,316 533 2,005 811 938 380 .............. .............. 2,383 964 

No ............... 2,605 1,054 8,514 3,445 50 20 .............. .............. 11,070 4,480 

Gunnison Basin .................................... Yes ............. 49,087 19,865 40,769 16,499 10,564 4,275 11,966 4,842 91,258 36,931 

No ............... 1,323 535 15,539 6,288 303 123 761 308 17,320 7,009 

All Units ................................................ Yes ............. 72,609 29,384 74,018 29,954 19,894 8,051 11,966 4,842 138,702 56,131 

No ............... 8,547 3,459 48,019 19,433 4,570 1,850 761 308 52,758 21,350 

Total ............................................... .................... 81,156 32,843 122,037 49,387 24,464 9,900 12,727 5,150 191,460 77,481 

* Numbers may not sum due to rounding and mapping artifacts 

a CCAA: Completed Certificates of Inclusion (CIs) under the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances; excluded acres are reflected in the final critical 

habitat designation acreage (see Final Critical Habitat Designation) b CE: perpetual conservation easements; excluded acres are reflected in the final critical habitat designation acreage (see Final Critical Habitat Designation) 

cTribal SMP: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s Species Management Plan for Pinecrest Ranch; excluded acres are reflected in the final critical habitat designation acreage 

(see Final Critical Habitat Designation) 

TABLE 7—CRITICAL HABITAT BEFORE AND AFTER EXCLUSIONS *

Critical habitat unit Occupied? 

Critical habitat before 

exclusions 

Exclusions Critical habitat after 

exclusions 

Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares 

Monticello-Dove Creek ....................................................... Yes .......... 112,543 45,544 5,482 2,218 107,061 43,326 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69347 

TABLE 7—CRITICAL HABITAT BEFORE AND AFTER EXCLUSIONS *—Continued 

Critical habitat unit Occupied? 

Critical habitat before 

exclusions 

Exclusions Critical habitat after 

exclusions 

Acres Hectares Acres Hectares Acres Hectares 

No ............ 236,409 95,671 469 190 235,940 95,481 

Pin ̃on Mesa ........................................................................ Yes .......... 44,678 18,081 15,858 6,417 28,820 11,663 

No ............ 201,249 81,443 22,277 9,015 178,972 72,424 

San Miguel Basin ............................................................... Yes .......... 101,750 16,805 20,235 8,189 81,514 32,988 

No ............ 41,526 41,177 1,111 450 40,414 16,355 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa .................................. Yes .......... 37,161 15,039 3,485 1,410 33,675 13,628 

No ............ 19,380 7,843 511 207 18,869 7,636 

Crawford ............................................................................. Yes .......... 35,015 14,170 2,383 964 32,632 13,206 

No ............ 62,109 25,134 11,070 4,480 51,039 20,655 

Gunnison Basin .................................................................. Yes .......... 592,168 239,600 91,258 36,931 500,909 202,711 

No ............ 137,027 55,453 17,320 7,009 119,707 48,444 

All Units .............................................................................. Yes .......... 923,314 373,610 138,702 56,131 784,611 317,521 

No ............ 697,700 282,349 52,758 21,350 644,940 260,994 

Totals .......................................................................... .................. 1,621,014 655,959 191,460 77,481 1,429,551 578,515 

* Numbers may not sum due to rounding and mapping artifacts. 

Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider the economic impacts of 

specifying any particular area as critical 

habitat. In order to consider economic 

impacts, we prepared a draft economic 

analysis (DEA) of the proposed critical 

habitat designation and related factors 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2013, 

entire). The draft analysis, dated August 

27, 2013, was made available for public 

review from September 19, 2013, 

through October 19, 2013 (78 FR 57604), 

and from November 4, 2013, through 

December 2, 2013 (78 FR 65936). 

Following the close of the comment 

periods, a final analysis (dated 

November 7, 2014) of the potential 

economic effects of the designation was 

developed taking into consideration the 

public comments and any new 

information received (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. (IEc) 2014, entire). 

The intent of the final economic 

analysis (FEA) is to quantify the 

economic impacts of all potential 

conservation efforts for Gunnison sagegrouse; some of these costs will likely be 

incurred regardless of whether we 

designate critical habitat (baseline). The 

economic impact of the final critical 

habitat designation is analyzed by 

comparing scenarios both ‘‘with critical 

habitat’’ and ‘‘without critical habitat.’’ 

The ‘‘without critical habitat’’ scenario 

represents the baseline for the analysis, 

considering protections already in place 

for the species (e.g., under the Federal 

listing and other Federal, State, and 

local regulations). The baseline, 

therefore, represents the costs incurred 

regardless of whether critical habitat is 

designated. The ‘‘with critical habitat’’ 

scenario describes the incremental 

impacts associated specifically with the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. The incremental conservation 

efforts and associated impacts are those 

not expected to occur absent the 

designation of critical habitat for the 

species. In other words, the incremental 

costs are those attributable solely to the 

designation of critical habitat above and 

beyond the baseline costs; these are the 

costs we consider in the final 

designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis looks at baseline impacts 

incurred due to the listing of the 

species, and forecasts both baseline and 

incremental impacts likely to occur with 

the designation of critical habitat. We 

note that on August 28, 2013 the Service 

finalized revisions to its regulations for 

impact analyses of critical habitat (78 

FR 53058) to clarify that it is 

appropriate to consider the impacts of 

designation on an incremental basis 

notwithstanding the Tenth Circuit’s 

decision in New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Ass’n v. FWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 

2001) (See 78 FR 57604, 57607 

(September 19, 2013) for additional 

discussion regarding this subject). As 

the economic analysis process for this 

critical habitat rule was underway prior 

to the revision of the regulation, our 

FEA analyzes both incremental and 

baseline costs, however, we are only 

required to consider incremental costs 

based on the revised regulation. 

The FEA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on government 

agencies, private businesses, and 

individuals. The FEA measures lost 

economic efficiency associated with 

livestock grazing, agriculture and water 

management, mineral and fossil fuel 

extraction, residential and related 

development, including power 

infrastructure; renewable energy 

development; recreation; and 

transportation. Decisionmakers can use 

this information to assess whether the 

effects of the designation might unduly 

burden a particular group or economic 

sector. Finally, the FEA considers those 

costs that may occur in the 20 years 

following the designation of critical 

habitat, which was determined to be the 

appropriate period for analysis because 

limited planning information was 

available for most activities to forecast 

activity levels for projects beyond a 20- 

year timeframe. The FEA quantifies 

economic impacts of Gunnison sagegrouse conservation efforts associated 

with the above economic activities. 

The FEA forecasted baseline impacts 

of $48 million (present value over 20 

years), discounted at seven percent, or 

$65 million (present value over 20 

years), discounted at three percent. 

Annualized baseline impacts were 

forecast to be $4.3 million at a seven 

percent rate, or $4.2 million at a three 

percent discount rate. Quantified 

incremental impacts from the critical 

habitat designation alone were $6.9 

million (present value over 20 years), 

assuming a seven percent discount rate. 

Assuming a social rate of time 

preference of three percent, incremental 

impacts were $8.8 million (present 

value over 20 years). Annualized 

incremental impacts of the critical 

habitat designation were forecast to be 

$610,000 at a seven percent discount 

rate, or $580,000 at a three percent 

discount rate (Industrial Economics, Inc. 

2014, p. ES–2). Forecast baseline 

impacts were greatest in the Gunnison 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Basin unit. Forecast incremental 

impacts were greatest in the MonticelloDove Creek unit, followed by the 

Gunnison Basin unit. Forecast baseline 

and incremental impacts on specific 

economic activities were greatest in the 

electric power infrastructure category, 

followed by transportation (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2014, pp. ES–5 to ES– 

7). The economic analysis was 

completed before our removal of the 

Poncha Pass unit from our final 

designation and before our removal of 

the CCAA, CE, and Tribal exclusions 

included here. Since the designation is 

now 274,676 ac (111,160 ha) smaller, 

the overall economic impact would 

likely be an even smaller amount than 

listed above. 

Our economic analysis did not 

identify any costs that are concentrated 

in any geographic area or sector likely 

to result from the designation. 

Consequently, the Secretary is not 

exercising her discretion to exclude any 

areas from this designation of critical 

habitat for the Gunnison sage-grouse 

based on economic impacts. 

A copy of the FEA with supporting 

documents may be obtained by 

contacting the Western Colorado Field 

Office (see ADDRESSES) or by 

downloading from the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or at http://

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/

birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/. 

Exclusions Based on National Security 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense where a national security 

impact might exist. In preparing this 

final rule, we have determined that no 

lands within the critical habitat 

designation for Gunnison sage-grouse 

are owned or managed by the 

Department of Defense or Department of 

Homeland Security, and, therefore, we 

anticipate no impact on national 

security. Consequently, the Secretary is 

not exercising her discretion to exclude 

any areas from this final designation 

based on impacts on national security. 

Exclusions Based on Other Relevant 

Impacts 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

consider any other relevant impacts, in 

addition to economic impacts and 

impacts on national security. We 

consider a number of factors, including 

whether the landowners have developed 

any HCPs or other management plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at tribal interests and 

issues, and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with tribal entities. We also 

consider any social impacts that might 

occur because of the designation. 

Land and Resource Management Plans, 

Conservation Plans, or Agreements 

Based on Conservation Partnerships 

We acknowledge and commend 

landowners who have made significant 

commitments to manage their lands in 

a manner that is compatible with the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Multiple partners including private 

citizens, nongovernmental 

organizations, Tribes, and Tribal, State, 

and Federal agencies are engaged in 

conservation efforts across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous 

conservation actions have been 

implemented for Gunnison sage-grouse, 

and these efforts have provided and will 

continue to provide conservation benefit 

to the species (see a full description of 

conservation efforts in the final listing 

rule published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register). In the proposed rule 

to designate critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse (78 FR 2540), we 

requested input from the public, 

especially private landowners, as to 

whether or not the Secretary should 

exclude from the designation under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act lands 

protected, at varying levels, under the 

Gunnison sage-grouse CCAA, CEs, or 

other management with conservation 

measures applicable to Gunnison sagegrouse. 

We generally consider a current land 

management or conservation plan (HCPs 

as well as other types) to provide 

adequate management or protection if it 

meets the following criteria: 

(1) The plan is complete and provides 

a conservation benefit for the species 

and its habitat; 

(2) There is a reasonable expectation 

that the conservation management 

strategies and actions will be 

implemented for the foreseeable future, 

based on past practices, written 

guidance, or regulations; and 

(3) The plan provides conservation 

strategies and measures consistent with 

currently accepted principles of 

conservation biology. 

Based on the following evaluation of 

conservation plans and agreements, we 

are excluding a total of 191,460 ac 

(77,481 ha) of private land from the 

critical habitat designation for Gunnison 

sage-grouse, including 122,037 ac 

(49,387 ha) of land under permanent CE; 

81,156 ac (32,843 ha) of lands with 

completed CIs under the CCAA (of 

which 24,464 ac (9,900 ha) overlaps 

with CEs); and 12,727 ac (5,150 ha) of 

private lands owned by the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe under restricted fee 

status that are subject to a species’ 

conservation plan (refer to our final rule 

to list Gunnison sage-grouse, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

for a detailed account of these 

programs). We hereby exclude such 

properties from the critical habitat 

designation. The take prohibitions of 

section 9(a)(2) of the Act (i.e., related to 

the take of listed species) still apply to 

projects and activities on lands 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation, unless they are specifically 

excepted under section 4(d) of the Act. 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse CCAA 

In April 2005, the Colorado Division 

of Wildlife (CDOW, now called 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)) 

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 CPW and 

the Service. The standard that a CCAA 

must meet is that the ‘‘benefits of the 

conservation measures implemented by 

a property owner 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’’ (64 FR 

32726, June 17, 1999). A detailed 

account of the CCAA is provided in our 

final rule to list Gunnison sage-grouse, 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register (see Related Conservation 

Programs and Efforts in that document). 

The goal of the CCAA is to reduce 

threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse and 

help provide for secure, self-sustaining 

local populations by enrolling, 

protecting, maintaining, and enhancing 

or restoring necessary non-federally 

owned Colorado habitats of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Landowners with eligible 

property in southwestern Colorado who 

wish to participate can voluntarily sign 

up under the CCAA and associated 

permit through a CI in which they agree 

to implement habitat protection or 

enhancement measures on their lands. 

Eligible lands include non-Federal lands 

in Colorado within the current range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse where occupied, 

vacant/unknown, or potentially suitable 

habitats occur, as mapped and 

identified in the RCP. Except for 

properties recently enrolled, all 

properties have been monitored since 

enrollment using standardized 

vegetation transects and rangeland 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69349 

health assessments and, despite recent 

drought conditions and existing land 

uses, no significant deviations from 

baseline habitat conditions have been 

observed. All CI properties were found 

to have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 

and in all cases, baseline habitat 

conditions on CI properties met the tier 

1 standard, indicating no habitat 

manipulations were needed to support 

Gunnison sage-grouse. All enrolled 

properties continue to be in compliance 

with the terms of their CI’s (CPW 2014a, 

p. 1). 

The CCAA promotes the conservation 

of Gunnison sage-grouse on significant 

portions of private lands in the 

Gunnison Basin, Crawford, San Miguel, 

and Pin ̃ on Mesa populations (Table 5). 

In these areas, threats to Gunnison sagegrouse are reduced and habitats are 

protected, maintained, enhanced or 

restored as a result of participation in 

the CCAA. In particular, private land 

uses including livestock grazing and 

agricultural production are managed to 

be consistent with the needs of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and the species’ 

conservation, using conservation 

strategies and measures consistent with 

currently accepted principles of 

conservation biology. As described in 

our final listing rule for Gunnison sagegrouse (published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register), the agreement is 

complete and provides a conservation 

benefit for the species and its habitat, 

particularly in regard to its reduction of 

habitat-related impacts due to existing 

land uses on private lands. 

Although property enrollment in the 

CCAA can be withdrawn by the current 

or a future owner at any time, we expect 

that properties will remain enrolled in 

the CCAA for the term of the agreement 

for the following reasons: (1) Since CPW 

began issuing CI’s to landowners in 

2009, no property has been withdrawn 

from the CCAA; (2) now that the species 

has been listed, there is more incentive 

for landowners to continue to 

participate in the CCAA, in order to 

receive the assurances provided in the 

CCAA; (3) the majority of the 

participating landowners have owned 

their ranches for generations, and we 

have no reason to believe they intend to 

do anything other than maintain the 

land in ranching or agriculture in the 

future. 

Lands enrolled in the CCAA meet the 

definition of critical habitat and, thus, 

their designation would benefit 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The benefits of 

critical habitat include public awareness 

of Gunnison sage-grouse presence and 

the importance of habitat protection, 

and in cases where a Federal nexus 

exists, increased habitat protection for 

Gunnison sage-grouse due to the 

protection from adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat. Since the 

lands enrolled in the CCAA are private 

lands, the regulatory benefit from the 

protection from adverse modification or 

destruction would likely be minimal 

due to the lack of a Federal nexus for 

many land uses. Landowners 

voluntarily enrolled and are working 

with CPW to manage their lands in a 

manner consistent with sage-grouse 

conservation. Because of this, they are 

already aware of sage-grouse presence 

and the importance of habitat 

protection, so any additional 

educational benefits provided by 

designation of critical habitat, if any, are 

also very minimal. 

The benefits of excluding lands with 

CCAAs that have been permitted under 

section 10 of the Act from critical 

habitat designation include relieving 

landowners, communities, and counties 

of any potential additional regulatory 

burden that might be imposed as a 

result of the critical habitat designation. 

A related benefit of exclusion is the 

unhindered, continued ability to 

maintain existing partnerships and seek 

new partnerships with potential plan 

participants, including States, counties, 

local jurisdictions, conservation 

organizations, and private landowners. 

Together, these entities can implement 

conservation actions that the Services 

would be unable to accomplish without 

private landowners. These partnerships 

can lead to additional CCAAs in the 

future. 

We find that the benefits of excluding 

these lands from the critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

their inclusion. Exclusion of these 

properties continues and strengthens 

existing partnerships, particularly the 

important relationship between the 

Service and CPW. The CCAA 

incentivizes the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and important 

seasonal habitats on private lands that 

might otherwise not be managed 

consistent with the needs of the species. 

We recognize the value of working lands 

in rural areas and the open spaces they 

provide Gunnison sage-grouse and other 

species. Exclusion of these properties 

from critical habitat designation will 

encourage continued participation in 

the CCAA and its partnership and 

contribute to the sustainability of 

working lands managed for the benefit 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. Exclusion of 

these properties will not result in the 

extinction of Gunnison sage-grouse 

because they are managed in a manner 

compatible with Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation. Therefore, we are 

excluding 81,156 ac (32,843 ha) of lands 

with completed CIs under the CCAA on 

or before the effective date of this rule 

(Table 6). 

Conservation Easement Lands 

Since the time of our proposed rule, 

we have received new information on 

conservation easements across the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse (Lohr and Gray 

2013, entire). In particular, all the 

conservation easements across the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse have been 

identified and we better understand that 

these permanent conservation 

easements cannot be subdivided (Lohr 

and Gray 2013, p. 1 and spatial data). 

This information has led us to believe 

that these permanent conservation 

easements should be considered 

complete and they provide a 

conservation benefit to the species and 

its habitat. 

Conservation easements (CEs) are 

voluntary legal agreements between a 

landowner and a land trust or 

government agency that permanently 

limit or restrict land uses on identified 

parcels for conservation values and 

purposes. CEs require that individual 

parcels be owned and conveyed as 

single units in perpetuity, thereby 

ensuring that there is a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions will 

be implemented for the foreseeable 

future and they will not be subdivided 

for development in the future. 

Conservation easements also restrict 

land uses by defining specific areas for 

residential or agricultural development, 

including roads and driveways, and 

may include other parameters for land 

management practices to achieve 

conservation values (Lohr and Gray 

2013, p. 2). The parameters for these 

restrictions allow for limited 

development while still conserving 

open space and managing private 

development in a way that provides 

benefits for the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Therefore, we consider CEs as an 

effective regulatory tool to prevent longterm or permanent habitat loss. In the 

context of potential threats to Gunnison 

sage-grouse, CEs and the protections 

they afford are most relevant to the 

threat of residential and human 

development. Protecting lands under 

permanent conservation easements 

provides conservation strategies and 

measures consistent with the needs of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Lands that are 

able to be subdivided indefinitely 

fragment the open landscapes needed by 

the species. Lands under easement 

managed to achieve conservation values 

will provide more suitable habitat for 

the life history processes of Gunnison 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

sage-grouse, including connectivity and 

seasonal habitat matrices. 

Since our publication of the proposed 

critical habitat rule, we have received a 

summary of the estimated amount of 

lands under conservation easement for 

occupied and unoccupied Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat in Colorado and 

Utah (Lohr and Gray 2013, entire). 

Permanent conservation easements 

across Gunnison sage-grouse range are 

held by nongovernmental organizations 

and land trusts (The Nature 

Conservancy, Colorado Cattlemen’s 

Agricultural Land Trust, and others), 

State agencies (CPW, UDWR), and 

Federal agencies (NRCS, NPS, and 

BLM). Some CEs include conservation 

measures specific to Gunnison sagegrouse, while many are directed at other 

species, such as big game (GSRSC 2005, 

pp. 59–103), but still indirectly provide 

benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse by 

preventing habitat loss and 

fragmentation. Some of these properties 

are also enrolled in other programs to 

benefit sage-grouse conservation, 

including the CCAA and NRCS’s Sage 

Grouse Initiative. For additional 

information on CEs across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, please see our 

final rule to list the species, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register 

(see Other Regulatory Mechanisms: 

Conservation Easements in that 

document). 

We are aware of approximately 

122,037 ac (49,387 ha) under permanent 

CE in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

(Table 6) as of August 28, 2013, 

according to Lohr and Gray (2013). 

Conservation easements occur in all six 

critical habitat units. These lands meet 

the definition of critical habitat and, 

thus, their designation would benefit 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The benefits of 

critical habitat include public awareness 

of Gunnison sage-grouse presence and 

the importance of habitat protection, 

and in cases where a Federal nexus 

exists, increased habitat protection for 

Gunnison sage-grouse due to the 

protection from adverse modification or 

destruction of critical habitat. Since the 

lands enrolled in the CEs are private 

lands, the regulatory benefit from the 

protection from adverse modification or 

destruction would likely be minimal 

due to the lack of a Federal nexus for 

many land uses. Educational and public 

awareness benefits would also be very 

minimal, as it is expected that a 

landowner who has put their property 

under permanent easement is already 

aware of the importance of habitat 

protection for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Permanent conservation easements 

provide substantial benefit to Gunnison 

sage-grouse and its habitat by 

preventing long-term or permanent 

habitat loss and fragmentation due to 

subdivision and development. 

Exclusion of these properties from 

critical habitat designation will 

strengthen our partnership with the 

organizations currently holding 

conservation easements and those 

advocating for additional conservation 

easements in the species’ range. 

Exclusion of these properties will also 

contribute to the protection of Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat by reducing habitat 

fragmentation and development that is 

not consistent with the species’ 

conservation. Exclusion of these 

properties from critical habitat 

designation acknowledges the value of 

these lands and fosters conservation 

efforts and partnerships. We find that 

the benefits of excluding these lands 

from the critical habitat designation 

outweigh the benefits of their inclusion. 

Exclusion of these properties will not 

result in the extinction of Gunnison 

sage-grouse because they are managed 

in a manner compatible with Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation. Lands that are 

able to be subdivided indefinitely 

fragment the open landscapes needed by 

the species. Lands not subdivided will 

provide more suitable habitat for the life 

history processes of Gunnison sagegrouse, including connectivity and 

seasonal habitat matrices. Therefore, we 

are excluding 122,037 ac (49,387 ha) of 

lands under CE as of August 28, 2013 

across the range of Gunnison sagegrouse (Table 6). 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe Pinecrest Ranch 

Species Management Plan 

Approximately 12,727 ac (5,150 ha) of 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on 

Pinecrest Ranch are owned by the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe (Tribe or UMUT) 

under restricted fee status (classified in 

this rule as private land). The Pinecrest 

Ranch includes a total of 18,749 ac in 

the Gunnison Basin population area 

west of Gunnison, Colorado. The Tribe 

uses the ranch primarily for livestock 

grazing and for important traditional 

and cultural purposes. In March 2014, 

the Tribe finalized a Species 

Management Plan (SMP) to promote the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse 

and its habitat on the Pinecrest Ranch 

while maintaining a sustainable 

agricultural operation and other 

traditional uses of the property (UMUT 

2014, entire). See our September 19, 

2013 Federal Register notice discussing 

the SMP (78 FR 57611). The plan is 

complete and provides a conservation 

benefit for the species and its habitat. 

The SMP includes management actions 

and considerations that will benefit 

Gunnison sage-grouse including, but not 

limited to, continued predator control, 

seasonal restrictions for construction 

and development activities, road 

restrictions and closures, wildlifefriendly fencing, outreach and 

education, and sustainable grazing 

practices (UMUT 2014, pp. 4–11). The 

NRCS assisted with the SMP by 

evaluating Pinecrest Ranch and 

developing a conservation plan (NRCS 

2014, entire) to ensure that the plan 

provides conservation strategies and 

measures consistent with currently 

accepted principles of conservation 

biology. The NRCS’s evaluation 

indicated that past and ongoing 

management of Pinecrest Ranch by the 

Tribe has provided good habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse (based on 

vegetation measurements) and a variety 

of other wildlife species (NRCS 2014, 

pp. 4–5). This suggests a reasonable 

expectation that the conservation 

management strategies and actions will 

be implemented for the foreseeable 

future, based on past practices, and the 

formalized plan. The NRCS also noted 

that overall limited human activity at 

the ranch has likely been beneficial to 

wildlife in general (NRCS 2014, p. 5). 

The above information indicates that 

current and future Tribal management 

of the Pinecrest Ranch is consistent with 

the needs and conservation of Gunnison 

sage-grouse (UMUT 2014, entire). The 

Service also met with the Tribe 

regarding the development of the plan 

(UMUT 2014, p. 2). This plan is also 

evaluated in our final rule to list 

Gunnison sage-grouse, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register 

(see Tribal Laws and Management). 

The lands subject to the SMP meet the 

definition of critical habitat and, thus, 

their designation would provide some 

benefit to Gunnison sage-grouse. The 

benefits of critical habitat include 

public awareness of Gunnison sagegrouse presence and the importance of 

habitat protection, and in cases where a 

Federal nexus exists, increased habitat 

protection for Gunnison sage-grouse due 

to the protection from adverse 

modification or destruction of critical 

habitat. Since the lands owned by the 

tribe are classified as private lands, the 

regulatory benefit from the protection 

from adverse modification or 

destruction would likely be minimal 

due to the lack of a Federal nexus for 

many land uses. The Tribe finalized a 

SMP to promote the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat on 

the Pinecrest Ranch. Because of this, 

they are already aware of sage-grouse 

presence and the importance of habitat 

protection, so any additional 

educational benefits provided by 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69351 

designation of critical habitat, if any, are 

also very minimal. 

We find that the benefits of excluding 

these lands from the critical habitat 

designation outweigh the benefits of 

their inclusion. The SMP will promote 

the conservation of Gunnison sagegrouse and its habitat. We recognize the 

value of working lands in rural areas 

and the open spaces they provide 

Gunnison sage-grouse and other species. 

Exclusion of these properties from 

critical habitat designation contributes 

to the sustainability of working lands 

managed for the benefit of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Exclusion of these 

properties from critical habitat 

designation acknowledges the 

government-to-government relationship 

between the United States and Tribes, 

acknowledges the value of Pinecrest 

Ranch to Gunnison sage-grouse, and 

fosters conservation efforts and 

partnerships. Exclusion of these lands 

will not result in the extinction of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Therefore, we are 

excluding 12,727 ac (5,150 ha) of the 

Ute Mountain Ute Pinecrest Ranch from 

the critical habitat designation. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563) 

Executive Order 12866 provides that 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget will review all 

significant rules. OIRA has determined 

that this rule is significant. 

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 while calling 

for improvements in the nation’s 

regulatory system to promote 

predictability, to reduce uncertainty, 

and to use the best, most innovative, 

and least burdensome tools for 

achieving regulatory ends. The 

executive order directs agencies to 

consider regulatory approaches that 

reduce burdens and maintain flexibility 

and freedom of choice for the public 

where these approaches are relevant, 

feasible, and consistent with regulatory 

objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes 

further that regulations must be based 

on the best available science and that 

the rulemaking process must allow for 

public participation and an open 

exchange of ideas. We have developed 

this rule in a manner consistent with 

these requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an 

agency must publish a notice of 

rulemaking for any proposed or final 

rule, it must prepare and make available 

for public comment a regulatory 

flexibility analysis that describes the 

effects of the rule on small entities 

(small businesses, small organizations, 

and small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of the 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The SBREFA amended the RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

certification statement of the factual 

basis for certifying that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In this final rule, we are certifying that 

the critical habitat designation for 

Gunnison sage-grouse will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The following discussion explains our 

rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include such businesses as 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts on these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this designation as well as types of 

project modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

Importantly, the incremental impacts 

of a rule must be both significant and 

substantial to prevent certification of the 

rule under the RFA and to require the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. If a substantial 

number of small entities are affected by 

the proposed critical habitat 

designation, but the per-entity economic 

impact is not significant, the Service 

may certify. Likewise, if the per-entity 

economic impact is likely to be 

significant, but the number of affected 

entities is not substantial, the Service 

may also certify. 

The Service’s current understanding 

of recent case law is that Federal 

agencies are only required to evaluate 

the potential impacts of rulemaking on 

those entities directly regulated by the 

rulemaking; therefore, they are not 

required to evaluate the potential 

impacts to those entities not directly 

regulated. The designation of critical 

habitat for an endangered or threatened 

species only has a regulatory effect 

where a Federal action agency is 

involved in a particular action that may 

affect the designated critical habitat. 

Under these circumstances, only the 

Federal action agency is directly 

regulated by the designation, and, 

therefore, consistent with the Service’s 

current interpretation of RFA and recent 

case law, the Service may limit its 

evaluation of the potential impacts to 

those identified for Federal action 

agencies. Under this interpretation, 

there is no requirement under the RFA 

to evaluate the potential impacts to 

entities not directly regulated, such as 

small businesses. However, Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 direct Federal 

agencies to assess costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives in 

quantitative (to the extent feasible) and 

qualitative terms. Consequently, it is the 

current practice of the Service to assess 

to the extent practicable these potential 

impacts if sufficient data are available, 

whether or not this analysis is 

considered by the Service to be strictly 

required by the RFA. In other words, 

while the effects analysis required 

under the RFA is limited to entities 

directly regulated by the rulemaking, 

the effects analysis under the Act, 

consistent with the EO regulatory 

analysis requirements, can take into 

consideration impacts to both directly 

and indirectly impacted entities, where 

practicable and reasonable. 

In conclusion, we believe that, based 

on our interpretation of directly 

regulated entities under the RFA and 

relevant case law, this designation of 

critical habitat will only directly 

regulate Federal agencies, which are not 

by definition small business entities. 

And as such, we certify that this 

designation of critical habitat will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small business 

entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

However, though not necessarily 

required by the RFA, in our final 

economic analysis for this rule we 

considered and evaluated the potential 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

effects to third parties that may be 

involved with consultations with 

Federal action agencies related to this 

action. 

Designation of critical habitat only 

affects activities authorized, funded, or 

carried out by Federal agencies. Some 

kinds of activities are unlikely to have 

any Federal involvement and so will not 

be affected by critical habitat 

designation. In areas where the species 

is present, Federal agencies already are 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act on activities they 

authorize, fund, or carry out that may 

affect the Gunnison sage-grouse. Federal 

agencies also must consult with us if 

their activities may affect critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

could result in an additional economic 

impact on small entities due to the 

potential requirement for Federal 

agencies to consult on certain Federal 

actions (see Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification Standard’’ section). 

In our final economic analysis of the 

critical habitat designation, we 

evaluated the potential economic effects 

on small business entities resulting from 

conservation actions related to the 

listing of the Gunnison sage-grouse and 

the designation of critical habitat. The 

analysis is based on the estimated 

impacts associated with the rulemaking 

as described in Chapters 3 through 8 

and Appendix A of the analysis, and 

evaluates the potential for economic 

impacts related to: (1) Livestock grazing; 

(2) agriculture and water management; 

(3) mineral and fossil fuel extraction; (4) 

residential and related development; (5) 

electric power infrastructure; (6) 

renewable energy development; (7) 

recreation; (8) and transportation 

projects. The analysis considered each 

activity for which third parties may 

incur incremental costs associated with 

section 7 consultation. Incremental 

costs due to project modification and 

administrative impacts are forecast for 

small business entities in livestock 

grazing (63 entities), water management 

(1 entity), mineral and fossil fuel 

extraction (10 entities), residential and 

related development (3 entities), electric 

power infrastructure (unknown number 

of entities), transportation (5 entities), 

and renewable energy (1 entity). 

Incremental costs forecast in each of 

these categories were under 2 percent of 

annual revenues for respective business 

entities; in most categories, incremental 

costs were less than 1 percent of annual 

revenues for respective business entities 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 

A–12). 

In summary, we considered whether 

this designation would result in a 

significant economic effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Based on the above reasoning and 

currently available information, we 

concluded that this rule would not 

result in a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, we are certifying that 

the designation of critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use— 

Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) requires agencies 

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects 

when undertaking certain actions. OMB 

has provided guidance for 

implementing this Executive Order that 

outlines nine outcomes that may 

constitute ‘‘a significant adverse effect’’ 

when compared to not taking the 

regulatory action under consideration. 

In our final economic analysis, 

incremental effects of the critical habitat 

designation were assumed to occur for 

energy projects in unoccupied sagegrouse habitat. Approximately 31 

producing or newly permitted oil and 

gas wells are located within unoccupied 

portions of the critical habitat 

designation. Approximately 28,000 

wells in the State of Colorado produced 

1.3 billion Mcf-equivalents in 2005 (an 

Mcf-equivalent is the total heat value of 

natural gas and oil expressed as a 

volume of natural gas). The number of 

wells within the critical habitat 

designation, therefore, represents less 

than one percent of wells in the State. 

We do not anticipate that the 

designation of critical habitat will result 

in significant incremental impacts to the 

energy industry on a national scale 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 

A–15). As such, the designation of 

critical habitat is not expected to 

significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Therefore, this 

action is not a significant energy action, 

and no Statement of Energy Effects is 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(1) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or tribal governments’’ 

with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a 

condition of Federal assistance.’’ It also 

excludes ‘‘a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates 

to a then-existing Federal program 

under which $500,000,000 or more is 

provided annually to State, local, and 

tribal governments under entitlement 

authority,’’ if the provision would 

‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of 

assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or 

otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children work programs; 

Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social 

Services Block Grants; Vocational 

Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, 

Adoption Assistance, and Independent 

Living; Family Support Welfare 

Services; and Child Support 

Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon the private sector, except (i) a 

condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 

duty arising from participation in a 

voluntary Federal program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69353 

(2) We do not believe that this rule 

would significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because only a small 

percentage of the total land ownership 

falls on small government lands such as 

those owned by the City of Gunnison 

and Gunnison County. Our economic 

analysis forecasted incremental impacts 

on five county governments associated 

with transportation and administrative 

costs. However, incremental costs were 

estimated to be less than 0.7 percent of 

annual revenues for those entities 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 

A–9). Therefore, we do not expect that 

this rule would significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments because it 

would not produce a Federal mandate of 

$100 million or greater in any year, that 

is, it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act. Consequently, we do not 

believe that the critical habitat 

designation would significantly or 

uniquely affect small government 

entities. As such, a Small Government 

Agency Plan is not required. 

Takings—Executive Order 12630 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630 (Government Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Private Property Rights), we 

have analyzed the potential takings 

implications of designating critical 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse in a 

takings implications assessment. Critical 

habitat designation does not affect 

landowner actions that do not require 

Federal funding or permits, and the 

designation of critical habitat does not 

preclude the issuance of section 

10(a)(1)(B) permits to private 

landowners should incidental take be 

anticipated from a particular action by 

a landowner. Based on the best available 

information, the takings implications 

assessment concludes that this 

designation of critical habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse does not pose 

significant takings implications. 

Federalism—Executive Order 13132 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132 (Federalism), this rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of this 

critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Colorado and Utah. We received 

comments from Colorado Parks and 

Wildlife and the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources and have addressed 

them in the Peer Review and Public 

Comments section of this rule, and 

throughout the rule as appropriate. 

From a federalism perspective, the 

designation of critical habitat directly 

affects only the responsibilities of 

Federal agencies. The Act imposes no 

other duties with respect to critical 

habitat, either for States and local 

governments, or for anyone else. As a 

result, the rule does not have substantial 

direct effects either on the States, or on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of powers and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The designation 

may have some benefit to these 

governments because the areas that 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species are more 

clearly defined, and the physical and 

biological features of the habitat 

necessary to the conservation of the 

species are specifically identified. This 

information does not alter where and 

what federally sponsored activities may 

occur. However, critical habitat may 

assist local governments in long-range 

planning because the designation 

highlights important habitat areas for a 

species. 

Where State and local governments 

require approval or authorization from a 

Federal agency for actions that may 

affect critical habitat, the Federal agency 

will be required to consult under 

section 7(a)(2). As a result, while nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office 

of the Solicitor has determined that the 

rule does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We are designating critical 

habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. To assist the 

public in understanding the habitat 

needs of the species, the rule identifies 

the elements of physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse. The 

designated areas of critical habitat are 

presented on maps, and the rule 

provides several options for the 

interested public to obtain more 

detailed location information, if desired. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 

prepare environmental analyses 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This position was upheld by the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 

F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 

516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). However, when 

the range of the species includes States 

within the Tenth Circuit, such as that of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, under the Tenth 

Circuit ruling in Catron County Board of 

Commissioners v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 75 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir. 1996), 

we undertake a NEPA analysis for 

critical habitat designation and notify 

the public of the availability of the draft 

environmental assessment for a 

proposal when it is finished. 

We conducted the NEPA analysis, and 

a draft of the environmental assessment 

was made available for public comment 

from September 19, 2013, through 

October 19, 2013 (78 FR 57604), and 

from November 4, 2013, through 

December 2, 2013 (78 FR 65936). The 

final environmental assessment has 

been completed and is available for 

review with the publication of this final 

rule. The environmental assessment 

evaluated the effects of the No Action 

Alternative (no designation of critical 

habitat) and Proposed Action 

Alternative (designation of critical 

habitat) on the physical, biological, and 

human environment. Based on the 

environmental assessment, the Service 

found that no significant environmental 

impact would occur as a result of 

critical habitat designation for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Therefore, an 

environmental impact statement is not 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
69354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary for the designation of critical 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. You 

may obtain a copy of the final 

environmental assessment and the 

Service’s Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) online at http://

www.regulations.gov, by mail from the 

Western Colorado Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES), or by visiting our Web site 

at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ 

species/birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments), and the Department of 

the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

Our proposed critical habitat rule for 

Gunnison sage-grouse included 

approximately 5,150 ha (12,725 ac) of 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on 

Pinecrest Ranch owned by the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe (Tribe) under 

restricted fee status (classified in this 

rule as private land). As described above 

(see Exclusions based on Other Relevant 

Impacts), we have excluded this area 

from the final critical habitat 

designation because the benefits of 

exclusion outweigh the benefits of 

exclusion, and the exclusion will not 

result in extinction of the species. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Western 

Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff members of the Western 

Colorado Field Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– 

1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (b) by 

adding an entry for ‘‘Gunnison SageGrouse (Centrocercus minimus)’’ after 

the entry for ‘‘Western Snowy Plover 

(Charadrius nivosus nivosus)—Pacific 

Coast Population’’, to read as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(b) Birds. 

* * * * * 

Gunnison Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

minimus) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah, 

and Delta, Dolores, Gunnison, Hinsdale, 

Mesa, Montrose, Ouray, Saguache, and 

San Miguel Counties, Colorado, on the 

maps below. 

(2) Within these areas, the primary 

constituent elements (PCEs) of the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse consist of five 

components: 

(i) Landscape Specific Primary 

Constituent Element. Primary 

Constituent Element 1—Extensive 

sagebrush landscapes capable of 

supporting a population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. In general, this includes 

areas with vegetation composed 

primarily of sagebrush plant 

communities (at least 25 percent of the 

land is dominated by sagebrush cover 

within a 0.9-mi (1.5-km) radius of any 

given location), of sufficient size and 

configuration to encompass all seasonal 

habitats for a given population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and facilitate 

movements within and among 

populations. These areas also occur 

wholly within the potential historical 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

(ii) Seasonally Specific Primary 

Constituent Elements. (A) Primary 

Constituent Element 2—Breeding 

habitat composed of sagebrush plant 

communities that, in general, have the 

structural characteristics within the 

ranges described in the following table. 

Habitat structure values are average 

values over a project area. Breeding 

habitat includes lek, nesting, and early 

brood-rearing habitats used typically 

March 15 through July 15. Early broodrearing habitat may include agricultural 

fields. 

Vegetation variable Amount in 

habitat 

Sagebrush Canopy ............ 10–25 percent. 

Non-sagebrush Canopy * ... 5–15 percent. 

Total Shrub Canopy .......... 15–40 percent. 

Sagebrush Height .............. 9.8–19.7 in (25– 

50 cm). 

Grass Cover ...................... 10–40 percent. 

Forb Cover ......................... 5–40 percent. 

Grass Height ...................... 3.9–5.9 in (10– 

15 cm). 

Forb Height ........................ 2.0–5.9 in (5–15 

cm). 

* Includes shrubs such as horsebrush 

(Tetradymia spp.), rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus spp.), bitterbrush (Purshia 

spp.), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), 

greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), winterfat 

(Eurotia lanata), Gambel’s oak (Quercus 

gambelii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), 

and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). 

(B) Primary Constituent Element 3— 

Summer-late fall habitat composed of 

sagebrush plant communities that, in 

general, have the structural 

characteristics within the ranges 

described in the following table. Habitat 

structure values are average values over 

a project area. Summer-fall habitat 

includes sagebrush communities having 

the referenced habitat structure values, 

as well as agricultural fields and wet 

meadow or riparian habitat types. Wet 

meadows and riparian habitats are also 

included qualitatively under PCE 5 at 

paragraph (2)(ii)(D) of this entry. 

Vegetation variable Amount in 

habitat 

Sagebrush Canopy ............ 5–20 percent. 

Non-sagebrush Canopy * ... 5–15 percent. 

Total Shrub Canopy .......... 10–35 percent. 

Sagebrush Height .............. 9.8–19.7 in (25– 

50 cm). 

Grass Cover ...................... 10–35 percent. 

Forb Cover ......................... 5–35 percent. 

Grass Height ...................... 3.9–5.9 in (10– 

15 cm). 

Forb Height ........................ 1.2–3.9 in (3–10 

cm). 

* Includes shrubs such as horsebrush 

(Tetradymia spp.), rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus spp.), bitterbrush (Purshia 

spp.), snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae), 

greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), winterfat 

(Eurotia lanata), Gambel’s oak (Quercus 

gambelii), snowberry (Symphoricarpos 

oreophilus), serviceberry (Amelanchier spp.), 

and chokecherry (Prunus virginiana). 

(C) Primary Constituent Element 4— 

Winter habitat composed of sagebrush 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69355 

plant communities that, in general, have 

sagebrush canopy cover between 30 to 

40 percent and sagebrush height of 15.8 

to 21.7 in (40 to 55 cm). These habitat 

structure values are average values over 

a project area. Winter habitat includes 

sagebrush areas within currently 

occupied habitat that are available (i.e., 

not covered by snow) to Gunnison sagegrouse during average winters. 

(D) Primary Constituent Element 5— 

Alternative, mesic habitats used 

primarily in the summer-late fall season, 

such as riparian communities, springs, 

seeps, and mesic meadows. 

(3) Critical habitat for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse does not include manmade 

structures (such as buildings, airport 

runways, roads, and other paved areas) 

and the land on which they are located 

existing within the boundaries of 

designated critical habitat on December 

22, 2014. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

from a number of geospatial data, 

including: Polygons generated as part of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan, Southwest Regional 

Gap Analysis Project (SWReGAP) land 

cover data, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial images, 

and USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. 

Critical habitat units were then mapped 

as shapefiles using Universal Transverse 

Mercator (UTM) Zone 13N coordinates. 

(i) The maps in this entry, as modified 

by any accompanying regulatory text, 

establish the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation. Private land 

boundaries may not be exact due to 

mapping inconsistencies between land 

survey data, Geographic Information 

System (GIS) coordinates, and differing 

mapping layers provided. 

(ii) Private lands enrolled in the 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances as of 

December 22, 2014, and those subject to 

a permanent conservation easement as 

of August 28, 2013, or subject to the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe’s Species 

Management Plan for Pinecrest Ranch 

on December 22, 2014, are excluded 

from designation pursuant to section 

4(b)(2) of the Act, but adjacent lands are 

not. 

(iii) The coordinates or plot points or 

both on which each map is based are 

available to the public at the Service’s 

internet site, (http://www.fws.gov/

mountain-prairie/species/birds/

gunnisonsagegrouse/), http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2011–0111, and at the 

field office responsible for this 

designation. You may obtain field office 

location information by contacting one 

of the Service regional offices, the 

addresses of which are listed at 50 CFR 

2.2. 

(5) Note: Index map follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

ER20NO14.004</GPH>rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Index Map 

4'"" 

.,..I 

..r/ I I II 

I 

'· ( 

·""·.J

-

... .:::::::=::11111•-=:=::JMiles 

7.5 15 22.5 30 

UOII! 

I IColondo 

1--

Arkona --
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69357 

(6) Unit 1: Monticello-Dove Creek: 

San Juan County, Utah, and Montrose, 

San Miguel, and Dolores Counties, 

Colorado. 

(i) General Description: 343,000 ac 

(138,807 ha); 24.0 percent of all critical 

habitat. 

(ii) Map of Unit 1, Monticello-Dove 

Creek: San Juan County, Utah, and 

Montrose, San Miguel, and Dolores 

Counties, Colorado, follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER20NO14.005</GPH>

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Unit 1: Monticello-Dove Creek 

San Juan County, Utah; Montrose, San Miguel, and Dolores Counties> Colorado 

L 

Utah 

I I 

Arizona 

S&~ ft J U&i n 

Ccunty 

I 

Colantdo 

- NewMuico 

NI~U\trosll 

~OI.Hllty 

S~n Nil!~~•• 

~o\tnty 

Nlcnt•ltum~ 

Count~ 

• Occupied 

~ Unoccupied 

• Exclusions 

Adjacent Critical Habitat Unit 

• City or Town 

~Highway 

D State Boundary --1 i.. _ ..: County Boundary 

0 3 6 9 12 

--===--=:::::JKilometeiS N 

0 

--===---=:=:JMiles 

3 6 9 12 A 
69358 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Unit 2: Pin ̃ on Mesa: Grand County, 

Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado. 

(i) General Description: 207,792 ac 

(84,087 ha); 14.5 percent of all critical 

habitat. 

(ii) Map of Unit 2, Pin ̃ on Mesa: Grand 

County, Utah, and Mesa County, 

Colorado, follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER20NO14.006</GPH>

L 

Utah I 

=-

Arlzana 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Unit 2: Pinon Mesa 

Grand County, Utah; Mesa County, Colorado 

M~%~t. 

C'~Uft\)t 

I Critical Habitat • City or Town 

• Occupied ~Highway 

Colorado ~ Unoccupied CJ State Boundary 

• Exclusions --, 

~ • _; COunty Boundary 

f--

NewMeoleo 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 N 

Kilometers 

Miles A 0 3.5 7 10.5 14 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69359 

(8) Unit 3: San Miguel Basin: 

Montrose, San Miguel, and Ouray 

Counties, Colorado. 

(i) General Description: 121,929 ac 

(49,343 ha); 8.5 percent of all critical 

habitat. 

(ii) Map of Unit 3, San Miguel Basin: 

Montrose, San Miguel, and Ouray 

Counties, Colorado, follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER20NO14.007</GPH>

Arizona 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Unit 3: San Miguel Basin 

Montrose, San Miguel, and Ouray Counties, Colorado 

I 

! -----............... 

San Miguel 

County 

Moatfo:u 

Cot,tnt:y 

r------~- ~~ 

- -----..... 

\ fl..-"'\._......._...., 

---- _, \...-...___ 

• Occupied 

~ Unoccupied 

• City or Town 

• Exclusions 

~Highway 

--1 

~ _ __: County Boundary 

Adjacent Critical Habitat Unit 

13 24 --====---==::JKiometers 0 6 12 

() ---=====~---====::JM00s 6 f2 18 24 

N 

A 

I 

1-~ 

\ 

'-.. 

l 

' )_ 

\ 

~ 
69360 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(9) Unit 4: Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa: Montrose, Ouray, and 

Gunnison Counties, Colorado. 

(i) General Description: 52,544 ac 

(21,264 ha); 3.7 percent of all critical 

habitat. 

(ii) Map of Unit 4, Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa: Montrose, Ouray, 

and Gunnison Counties, Colorado, 

follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER20NO14.008</GPH>

l 

Utah 

Arizona 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Unit 4: Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

Montrose, Ouray, and Gunnison Counties, Colorado 

--------, ( ___________________ _! 

I ~ Unoccupied 

• Occupied 

Gttf\nt~on 

Cottntt 

• Colorado • Exclusions 

e City or Town 

~Highway 

--, 

~ • ....: County Boundary 

Adjacent Critical Habitat Unit 

f--

NewMeJdco 0 2 4 6 8 N 

--=:=::JI-I::=:::JKilometers 

---=====---===:::::~Miles 0 2 4 6 8 A 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69361 

(10) Unit 5: Crawford: Delta, 

Montrose, and Gunnison Counties, 

Colorado. 

(i) General Description: 83,671 ac 

(33,860 ha); 5.9 percent of all critical 

habitat. 

(ii) Map of Unit 5, Crawford: Delta, 

Montrose, and Gunnison Counties, 

Colorado, follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER20NO14.009</GPH>

Montf1ue 

County 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Unit 5: Cmwford 

Delta, Montrose~ and Gunnison Counties, Colorado 

• Occupied 

~ Unoccupied 

• Exclusions 

• Adjacent fritical Habitat Unit 

• OtyorTown 

~Highway 

--1 

~ __ . County Boundary 

Hew tt.l&im 0 2 4 6 8 N --===--==:::::JKiometers 

0 ---=====----====::JfllieS 2 6 8 A 
69362 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(11) Unit 6: Gunnison Basin: 

Gunnison, Saguache, Montrose, and 

Hinsdale Counties, Colorado. 

(i) General Description: 620,616 ac 

(251,154 ha); 43.4 percent of all critical 

habitat. 

(ii) Map of Unit 6, Gunnison Basin: 

Gunnison, Saguache, Montrose, and 

Hinsdale Counties, Colorado, follows: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER20NO14.010</GPH>

' . 

\ 

• 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Critical Habitat 

Unit 6: Gunnison Basin 

Gunnison, Saguache, Montrose, and Hinsdale Counties, Colorado 

(hlil\ftlson 

COUI\ly 

f-------------------·-1; 

\ 

~ 

-.l 

l 

Utah 

Arizona 

I 

CColorado 

rN-Meldco 

• Occupied 

~ Unoccupied 

• Exclusions 

Adjacent Critical Habitat Unit 

e City or Town 

=Highway 

-., 

~ • ....: County Boundary 

0 4 8 12 16 

--===-.::=::JKilometem 

N 

--==::~--==::~Miles A 0 4 8 12 16 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69363 

* * * * * Dated: October 21, 2014. 

Michael J. Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27113 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES3