69192 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–2012–0108; 

4500030114] 

RIN 1018–AZ20 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Threatened Status for 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), determine 

threatened species status under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), for the Gunnison sagegrouse (Centrocercus minimus), a bird 

species from southwestern Colorado and 

southeastern Utah. The effect of this 

regulation will be to add the Gunnison 

sage-grouse to the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife. 

DATES: This rule is effective December 

22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov and http://

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

birds/gunnisonsagegrouse. Comments 

and materials we received, as well as 

supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this rule, are available for 

public inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov. All of the 

comments, materials, and 

documentation that we considered in 

this rulemaking are available by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Western Colorado Field Office, 445 

West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240, 

Grand Junction, CO 81501–5720; 

telephone 970–243–2778. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado 

Ecological Services Office, 134 Union 

Blvd., Suite 670, P.O. Box 25486 DFC, 

Denver, CO 80225; telephone 303–236– 

4774. Persons who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act a species 

may warrant protection through listing 

if it is endangered or threatened as those 

terms are defined in the Act. Listing a 

species as an endangered or threatened 

species can only be completed by 

issuing a rule. In this case, we are 

required by a judicially approved 

settlement agreement to make a final 

determination regarding the Gunnison 

sage-grouse by no later than November 

12, 2014. Elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register we finalize the designation of 

critical habitat for the species. 

This rule will finalize the listing of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

minimus) as a threatened species. 

The basis for our action. Under the 

Endangered Species Act, we can 

determine that a species is an 

endangered or threatened species based 

on any of five factors: (A) The present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

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

The inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

As described in detail below, we have 

determined that the most substantial 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse 

currently and in the future include 

habitat decline due to human 

disturbance (Factor A), small population 

size and structure (Factor E), drought 

(Factor E), climate change (Factor A), 

and disease (Factor C). Other threats 

that are impacting Gunnison sage-grouse 

to a lesser degree or in localized areas 

include grazing practices inconsistent 

with local ecological conditions, fences, 

invasive plants, fire, mineral 

development, pin ̃ on-juniper 

encroachment, large-scale water 

development (Factor A); predation 

(Factor C), primarily in association with 

anthropogenic disturbance and habitat 

decline due to human disturbance 

(Factor A); and recreation (Factor E). As 

described in Factor D below, some 

existing regulatory mechanisms are in 

place to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse, 

but individually or collectively they do 

not fully address the substantial threats 

faced by the species, particularly habitat 

decline, small population size and 

structure, drought, climate change, and 

disease. The threats listed above are also 

acting cumulatively, contributing to the 

challenges faced by Gunnison sagegrouse now and into the future. 

Multiple partners, including private 

citizens, nongovernmental 

organizations, and Tribal, State, and 

Federal agencies, are engaged in 

conservation efforts across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous 

conservation actions have been 

implemented or are planned for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and these efforts 

have provided and will continue to 

provide conservation benefit to the 

species. The Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances for 

Gunnison sage-grouse (CCAA), 

Gunnison Basin Candidate Conservation 

Agreement (CCA), conservation plans, 

multi-county commitments, habitat 

improvement projects, and similar nonregulatory conservation actions that 

address habitat-related impacts and 

issues are described and evaluated 

under Factor A in this rule. Federal, 

State, and local laws and regulations, 

conservation easements, and other 

regulatory mechanisms are evaluated 

under Factor D. Scientific research 

activities are described under Factor B 

and throughout this rule where 

applicable. Also, conservation efforts 

are described and evaluated as 

appropriate under relevant threat 

sections throughout this rule. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments on the proposed rule 

from independent and qualified 

specialists to ensure that our 

determination is based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We invited these peer reviewers to 

comment on our listing proposal. We 

also considered all comments and 

information received during each public 

comment period. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule for the Gunnison sage-grouse (78 

FR 2486, January 11, 2013) for a detailed 

description of previous Federal actions 

concerning this species. Federal actions 

that have occurred since that 

publication are described below. 

On January 11, 2013, we published a 

rule proposing to list the Gunnison sagegrouse as endangered throughout its 

range (78 FR 2486), and a proposed rule 

to designate 1.7 million acres of critical 

habitat for the species (78 FR 2540). We 

opened a public comment period until 

March 12, 2013, that was subsequently 

extended until April 2, 2013 (78 FR 

15925, March 13, 2013). 

On July 19, 2013, we announced that 

we were extending the final rule 

deadline by 6 months, from September 

30, 2013, to March 31, 2014; and 

reopened the comment period until 

September 3, 2013 (78 FR 43123). This 

extension served to solicit additional 

scientific information due to scientific 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

and accuracy of the available data 

relevant to our listing determinations for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

On September 19, 2013, we 

announced the availability of a draft 

economic analysis and draft 

environmental assessment for our 

proposal to designate critical habitat for 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69193 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and reopened the 

public comment period on those 

subjects and the proposed listing and 

critical habitat rules until October 19, 

2013. We also announced two planned 

public informational sessions and 

public hearings for the proposed rules 

(78 FR 57604). 

On November 4, 2013, we reopened 

the public comment period on the 

proposed rules until December 2, 2013, 

and announced the rescheduling of 

three public information sessions and 

public hearings that were postponed 

due to the lapse in government 

appropriations in October 2013 (78 FR 

65936). 

Public information sessions and 

public hearings were held in Gunnison, 

Colorado, on November 19, 2013; 

Montrose, Colorado, on November 20, 

2013; and Monticello, Utah, on 

November 21, 2013. 

In a press release on February 12, 

2014, available on our Web page at 

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

species/birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/, we 

announced a 6-week extension, to May 

12, 2014, for our final decision on our 

proposed listing and critical habitat 

rules. 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. 

In a press release on May 6, 2014, 

available on our Web page at http://

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

birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/, we 

announced a 6-month extension, to 

November 12, 2014, for our final 

decision to list Gunnison sage-grouse 

under the Act. This extension was 

granted by the Court to provide the 

Service with additional time to 

complete a final listing determination 

for the Gunnison sage-grouse, and if 

listed, a final critical habitat 

designation. In the event the Service 

decided to list the species as threatened, 

the court order also allowed for the 

Service to publish a proposed rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act (which are 

only available for threatened species) 

and finalize it with the final listing 

determination on November 12, if 

appropriate. We decided not to propose 

and finalize a 4(d) rule for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse at this time, but continue to 

evaluate the potential for issuing a 

section 4(d) rule in the future to tailor 

the take prohibitions of the Act to those 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, 

we finalize the designation of critical 

habitat for the species. 

Background 

Gunnison sage-grouse and greater 

sage-grouse (a similar, closely related 

species) have similar life histories and 

habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. 

44). In this final rule, we use scientific 

information specific to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse where available but apply 

scientific management principles and 

scientific information for greater sagegrouse that are relevant to Gunnison 

sage-grouse threats, conservation needs, 

and strategies—a practice followed by 

the wildlife and land management 

agencies that have responsibility for 

management of both species and their 

habitat. Throughout this rule, we use 

sage-grouse in reference to both 

Gunnison and greater sage-grouse 

whenever the scientific data and 

information is relevant to both species. 

Species Information 

A detailed summary of Gunnison 

sage-grouse taxonomy, the species 

description, historical distribution, 

habitat, and life-history characteristics 

can be found in the 12-month finding 

published September 28, 2010 (75 FR 

59804). More recent scientific 

information relevant to the species and 

our evaluation of the species is included 

throughout this final rule. 

Current Distribution and Population 

Estimates and Trends 

Gunnison sage-grouse currently occur 

in seven populations in Colorado and 

Utah, occupying 3,795 square 

kilometers (km2) (1,511 square miles 

[mi2]) (Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Rangewide Steering Committee) 

[GSRSC] 2005, pp. 36–37; CDOW 2009a, 

p. 1). The seven populations are 

Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, 

Monticello-Dove Creek, Pin ̃ on Mesa, 

Crawford, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa, and Poncha Pass (Figure 1). A 

summary of land ownership and recent 

population estimates among these seven 

populations is presented in Table 1, and 

Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The 

following information and Figures 2 and 

3 are based on lek count data 

(systematic counts of male sage-grouse 

attendance at traditional breeding sites) 

and associated population estimates 

from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) 

and the Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources (UDWR) for the period 1996– 

2014 (CDOW 2010a, p. 2; CPW 2012a, 

pp. 1–4; CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW 2014d, 

p. 1). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ER20NO14.000</GPH>rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Figure 1. Locations of Current Gunnison Sage-grouse Populations. 

Mesa 

Map Features 

Occupied Habitat Major Roads 

D County Boundaries --Rivers/Lakes c::J State Boundaries 

20 10 0 20Mi1es 

20 HI 0 20Kilometers 

N 

A 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69195 

TABLE 1—PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIED a HABITAT

[GSRSC b 2005, pp. D–3–D–6; CDOW c 2009a, p. 1; CPW 2013e, spatial data] 

Population Hectares Acres 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat management and ownership 

BLM d NPSe USFSf

 CPW CO 

SLBg

State of 

UT Private 

% % % % % % % 

Gunnison Basin ...................................... 239,641 592,168 51 2 14 2 <1 0 i 30 

San Miguel Basin ................................... 41,177 101,750 g 35 0 1 11 g 3 0 h 49 

Monticello-Dove Creek (Combined) ....... 45,544 112,543 7 0 0 3 0 <1 90 

Dove Creek ..................................... 16,949 41,881 13 0 0 6 0 0 82 

Monticello ........................................ 28,595 70,661 5 0 0 0 0 1 94 

Pin ̃on Mesa ............................................ 18,080 44,678 28 0 2 0 0 0 70 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 15,039 37,161 13 <1 0 11 0 0 76 

Crawford ................................................. 14,170 35,015 63 12 0 0 0 0 24 

Poncha Pass .......................................... 11,229 27,747 48 0 20 0 4 0 28 

Rangewide ............................................. 384,880 951,061 42 2 10 3 <1 <1 43 

aOccupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by Gunnison sage-grouse within the last 10 

years from the date of mapping, and areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which have no barriers to grouse movement 

from known use areas (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; CPW 2013e, spatial data). bGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. 

c Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 

dBureau of Land Management. 

e National Park Service. 

f United States Forest Service. 

gState Land Board. 

hEstimates reported in San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group 

(SMBGSWG) 2009, p. 28) vary by 2 percent in these categories from those reported here. We consider these differences insignificant. i Includes approximately 12,000 ac of land on Pinecrest Ranch, west of Gunnison, Colorado. This is restricted fee status land held in private 

ownership by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

ER20NO14.001</GPH>rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Figure 2. Population estimates by year for the Gunnison Basin population and the rangewide total Gunnis

population derived from the formula presented in the Gunnison sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan 

44--45) applied to high male counts on leks (CDOWb 2012a, pp. 1-3; CPW 2013a, entire; CPW 2014d, p. 

7,000 

6,000 

5,000 .......... 

4,000 

____.,.. 

cu 

N 

u; 3,000 1111111"'" "'""'- c 0 ':ij -

.!!! 2,000 :II 

c. 

0 

Q. 

1,000 

0 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

-Ill-Gunnison Basin 2,880 3,164 3,360 3,547 3,130 3,493 3,027 2,453 -&-Rangewide Totals 4,038 4,258 4,782 5,207 4,873 4,581 4,101 3,194 

aGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 

bColorado Parks and Wildlife 

....... 

'r 

--...... 

/I "' .... .... - 

---

.I 

-

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

2,443 4,763 5,205 4,616 3,669 3,817 3,655 

3,208 5,720 6,220 5,480 4,371 4,386 4,023 

ER20NO14.002</GPH>rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Figure 3. Population estimates by year for the six satellite Gunnison sage-grouse populations derived from the formula presente

sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (GSRSCa 2005, pp. 44--45) applied to high male counts on leks (CPWb 2012a, pp. 1-

entire; CPW 2014e, p. 6) (Note: lek counts did not occur between 1996 and 1998 for the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa an

600 

500 ..Ill 

400 Af \ 

300 .. IX "' \. .;II ./ _'\. ... 200 V"""-'\ 

- .....-

... ..-tlr 

-- 100 

0 

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 

..,._San Miguel Basin 206 270 446 231 280 

....,Monticello-Dove Creek {Combined) 304 255 289 486 511 ..,._Pinon Mesa 118 113 128 142 162 

""*'"'Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 25 29 

226 201 270 265 245 

...,.Poncha Pass 25 5 

aGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee 

bColorado Parks and Wildlife 

_A. .... 

,..-

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 

392 383 250 255 334 

363 270 186 162 196 

152 132 123 142 167 

29 39 29 39 25 

137 206 118 128 191 

15 44 34 39 44 

At.. 

2006 2007 2008 2009 20

378 324 216 162 12

191 245 245 191 13

152 123 108 78 74 

49 34 10 39 5 

201 113 98 78 20 

44 25 25 20 15 
69198 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Lek count data are the primary means 

of estimating and monitoring Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations. However, sagegrouse populations can fluctuate widely 

on an annual basis, and there are 

concerns about the statistical reliability 

of population estimates based on lek 

counts (CDOW 2009b, pp. 1–3). Stiver et 

al. (2008, p. 474) concluded that lek 

counts likely underestimate population 

size. Another study (Davis 2012, p. 136) 

indicated that, based on demographic 

data, lek count indices overestimate 

population size. Although lek count 

data are available from as early as the 

1950s for some populations, lek count 

protocols were first standardized and 

implemented in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 

46). Prior to 1996, lek count data are 

highly variable and uncertain, and are 

not directly comparable to recent 

population data (Braun 1998, p. 3; Davis 

2012, pp. 139, 143). Therefore, for the 

purposes of evaluating current 

population sizes and trends, the 

analysis in this rule is focused on lek 

count data from 1996 to 2014. We also 

consider other available scientific 

information such as demographic data 

and population viability analyses (see 

Factor E). Historical distribution and 

population information is discussed 

under Factor A below. 

The Gunnison Basin is the largest 

population (approximately 3,978 birds) 

and, while showing variation over the 

period of record, including drought 

cycles and harsh winters, has been 

relatively stable, based on lek count 

estimates (but see further discussion 

below and in the Factor E analysis). The 

Gunnison Basin population is the 

primary influence on the rangewide 

population size of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(see Figure 2); thus, the significance of 

this population to the species’ survival 

and persistence is evident. The 

Gunnison Basin population area 

includes approximately 239,600 ha 

(592,053 ac) of occupied habitat. 

In contrast, the remaining six 

populations, or satellite populations, are 

much smaller than the Gunnison Basin. 

All satellite populations were generally 

in decline until 2010; however, 

increases in several populations have 

been observed recently (Figure 3) and 

could be a product of numerous factors 

including but not limited to population 

cycles, translocation efforts, and 

increased access to leks. San Miguel and 

Pin ̃ on Mesa are currently the largest of 

the satellite populations, with 206 and 

182 birds, respectively, in 2014. The 

Monticello-Dove Creek populations 

currently have less than 100 birds 

combined (74 and 24, respectively). The 

current (2014) population estimates for 

the two smallest populations, Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and 

Poncha Pass, are 74 and 16, respectively 

(CPW 2014d, p. 1). A count of zero birds 

at Poncha Pass in 2013 suggests that 

extirpation of this population may have 

occurred, although 17 birds were 

translocated there later that fall, and ten 

more in spring of 2014, with 16 known 

to survive into summer 2014 (see Factor 

B, Scientific Research and Related 

Conservation Efforts). The satellite 

population areas are much smaller than 

the Gunnison Basin population area, all 

with less than 40,500 hectares (ha) 

(100,000 acres [ac]) of occupied habitat 

(Table 1) and, with the exception of the 

San Miguel population, fewer than 40 

males counted on leks (CDOW 2009b, p. 

5; CPW 2012a, p. 3; CPW 2013a, p. 1; 

CPW 2014d, p. 1). 

Lek count-based population estimates 

suggest some satellite populations have 

increased slightly over the last several 

years. However, lek count data spanning 

the last 19 years (1996 to 2014) as a 

whole indicate that all the satellite 

populations were generally in decline 

until 2010 (Figure 3). Several of the 

satellite populations remain in decline 

and all remain at population size 

estimates that indicate concern for their 

viability, ranging from 206 to 10 birds 

(Figure 3). Furthermore, some of the 

recent increases in population sizes can 

be attributed to translocation and survey 

efforts, rather than an actual increase in 

the population. For example, the 2014 

estimated population for Pin ̃ on Mesa 

was 182 birds (CPW 2014d, p. 1), much 

greater than the 2012 estimate of 54 

birds. The population in Crawford 

increased from 20 birds in 2010 to 157 

in 2014. These increases may be due in 

part to the translocation of 93 birds to 

the Pin ̃ on Mesa population between the 

spring of 2010 and spring of 2013 and 

73 birds to Crawford over the same 

period. (CPW 2014c, entire), and two 

new leks found in 2012 on Pin ̃ on Mesa 

(CPW 2012a, pp. 2–3). The potential 

historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

is discussed briefly below by 

population, and loss of historical range 

is discussed under Factor A. 

Gunnison Basin Population—The 

Gunnison Basin is an intermontane 

(located between mountain ranges) 

basin that includes parts of Gunnison 

and Saguache Counties, Colorado. The 

current Gunnison Basin population is 

distributed across approximately 

239,640 ha (592,168 ac) (Table 1), 

surrounding the City of Gunnison. This 

population comprises approximately 84 

percent of the rangewide population 

and 62 percent of occupied habitat for 

the species rangewide. Elevations in the 

area occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse 

range from 2,300 to 2,900 meters (m) 

(7,500 to 9,500 feet [ft]). Approximately 

69 percent of the land area occupied by 

Gunnison sage-grouse in this population 

is managed by Federal agencies (67 

percent) and CPW (2 percent), and the 

remaining 30 percent is primarily 

private lands, including approximately 

12,000 ac on Pinecrest Ranch owned by 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe under 

restricted fee status. Wyoming big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. 

wyomingensis) and mountain big 

sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana) dominate 

the upland vegetation, with highly 

variable growth form depending on 

local site conditions. 

In 1964, Gunnison County was one of 

five counties containing the majority of 

all sage-grouse in Colorado. This was 

likely the case before Euro-American 

settlement, around the turn of the 

century, as well (Rogers 1964, pp. 13, 

20). The 2014 population estimate for 

the Gunnison Basin was 3,978 birds 

(CPW 2014d, p. 1). Population estimates 

from 1996 to 2014 meet or exceed the 

population target of 3,000 breeding 

birds (based on a 10-year average) for 

the Gunnison Basin, as set forth by the 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Conservation Plan (RCP) (CPW 2013a, p. 

10; GSRSC 2005, p. 270). Based on 

available habitat and other 

considerations, the RCP identified 

population targets as attainable 

population sizes sufficient to conserve 

Gunnison sage-grouse in each 

population (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). 

Approximately 45 percent of leks in the 

Gunnison Basin occur on private land; 

and 55 percent are on public land 

administered primarily by the BLM 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 75). Five physiographic 

zones or divisions are recognized in the 

Gunnison Basin population area for the 

purposes of monitoring and 

management actions (CSGWG 1997, pp. 

6–7). 

San Miguel Basin Population— The 

San Miguel Basin population estimate 

in 2014 was 206 individuals (CPW 

2014d, p. 1). Population estimates from 

1996 to 2014 are less than 50 percent of 

the population target of 450 Gunnison 

sage-grouse (based on a 10-year average) 

for the San Miguel Basin, as set forth by 

the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 

2005, p. 296). This population occurs in 

Montrose and San Miguel Counties in 

Colorado, and comprises six small 

subpopulations (Dry Creek Basin, 

Hamilton Mesa, Miramonte Reservoir, 

Gurley Reservoir, Beaver Mesa, and Iron 

Springs) occupying approximately 

41,177 ha (101,750 ac). Gunnison sagegrouse use some of these areas yearround, while others are used seasonally. 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the San Miguel 

Basin move widely between the six 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69199 

subpopulation areas (Apa 2004, p. 29; 

Stiver and Gibson 2005, p. 12). The area 

encompassed by this population is 

thought to have once served as critical 

migration corridors between 

populations to the north (Pin ̃ on Mesa) 

and northeast (Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa) and to the west (MonticelloDove Creek) (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, 

pp. 635–636; SMBGSWG 2009, p. 9), but 

gene flow among these populations is 

currently very low (Oyler-McCance et 

al. 2005, p. 635). Historically, Gunnison 

sage-grouse occupied the majority of 

available big sagebrush (Artemisia 

tridentata) plant communities in San 

Miguel and Montrose Counties (Rogers 

1964, pp. 22, 115). 

Habitat conditions vary among the six 

subpopulation areas of the San Miguel 

Basin population areas. The following 

discussion addresses conditions among 

the subpopulations beginning in the 

west and moving east. The majority of 

occupied acres in the San Miguel Basin 

population (approximately 25,130 ha 

(62,100 ac) or 62 percent of the total 

population area) occur in the Dry Creek 

Basin subpopulation (SMBGSWG 2009, 

p. 28). However, the Dry Creek Basin 

contains some of the poorest quality 

habitat and the fewest individual 

Gunnison sage grouse numbers in the 

San Miguel population (SMBGSWG 

2009, pp. 28, 36). Sagebrush habitat in 

the Dry Creek Basin area is patchily 

distributed. Where irrigation is possible, 

private lands in the southeastern 

portion of Dry Creek Basin are 

cultivated. Sagebrush habitat on private 

land has been heavily thinned or 

removed entirely (GSRSC 2005, p. 96). 

Elevations in the Hamilton Mesa 

subpopulation are approximately 610 m 

(2,000 ft.) higher than in the Dry Creek 

Basin, resulting in more mesic (moist) 

conditions. Agriculture is very limited 

on Hamilton Mesa, and the majority of 

the vegetation consists of oakbrush 

(Quercus gambelii) and sagebrush. 

Gunnison sage-grouse use the Hamilton 

Mesa area (1,940 ha (4,800 ac)) in the 

summer, but use of Hamilton Mesa 

during other seasons is unknown. 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupy 

approximately 4,700 ha (11,600 ac) 

around Miramonte Reservoir (GSRSC 

2005, p. 96). Sagebrush stands there are 

generally contiguous with a mixed-grass 

and forb understory. Occupied habitat at 

the Gurley Reservoir area (3,305 ha 

(7,500 ac)) is negatively affected by 

human development. Farming attempts 

in the Gurley Reservoir area in the early 

20th century led to the removal of much 

of the sagebrush, although agricultural 

activities are now restricted primarily to 

the seasonally irrigated crops (hay 

meadows), and sagebrush has 

reestablished in most of the failed 

pastures. However, grazing pressure and 

competition from introduced grasses 

have limited overall sagebrush 

representation (GSRSC 2005, pp. 96– 

97). Sagebrush stands in the Iron 

Springs and Beaver Mesa areas (2,590 ha 

and 3,560 ha (6,400 ac and 8,800 ac 

respectively)) are contiguous with a 

mixed-grass understory. The Beaver 

Mesa area has numerous scattered 

patches of oakbrush. 

Monticello-Dove Creek Population— 

This population includes two separate 

subpopulations of Gunnison sagegrouse, the Monticello and Dove Creek 

subpopulations. Genetic data suggest 

these two subpopulations could be 

considered one population (GSRSC 

2005, p. 37), though we are unaware of 

any current connectivity between the 

two. The larger subpopulation is near 

the town of Monticello in San Juan 

County, Utah. Gunnison sage-grouse in 

this subpopulation inhabit a broad 

plateau on the northeastern side of the 

Abajo Mountains, with fragmented 

patches of sagebrush interspersed with 

large grass pastures and agricultural 

fields. In 1972, the estimated population 

size ranged from 583 to 1,050 

individuals; by 2002, the population 

size had decreased, estimated at 178 to 

308 individuals (UDWR 2011, p. 1). The 

2013 and 2014 population estimates are 

74 individuals (CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW 

2014d, p. 1)). Gunnison sage-grouse 

currently occupy an estimated 28,595 ha 

(70,661 ac) in the Monticello area 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 81). 

The Dove Creek subpopulation is 

located primarily in western Dolores 

County, Colorado, north and west of 

Dove Creek, although a small portion of 

occupied habitat extends north into San 

Miguel County. The majority of 

sagebrush plant communities in Dolores 

and Montezuma Counties within 

Colorado were historically used by 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Rogers 1964, pp. 

22, 112). Habitat north of Dove Creek is 

characterized as mountain shrub 

habitat, dominated by oakbrush 

interspersed with sagebrush. The area 

west of Dove Creek is dominated by 

sagebrush, but the habitat is highly 

fragmented by agricultural fields. Lek 

counts in the Dove Creek area were 

more than 50 males in 1999, suggesting 

a population of about 245 birds (C = 

High male count; C/0.53 + (C/0.53 × 

1.6)), but declined to 2 males in 2009 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 71), suggesting a 

population of 10 birds at that time. Low 

sagebrush canopy cover, as well as low 

grass height, exacerbated by drought, 

may have led to nest failure and 

subsequent population declines 

(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Apa 2004, 

p. 30). The 2014 population estimate 

was 24 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1). 

Combined, the Monticello-Dove Creek 

estimated population size in 2014 was 

98 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1). Most 

population estimates from 1996 to 2014 

are well below the population target of 

500 breeding birds (based on a 10-year 

average) for the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population, as set forth by the RCP 

(CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. 

278). Likewise, most population 

estimates from 1996 to the present time 

are well below the population target of 

250 birds for each subpopulation alone 

(CPW 2013a, p. 12). 

Pin ̃ on Mesa Population—The Pin ̃on 

Mesa population occurs on the 

northwestern end of the Uncompahgre 

Plateau in Mesa County, about 35 km 

(22 mi) southwest of Grand Junction, 

Colorado. Gunnison sage-grouse likely 

occurred historically in all suitable 

sagebrush habitat in the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

area, including the Dominguez Canyon 

area of the Uncompahgre Plateau, 

southeast of Pin ̃ on Mesa proper (Rogers 

1964, pp. 22, 114). Their current 

distribution is approximately 18,080 ha 

(44,678 ac) (GSRSC 2005, p. 87) which, 

based on a comparison of potential 

presettlement distribution, is 

approximately 6 percent of 

presettlement habitat on the northern 

portion of the Uncompahgre Plateau in 

Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand 

County, Utah. The 2014 estimated 

population was 182 birds (CPW 2014d, 

p. 1), much greater than the 2012 

estimate of 54 birds. Over the last 4 

years, CPW has translocated 93 sagegrouse to this area, which may have 

contributed to the increase observed 

over the past 2 to 4 years (CPW 2014c, 

entire), in addition to the discovery of 

two formerly unknown leks in 2012 

(CPW 2012a, pp. 2–3). Population 

estimates from 1996 to 2014 are below 

the population target of 200 breeding 

birds (based on a 10-year average) for 

the Pin ̃on Mesa population, as set forth 

by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 

2005, p. 285). Of 12 known leks, only 

4 were active in 2012 (CPW 2012a, pp. 

2–3). The Pin ̃ on Mesa area may have 

other leks as well, but the high 

percentage of private land, a lack of 

roads, and heavy snow cover during 

spring make locating new leks difficult 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 109). 

Crawford Population—The Crawford 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse 

includes approximately 14,170 ha 

(35,015 ac) of occupied habitat in 

Montrose County, Colorado, about 13 

km (8 mi) southwest of the town of 

Crawford and north of the Gunnison 

River. Basin big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. 

tridentata) and black sagebrush (A. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69200 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

nova) dominate the mid-elevation 

uplands (GSRSC 2005, p. 62). The 2014 

estimated population was 157 

individuals (CPW 2014a, p. 1), much 

greater than the 2010 estimate of 20 

birds, and 2011 estimate of 44 birds. 

This observed increase could be, in part, 

the product of the translocation of 72 

birds to the Crawford population from 

2011 to the spring of 2013 (CPW 2014c, 

entire), although natural increases or 

other reasons not understood could also 

be contributing. Furthermore, new lek 

count techniques for this population 

were implemented in 2012 (Gunnison 

County 2013a, p. 190), and increased 

survey efforts may be partly responsible 

for observed increases in high male 

counts and population estimates (Figure 

3). Population estimates from 1996 to 

2014 are well below the population 

target of 275 breeding birds (based on a 

10-year average) for the Crawford 

population, as set forth by the RCP 

(CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, p. 

264). Three leks are currently active in 

the Crawford population (CPW 2012a, p. 

1), all on BLM lands near an 11-km (7- 

mi) stretch of road. This area represents 

the largest contiguous sagebrush plant 

community within the occupied area of 

the Crawford population (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 64). 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

Population—This population is divided 

into two geographically separate 

subpopulations, both in Montrose 

County, Colorado: The Cerro Summit– 

Cimarron and Sims Mesa 

subpopulations. It is unknown whether 

sage-grouse currently move between 

these subpopulations. 

The Cerro Summit–Cimarron 

subpopulation is centered about 24 km 

(15 mi) east of the City of Montrose. 

Rogers (1964, p. 115) noted a small 

population of sage-grouse in the 

Cimarron River drainage, but did not 

report population numbers. The same 

publication also reported that four 

individual birds were observed during 

lek counts at Cerro Summit in 1959. 

Habitat in this subpopulation area 

includes 15,039 ha (37,161 ac) of patchy 

sagebrush habitat fragmented by 

oakbrush and irrigated pastures. Four 

leks are currently known in the Cerro 

Summit–Cimarron group, although only 

two have been active in recent years 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 257; CPW 2012a, 

entire). 

The Sims Mesa area, about 11 km (7 

mi) south of Montrose, consists of small 

patches of sagebrush fragmented by 

pin ̃ on-juniper, residential and 

recreational development, and 

agriculture (CDOW 2009b, p. 43). Rogers 

(1964, p. 95) recorded eight males from 

lek counts at Sims Mesa in 1960. In 

2000, the CPW translocated six 

Gunnison sage-grouse from the 

Gunnison Basin to Sims Mesa (Nehring 

and Apa 2000, p. 12). There is only one 

currently known lek in the Sims Mesa 

and, since 2003, it has not been 

attended by Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, lek counts on Sims Mesa did 

not occur in 2011. A lek is designated 

historic when it is inactive for at least 

10 consecutive years, according to CPW 

standards. Therefore, the current status 

of the Sims Mesa lek is unknown 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 7; CPW 2012a, p. 1). 

The Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa population estimate in 2014 was 

74 individuals (CPW 2014a, p. 1), with 

all birds in the Cerro Summit–Cimarron 

areas. Population estimates from 1996 to 

2014 are below the population target of 

100 breeding birds (based on a 10-year 

average) for this population, as set forth 

by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 

2005, p. 258). 

Available information indicates that 

some birds translocated to the Crawford 

area between 2011 and 2013 went to the 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron area, then 

moved back to Crawford (Crawford Area 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group 

2014, p. 3). Translocated birds also 

returned to the Gunnison Basin 

permanently (Crawford Area Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Working Group 2014, p. 3). 

Genetic information (Oyler-McCance et 

al. 2005, pp. 635–636; SMBGSWG 2009, 

p. 9) indicates that there was past gene 

flow between the Cerro Summit– 

Cimarron population and the San 

Miguel population. Therefore, we 

consider the Cerro Summit–Cimarron 

population to be an important linkage 

area, providing connectivity between 

the two largest populations, the 

Gunnison Basin and the San Miguel 

populations, as well as the Crawford 

population. 

Poncha Pass Population—The Poncha 

Pass Gunnison sage-grouse population 

is located in Saguache County, 

approximately 16 km (10 mi) northwest 

of Villa Grove, Colorado. The known 

population distribution includes 11,229 

ha (27,747 ac) of sagebrush habitat from 

the summit of Poncha Pass extending 

south for about 13 km (8 mi) on either 

side of U.S. Highway 285. Sagebrush in 

this area is generally intact with little 

fragmentation, and habitat quality 

throughout the area appears adequate to 

support a population of the species 

(Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 25). Despite 

this, the area has struggled to sustain a 

viable population. San Luis Creek runs 

through the area, providing a perennial 

water source and wet meadow riparian 

habitat for brood-rearing. Decker and 

Rock Creeks also provide water most of 

the year. However, water flows in the 

area have been much lower and less 

dependable in recent years due to 

drought conditions (Nehring 2013a, 

pers. comm.). 

The Poncha Pass population was 

reintroduced in the 1970s in a portion 

of the San Luis Valley where Gunnison 

sage-grouse were thought to have been 

extirpated by the 1950s (Rogers 1964, 

pp. 22, 27, 116). Reestablishment of this 

population began with 30 birds 

translocated from the Gunnison Basin in 

1971 and 1972 (GSRSC 2005, p. 94). In 

1992, a CPW effort to simplify hunting 

restrictions inadvertently opened the 

Poncha Pass area to sage-grouse 

hunting, and at least 30 grouse were 

harvested from this population. Due to 

declining population numbers since the 

1992 hunt, CPW translocated 24 

additional birds from the Gunnison 

Basin in the spring of 2000 (Nehring and 

Apa 2000, p. 11). In 2001 and 2002, an 

additional 20 and 7 birds, respectively, 

were moved to Poncha Pass by the CPW 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 94). 

Translocated females have bred 

successfully (Apa 2004, pers. comm.), 

and male display activity resumed on 

the historical lek in the spring of 2001. 

The only known lek is located on BLMadministered land (CDOW 2011a, p. 1; 

CPW 2012a, p. 3). A high male count of 

3 males occurred in 2012, resulting in 

an estimated population size of 15 for 

the Poncha Pass population. In 2013, no 

birds were counted at leks or in 

surrounding habitat despite 

considerable survey efforts, suggesting a 

population estimate of zero birds. In the 

fall of 2013, CPW translocated 17 birds 

to the Poncha Pass population from the 

Gunnison Basin. As of January 2014, 10 

of these birds were known to be 

surviving (Nehring 2014, pers. comm.). 

In 2014, CPW translocated 10 more 

birds to the area. Sixteen birds were 

known to survive into summer of 2014 

(all translocated birds had telemetry 

transmitters). Poncha Pass current and 

past population estimates from 1996 to 

2013 are well below the population 

target of 75 birds, as set forth by the RCP 

(CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. 

291). We note that given the history of 

this population, lack of unique genetics 

(all sage-grouse were introduced from 

the Gunnison Basin), and concerns 

about translocation success, we do not 

consider this population necessary to 

the recovery of the species. 

Additional Special Status Information 

The Gunnison sage-grouse has an 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN) Red List Category of 

‘‘endangered’’ (Birdlife International 

2009). NatureServe currently ranks the 

Gunnison sage-grouse as G1–Critically 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69201 

Imperiled (Nature Serve 2010, entire). 

The Gunnison sage-grouse is on the 

National Audubon Society’s Watch List 

2007 Red Category, which is ‘‘for 

species that are declining rapidly or 

have very small populations or limited 

ranges, and face major conservation 

threats.’’ This information is provided 

here for background only; these 

assessments were not factored into our 

analysis or listing determination in this 

rule. 

Summary of Changes From the 

Proposed Rule 

Based upon our review of the public 

comments, comments from other 

Federal and State agencies, peer review 

comments, issues raised at the public 

hearing, and new relevant information 

that has become available since the 

publication of the proposal, we have 

reevaluated our proposed listing rule 

and made changes as appropriate. Other 

than minor clarifications and 

incorporation of additional information 

on the species’ biology and populations, 

this determination differs from the 

proposal in the following ways: 

(1) Based on our analyses of the 

potential threats to the species, we have 

determined that Gunnison sage-grouse 

does not meet the definition of an 

endangered species, contrary to our 

proposed rule published on January 11, 

2013 (78 FR 2486). 

(2) Based on our analyses, we have 

determined that the species meets the 

definition of a threatened species. 

Subsequently, pursuant to this final 

rule, the species will be added to the list 

of threatened species set forth in 50 CFR 

Part 17. 

(3) We have expanded the discussion 

of Ongoing and Future Conservation 

Efforts, in Factor A below. 

(4) We have found that the threat from 

current residential development in the 

Gunnison Basin is not as high as we 

previously concluded. See Factor A 

analysis and discussion. 

Summary of Peer Review and Public 

Comments 

In our January 11, 2013, proposed 

rules for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(proposed listing, 78 FR 2486; proposed 

critical habitat designation, 78 FR 2540), 

we requested written public comments 

on the proposal from all interested 

parties. At various times, public 

comment periods were extended or 

reopened (see Previous Federal 

Actions), with a final comment period 

on both proposals ending on December 

2, 2013. 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. 

Between January 11, 2013, and 

December 2, 2013, we received a total of 

36,171 comment letters on the listing 

and critical habitat proposals. Of those 

letters, we determined that 

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 critical habitat are provided in 

the final rule to designate critical habitat 

for Gunnison sage-grouse, published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

Also, we held three public hearings 

between November 19 and 21, 2013, in 

response to requests from local and 

State agencies and governments; we 

received oral comments during that time 

(see Previous Federal Actions). All 

substantive information provided 

during all comment periods and 

hearings that pertains to the listing of 

the species has been incorporated 

directly into this final rule or addressed 

below. For the readers’ convenience, we 

combined similar comments and 

responses. 

Comments From Peer Reviewers 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published in the Federal Register 

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

solicited expert opinion from five 

independent and qualified individuals 

with scientific expertise on Gunnison 

sage-grouse biology and conservation. 

The purpose of the peer review was 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 the listing of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse. 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 opposed to the 

proposed listing and questioned our 

rationale and determinations. All 

substantive comments from peer 

reviewers are incorporated directly into 

this final rule or addressed in the 

summary of comments below. 

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer 

noted that population growth models of 

greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus) 

indicate adult annual survival is the 

most sensitive vital rate. However, in 

the proposed rule, we said that 

limitations in the quality and quantity 

of nesting and early brood-rearing 

habitats, in particular, are especially 

important because Gunnison sagegrouse population dynamics are most 

sensitive during these life-history stages 

(GSRSC 2005, p. G–15). 

Our Response: Juvenile recruitment 

has been identified as the most 

important demographic factor 

influencing or limiting greater and 

Gunnison sage-grouse population 

growth rates and viability (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 3–11, GSRSC 2005, p. 173). 

In a recent demographic and population 

viability study of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Davis 2012), juvenile survival was 

found to be the most influential vital 

rate in the Gunnison Basin population, 

a relatively stable population. However, 

adult survival was more influential in 

the San Miguel population, a smaller 

and steeply declining population where 

no juvenile recruitment occurred (Davis 

2012, pp. 89, 93). Therefore, both 

juvenile survival and adult survival 

rates appear to be important to the 

species’ viability. This topic is 

discussed further under Factor E in this 

final rule. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the methods and rationale 

regarding the proposed rule’s evaluation 

of residential development and 

estimated housing development in the 

Gunnison Basin are not clear for the 

following reasons: It was unclear how 

the potential spatial configuration of 

new housing units was estimated; thus 

calculations for habitat lost directly or 

indirectly are not transparent. The 

reviewer stated that the conclusion that 

the species should be listed as 

endangered relies heavily on the 

analysis of potential threats of 

additional anthropogenic infrastructure 

given increasing human populations. 

The peer reviewer commented that there 

are potential flaws in the estimated 

impacts of residential impact in the 

Gunnison Basin, which relied primarily 

on Aldridge et al. (2012, entire). The 

peer reviewer noted that to establish the 

scientific credibility of these 

conclusions, additional information is 

required describing the methodology 

and data used in the analysis as well as 

reporting the results; for example, citing 

the spatial data sources, specifically 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

establishing the methods used to come 

to the level of potential impact (spatially 

and temporally), providing results 

specific to each analysis, and 

specifically establishing the 

assumptions made. The peer reviewer 

also stated that an analysis of residential 

development in the satellite populations 

is lacking. 

Our Response: In Factor A of this final 

rule, we reevaluate the threat of 

residential development in the 

Gunnison Basin and in the six satellite 

populations, and explain the framework 

for our assessment. In that revised 

analysis, based on new information 

regarding the location and magnitude of 

past development patterns in Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison 

Basin, we avoid the use of spatial zones 

of influence to estimate or extrapolate 

potential impacts of current and future 

development, focusing instead on 

human population growth rates and 

available developable private lands in 

occupied habitat. 

(3) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that the proposed rule analysis 

indicated that approximately 85 percent 

of occupied habitat in the Gunnison 

Basin has an increased likelihood of 

current or future road-related 

disturbance. This conclusion would 

suggest that the vast majority of 

sagebrush habitats in the Gunnison 

Basin are within 700 m of a road, an 

exceptionally dense road network—as a 

comparison, Knick et al. 2011 (chapter 

12 in Studies in Avian Biology No. 38 

page 215) estimated that 89 percent of 

sage-grouse habitats were within 2.5 km 

of a road in Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies Management 

Zone 7 (Colorado Plateau), road 

densities less than those reported here. 

The reviewer suggested that we provide 

more specificity on how we analyzed 

roads. The reviewer noted that, given 

that this analysis is specific to the 

spatial scale of the potential spread of 

invasive weeds associated with roads in 

general, it may benefit the discussion to 

include the amount of habitat within 

700 m of improved surface roads as well 

as all roads (assuming two-tracks are 

included as roads in this analysis). 

Our Response: Our analysis included 

all road types (primary, secondary, etc.) 

in occupied habitat in the Gunnison 

Basin, hence the relatively high density 

of road networks. We did not 

differentiate by road type, as our 

primary intent was to estimate exposure 

of occupied habitat to road networks in 

general. We revised this final rule to 

clarify that the extent and severity of 

weed invasion would vary by road type. 

See further discussion under ‘‘Roads’’ in 

Factor A. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that the proposed rule 

discusses the short-lived benefits of fire 

in sage-grouse habitats, including a 

flush of understory vegetation and forbs. 

The peer reviewer noted that the 

proposed rule states that beneficial 

effects of fire were found by studies in 

mesic habitats and that, therefore, some 

benefits may be expected from fire in 

those habitat types (but this is 

contradictory to the previous statement). 

The reviewer stated that effects in 

Wyoming sagebrush, where most 

studies have taken place, may be 

different from those in mountain 

sagebrush types (such as in Gunnison 

sage-grouse range). 

Our Response: As presented in this 

final rule, effects of fire in sagebrush 

habitat and to sage-grouse are highly 

variable. A clear positive response of 

Gunnison or greater sage-grouse to fire 

has not been demonstrated (Braun 1998, 

p. 9). The few studies that have 

suggested fire may be beneficial for 

greater sage-grouse were primarily 

conducted in mesic areas used for 

brood-rearing (Klebenow 1970, p. 399; 

Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 323; Gates 

1983, in Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 90; 

Sime 1991, in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

972). In mesic habitat, small fires may 

maintain a suitable habitat mosaic by 

reducing shrub encroachment and 

encouraging understory, herbaceous 

growth. However, without available 

nearby sagebrush cover, the utility of 

these sites is questionable, especially 

within the six small Gunnison sagegrouse populations where fire could 

further degrade the remaining habitat. 

More recent research related to 

Gunnison sage-grouse indicated that 

due to the fragmented nature of 

remaining sagebrush habitat across the 

species’ range, prescribed fire may be 

inappropriate if the goal is to improve 

sagebrush and overall habitat conditions 

for the species (Baker 2013, p. 8). This 

topic is discussed further under Factor 

A in this final rule. 

(5) Comment: A peer reviewer 

recommended that our analysis include 

more discussion on the role of water 

developments in the proliferation of 

West Nile virus. The reviewer cited a 

study by Walker and Naugle (2011), 

arguing that West Nile outbreaks in 

small, isolated sage-grouse 

populations—similar to all except 

perhaps the Gunnison Basin population 

of Gunnison sage-grouse—may result in 

extirpation. Given the potential impact 

to populations from West Nile virus and 

the predicted spread of this disease 

associated with climate change, the 

reviewer stated that the effect of 

anthropogenic water sources that harbor 

mosquitoes should be analyzed. 

Our Response: In this rule, we 

reevaluated West Nile virus as a threat 

to Gunnison sage-grouse and included 

several new citations. We did not 

conduct a landscape analysis on the 

precise quantity or distribution of water 

developments, but instead focused our 

analysis on the known distribution of 

West Nile virus across Gunnison sagegrouse range. In this final rule we find 

that, due to the known and potential 

presence and distribution of West Nile 

virus across the majority of Gunnison 

sage-grouse range, the high risk of 

mortality and population-level impacts 

based on the biology of the species, and 

the immediacy of those potential 

impacts, West Nile virus is a potential 

future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

throughout its range. The threat of West 

Nile virus is currently lower in the highelevation areas, such as the Gunnison 

Basin and most of the Pin ̃on Mesa 

populations, but we expect it to increase 

in the near term due to increased 

drought and the predicted effects of 

climate change. This topic is discussed 

in detail under Factor C of this rule. 

(6) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that limited evidence is provided to 

establish predation as a substantial 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: We agree that research 

and data linking predation and 

Gunnison sage-grouse abundance and 

viability are limited. However, available 

scientific information (primarily for 

greater sage-grouse) presented in this 

rule indicates that, particularly in areas 

of intensive habitat alteration and 

fragmentation, and in smaller less 

resilient populations, sage-grouse 

productivity and, potentially, 

population persistence could be 

negatively affected by predation. 

Because the Gunnison and greater sagegrouse have similar behavior and lifehistory traits, it is reasonable to assume 

that predator impacts on Gunnison sagegrouse are similar to those observed in 

greater sage-grouse. The best available 

information indicates that predation is 

having an impact on Gunnison sagegrouse, particularly in the satellite 

populations, where there is some 

evidence that predation is affecting 

chick and juvenile survival, especially 

in smaller populations. Based on the 

greater sage-grouse data and the limited 

data available for Gunnison sage-grouse, 

we conclude that predation is a threat. 

While predation likely acts as a threat 

in localized areas across the range of the 

species, the stability of the Gunnison 

Basin population over the last 19 years 

indicates that predation is not having a 

significant impact on that population. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69203 

We believe, however, that the effects of 

predation are more pronounced in the 

satellite populations. Given the stability 

of the Gunnison Basin population, we 

do not believe that the magnitude of this 

threat is significant at the rangewide 

level. This topic is discussed in detail 

in Factor C of the rule. 

(7) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that the proposed rule’s analysis on 

non-renewable energy development is 

lacking. 

Our Response: This final rule 

includes a revised and expanded 

evaluation of mineral and energy 

development (Factor A). 

(8) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that there are no data to support the 

conclusion that habitat conditions with 

respect to grazing are better on public 

lands than private lands, due in part to 

land health standards and more 

regulation. 

Our Response: We agree and have 

revised our statement in the final rule to 

more accurately reflect that in our 

analysis of grazing under Factor A. 

(9) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that the proposed rule states, with 

respect to fences, that ‘‘we anticipate 

that the effect on sage-grouse 

populations through the creation of new 

raptor perches and predator corridors 

into sagebrush habitats is similar to that 

of powerlines.’’ The reviewer did not 

think this assumption was correct. The 

commenter noted that differences in 

height between a fence post and a utility 

pole would theoretically result in 

different spatial scales of functional 

habitat loss due to differences in the 

distance from the perch a predator 

could see while perched. 

Our Response: The final rule has been 

revised to state that fence posts create 

perching places for raptors and corvids, 

which may increase their ability to prey 

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

Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 330; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 13–12). This 

topic is discussed in detail in Factor A 

of this rule. 

(10) Comment: A peer reviewer 

suggested that we review a recent article 

by Blomberg et al. 2012, related to 

climate change and invasive plants. 

This article suggests that characteristics 

of climate and landscape disturbance 

influence the dynamics of greater sagegrouse populations. 

Our Response: We reviewed this 

article and cited it in Factor A (Invasive 

Plants) and Factor E (Drought and 

Extreme Weather) of this rule. 

(11) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that the Utah population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse was at its highest in the 

1970s and 1980s (San Juan County 

Working Group (SJCWG) 2000, Lupis 

2005, Prather 2010). During this period, 

the peer reviewer stated, the primary 

agricultural crops in the county were 

winter wheat (Triticum spp.) and 

dryland alfalfa (Medicago spp.). Many 

growers did not use herbicides or 

insecticides at this time because of the 

slim profit margin in growing these 

crops. The peer reviewer suggested that 

these practices may have resulted in a 

greater arthropod abundance as a result 

of increased green vegetation and forb 

availability, providing more food 

resources for Gunnison sage-grouse. The 

reviewer also reported that during this 

period landowners frequently reported 

observing flocks of sage-grouse in their 

fields during harvest and post-harvest 

periods. 

Our Response: While sage-grouse may 

forage on agricultural croplands 

(Commons 1997, pp. 28–35), when 

possible, they tend to avoid landscapes 

dominated by agriculture (Aldridge et 

al. 2008, p. 991). Influences resulting 

from agricultural activities extend into 

adjoining sagebrush, and include 

increased predation and reduced nest 

success due to predators associated with 

agriculture (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7– 

23). Agricultural lands provide some 

benefits for sage-grouse as some crops 

such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa), winter 

wheat (Triticum aestivum), and pinto 

bean sprouts (Phaseolus spp.) are eaten 

or used seasonally for cover by 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Braun 1998, 

pers. comm., Lupis et al. 2006, entire). 

Agricultural fields and their 

management may provide a surplus of 

arthropods and forbs for Gunnison sagegrouse, and for hens with broods, in 

particular. Despite these seasonal 

benefits, crop monocultures do not 

provide adequate year-round food or 

sagebrush cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22– 

30). This topic is discussed in Factor A 

of this rule (Conversion to Agriculture). 

(12) Comment: One peer reviewer felt 

that the proposed rule neglected to 

discuss the importance of Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP) lands in Utah to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: Lands within the 

occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

enrolled into the CRP occur within 

Dolores and San Miguel counties in 

Colorado, and San Juan County in Utah 

(USDA FSA 2010, entire). A significant 

portion of the agricultural lands in the 

Monticello subpopulation are enrolled 

in the CRP program, and some CRP 

lands are sometimes used by Gunnison 

sage-grouse as early-brood-rearing and 

summer-late fall habitat when they are 

part of a landscape that otherwise 

encompasses the species’ seasonal 

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

Ward 2007, p. 15). 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. 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, these CRP lands 

are generally of lower value or quality 

than native sagebrush habitats. This 

topic is discussed further in Factor A 

(Conversion to Agriculture). 

(13) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that adult survival and nesting success 

in San Juan County was higher (Lupis 

2005, Ward 2007) than that reported for 

other populations (Young 1994, 

Commons 1997, Apa 2004). The 

reviewer hypothesized that this 

difference may be due to the effort in 

San Juan County to reduce mammalian 

and corvid depredation (Lupis 2005, 

Ward 2007). 

Our Response: While we acknowledge 

that predator control may be effective 

under certain circumstances, the cited 

studies did not evaluate the effect of 

predator control, nor was that their 

objective. They only speculated 

regarding the potential positive effects 

of predator control on the Monticello 

(San Juan County) population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. This topic is 

discussed further in Factor C (Predation) 

of this rule. 

(14) Comment: A peer reviewer 

reported that the Gunnison sage-grouse 

population in San Juan County may be 

stable or increasing based on increases 

in brood sizes and hatch success 

between 1974 and 2005 (UDWR 1974; 

Lupis 2005). This reviewer noted that 

this hypothesis was not supported by 

lek count indices, which indicated that 

the population was declining. 

Our Response: Lek count data from 

1996 through 2014 indicate a decline in 

the Monticello-Dove Creek population 

(located in the adjacent counties of San 

Juan, UT, and Dolores, CO, respectively) 

collectively and in both of these 

populations individually. Further, 

current population estimates are well 

below the Rangewide Conservation Plan 

(RCP) population target of 250 birds for 

each population alone (CPW 2013, p. 

12). Sample size for the aforementioned 

study was limited to three nests, and 

predator control at the time may have 

contributed to relatively high nesting 

success (Lupis 2005, entire); the 

inference to be drawn from the study is, 

therefore, limited. The best available 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

scientific information indicates that the 

Monticello-Dove Creek population is 

neither stable nor secure. This topic is 

discussed further in this rule in the 

Current Distribution and Population 

Estimates and Trends section below; 

and in Factor E (Small Population Size 

and Structure). 

(15) Comment: A peer reviewer 

provided data and information from 

pertinent studies conducted in Utah and 

Colorado that the reviewer thought 

could improve our analysis. 

Our Response: We reviewed the 

provided study information and 

literature and found that most had 

already been considered in our 

proposed rule. In this final rule, we 

included all new studies, data, and 

information relevant to our evaluation. 

(16) Comment: A peer reviewer 

thought that the proposed rule was 

missing a description and summary of 

the two decades of conservation actions 

completed by local communities, 

landowners, public and private 

agencies, and organizations in Utah and 

Colorado to conserve the species. The 

reviewer indicated that stakeholders in 

both States dedicated significant 

resources to conservation of the species 

that have abated numerous threats. The 

peer reviewer recommended expanding 

discussion of the efforts of the local 

working groups, the State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

counties, as well as Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, 

including the Sage-grouse Initiative 

Program. 

Our Response: We recognize the 

contributions made by multiple partners 

including private citizens, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

Tribal, State, and Federal agencies that 

are actively 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. The CCAA, Gunnison Basin 

CCA, conservation plans, habitat 

improvement projects, and similar 

conservation efforts that address habitatrelated issues are described and 

evaluated under Factor A (see 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Conservation) in this 

rule. Laws and regulations, conservation 

easements, and other regulatory 

mechanisms are evaluated under Factor 

D. Scientific research activities are 

described under Factor B and 

throughout this rule where applicable. 

Also, throughout this rule, conservation 

efforts are described under the relevant 

factor section. 

(17) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that the proposed rule provides 

information regarding the estimated 

historical occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitats, based largely on 

estimates of potential habitats. As such, 

these figures may overestimate the 

historical range of the species. The 

commenter noted that it is logical to 

assume that, if a species’ habitat 

declines, so will the population. 

However, the peer reviewer could not 

find any data to support the idea that 

populations have declined over time. 

Our Response: Our listing decision is 

based on the current status of Gunnison 

sage-grouse and the current and future 

threats to the species and its habitat. 

However, the loss of historical range 

and decline in abundance, and the 

associated causes, are informative in 

that they can be used to help forecast 

how populations and the species may 

respond to current and future threats. 

The onset of Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s resulted in 

significant alterations to sagebrush 

ecosystems throughout North America, 

primarily as a result of urbanization, 

agricultural conversion, and irrigation 

projects (West and Young 2000, pp. 

263–265; Miller et al. 2011, p. 147). 

Areas in Colorado that supported basin 

big sagebrush were among the first 

sagebrush community types converted 

to agriculture because their typical soils 

and topography are well suited for 

agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). 

Decreases in the abundance of sagegrouse paralleled the loss of range 

(Braun 1998, pp. 2–3), and a gradual but 

obvious decrease in sage-grouse 

distribution and numbers in Colorado 

had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, 

pp. 20–22). 

The best available information 

indicates a 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 and 

eastward trend of extirpation (Schroeder 

et al. 2004, p. 369, and references 

therein), meaning western and southern 

extents of the species’ former range are 

now lost. Based on historical records, 

museum specimens, and potential 

sagebrush habitat distribution, 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). This 

range included parts of central and 

southwestern Colorado, southeastern 

Utah, northwestern New Mexico, and 

northeastern Arizona (Schroeder et al. 

2004, pp. 368, 370). 

Braun et al. (2014, entire) provides 

more detail on historical distribution in 

Colorado that largely matches Schroeder 

et al. (2004). Not all of this historical 

range would have been occupied at any 

one time. The species’ estimated current 

range is 1,822 square miles, or 1,166,075 

ac, in central and southwestern 

Colorado, and southeastern Utah (Figure 

1) (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted 

from Schroeder et al. 2004, entire). 

Based on these figures, the species’ 

current range represents 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 

European settlement in the 1800s). As 

estimated in our final rule to designate 

critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register), the species’ ‘‘overall range’’ 

includes an estimated 1,621,008 ac in 

southwestern Colorado and 

southeastern Utah, comprising 923,314 

ac (57 percent) of occupied habitat and 

697,694 ac (43 percent) of unoccupied 

habitat. Based on these figures, the 

current overall range of 1,621,008 acres 

represents approximately 12 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. 

This topic is discussed further under 

our introduction to Factor A. 

(18) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that Davis (2012) suggested Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations in the 

Gunnison Basin declined slightly over 

the last 16 years, but that Davis 

concluded the Gunnison Basin 

population, which may comprise 85–90 

percent of the entire population, is 

relatively stable. Population projection 

models based on Davis’ 6-year study 

suggested that the Gunnison sage-grouse 

population in the Gunnison Basin is 

declining. However, the peer reviewer 

noted that lek count data extended 

farther back in time than the 

demographic estimates and showed that 

this population exhibited a considerable 

increase, so the peer reviewer indicated 

that inference from this study is limited. 

Our Response: Based on an integrated 

analysis of 16 years of lek count and 

demographic data (1996–2011), Davis 

found that the Gunnison Basin 

population may have been declining 

slightly through the period of study 

(Davis 2012, p. 137). That study 

indicated that the Gunnison Basin 

population may not be as stable as 

previously thought, although the time 

span of the study may not have been 

long enough to reveal a broader pattern 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69205 

in a larger cyclical time series (Davis 

2012, p. 38). A more recent manuscript 

by Davis et al. (in press) states that the 

Gunnison Basin population (1996–2012) 

is ‘‘slightly declining’’ (line 24), and, 

while the growth rate of this population 

has been variable, it is ‘‘near stable’’ 

(line 341). Consider also that the 

Gunnison Basin population may not be 

as large as lek count-based estimates 

suggest, which are based solely on 

counting males (Davis 2012, p. 136). 

Davis (2012, pp. 134, 136) found that, in 

comparison to demographic data, lek 

count data showed population growth 

rates that varied wildly and should be 

interpreted with caution. This is 

particularly true for the lek data 

collected prior to 1996, before the lek 

survey methodology was standardized 

(Davis 2012, pp. 136–139). Demographic 

stochastic simulations resulted in a 

mean extinction time of 58 years for the 

Gunnison Basin population, without 

removing any birds for translocation 

efforts (removal of birds decreased the 

estimated mean extinction time) (Davis 

2012, pp. 111, 137). Davis (2012, p. 92) 

noted, however, that if the study had 

been conducted just a few years earlier 

or later, a different trend across time 

could have resulted, because it was 

based on a 6-year period of time when 

the population was experiencing a slight 

decline. This study and other 

population viability analyses are 

evaluated in detail in Factor E (Small 

Population Size and Structure) of this 

rule. 

(19) Comment: One peer reviewer 

thought that it is difficult to assess what 

future conditions hold, be it vegetation 

responses to climate change or the 

effects of population growth and 

development resulting in fragmentation 

and associated effects on the species of 

conservation concern. The reviewer 

thought it is also difficult to evaluate 

how a species such as Gunnison sagegrouse might respond to projected 

changes, even 5 or 10 years into the 

future, let alone 50–100 years. Despite 

these uncertainties, the peer reviewer 

considered the short- and long-term 

viability for six of the seven populations 

of Gunnison sage-grouse to be tenuous, 

at best. 

Our Response: We agree with the 

reviewer that it is difficult to predict 

what will happen in the future. 

However, the Act requires us to 

determine if a species is endangered (in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range) or 

threatened (likely to become and 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). Thus, 

we are required to make assumptions or 

predictions into the future based on the 

best available information. 

We agree with the reviewer that the 

viability of the six smaller (‘‘satellite’’) 

populations is at risk (see Small 

Population Size and Structure below 

under Factor E). 

(20) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that, while the Gunnison basin 

population appears to have stabilized 

more recently within a population 

cycle, the number of current and future 

threats makes one question whether this 

population will remain viable into the 

future. The reviewer thought existing 

threats, or levels of threats, appear to 

already threaten the Gunnison basin 

population. This reviewer questioned 

whether the remaining Gunnison basin 

population will persist, if other smaller 

populations disappear, which seems 

likely in the near future without 

considerable management efforts, given 

projected future threats. The reviewer 

also questioned whether the localized 

nature of a single remaining population 

in the Gunnison Basin is enough to 

prevent extirpation of the species, 

considering potential stochastic events 

and the likely continued and increasing 

effects of habitat degradation and 

fragmentation. 

Our Response: Based on the best 

available information, we found that 

survival of the Gunnison Basin 

population alone would be insufficient 

to ensure the species’ long-term 

persistence in the face of ongoing and 

future threats (see Factor E (Small 

Population Size and Structure)). 

(21) Comment: One peer reviewer 

questioned whether the Service had 

access to the considerable amount of 

telemetry data collected by Colorado 

Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in recent 

years, primarily for birds located in the 

Gunnison Basin. This reviewer fully 

supported the use of existing 

information and models, in lieu of 

restricted access to other important data. 

The reviewer thought that the Service 

had done a realistic job of proceeding 

with existing information, whether it be 

from model applications to assist with 

broader habitat identification across the 

Gunnison Basin (see Aldridge et al. 

2012), or biological information and 

responses (i.e., effects of fences on sagegrouse mortality) based on studies 

conducted on the closely related greater 

sage-grouse. 

Our Response: We do not have access 

to the telemetry data collected by CPW. 

This data has not been published. We 

do have some telemetry information 

provided in overview maps and the 

information was discussed in meetings. 

As pointed out in the Species 

Information section, Gunnison sagegrouse and greater sage-grouse (a 

similar, closely related species) have 

similar life histories and habitat 

requirements (Young 1994, p. 44). In 

this final rule, we use scientific 

information specific to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse where available but also 

apply scientific management principles 

and scientific information for greater 

sage-grouse that are relevant to 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation 

needs and strategies, a practice followed 

by the wildlife and land management 

agencies that have responsibility for 

management of both species and their 

habitat. We have considered the best 

available information in our assessment, 

including data and studies provided by 

CPW. 

(22) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that the effects of powerlines are not all 

the same, depending on the type of the 

powerline. The peer reviewer requested 

that we clarify what types of powerlines 

we are referring to, and which were 

evaluated in each of the studies we 

address. 

Our Response: As described in this 

rule, depending on the infrastructure 

design, size, location, and site-specific 

factors, powerlines can directly affect 

greater sage-grouse by posing a collision 

and electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, 

pp. 145–146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

974) and can have indirect effects by 

decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. 

2002, p. 10, Walker et al. 2007a, p. 

2,644), increasing predation (Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 12–13, Howe et al. 2014), 

fragmenting habitat (Braun 1998, p. 

146), and facilitating the invasion of 

exotic annual plants (Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 612; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25). 

We also specify types of powerlines 

(transmission or distribution) and their 

effects on Gunnison sage-grouse as 

appropriate. This topic is discussed 

further in Factor A (Powerlines) of this 

rule. 

(23) Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that the proposed rule reads 

as though Wisdom et al. (2011) tested 

electromagnetic fields and found sagegrouse avoidance of them. The reviewer 

indicates that was not the case. Wisdom 

et al. (2011) found a correlation between 

sage-grouse extirpations and the 

presence of powerlines. The reviewer 

suggested this effect may be related to 

electromagnetic fields. The reviewer 

cautioned that we ensure here, and 

throughout, that this supposition is not 

presented as a finding. 

Our Response: We revised our 

analysis to explicitly state that no 

studies have been conducted 

specifically on the effects of 

electromagnetic fields on sage-grouse. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

This topic is discussed further in Factor 

A (Powerlines) of this rule. 

(24) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that Gregg et al. (2004) did not actually 

test grazing impacts on vegetation 

causing reduction in nest success. 

Rather, they found that lower heights of 

grass cover (below 18 cm) resulted in 

increased nest predation. The peer 

reviewer suggested that careful choice of 

wording may be necessary to accurately 

reflect what was evaluated and found by 

a study, versus what was inferred and 

speculated from the results of the study. 

The reviewer stated that our proposed 

rule suggested that Gregg et al. (2004) 

evaluated livestock reduction in grass 

heights and showed a direct link to 

reduced nesting success for sage-grouse, 

which was not the case. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

clarified that, Gregg et al. (1994, p. 165) 

speculated that the reduction of grass 

heights due to livestock grazing in sagegrouse nesting and brood-rearing areas 

may negatively affect nesting success 

when cover is reduced below the 18 cm 

(7 in.) needed for predator avoidance. 

This topic is discussed further under 

Factor A (Domestic Grazing and Wild 

Ungulate Herbivory). 

(25) Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that one could argue that 

livestock grazing on private lands might 

be better managed than public lands, 

because individual landowners may be 

more cognizant of grazing practices on 

those lands. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

state that livestock grazing allotments 

containing both Federal and private 

lands can often be managed by Federal 

agencies to meet land health standards 

through coordination and cooperation 

with grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, p. 

1–2). However, we have no information 

on the extent of grazing, management, or 

habitat conditions on private lands in 

Gunnison sage-grouse range, and 

therefore cannot make a definitive 

assessment of these areas. Furthermore, 

although Federal land and livestock 

grazing may be more regulated, we 

cannot make any generalizations about 

how habitat conditions in those areas 

might compare with private lands where 

livestock grazing occurs. This topic is 

discussed further under Factor A 

(Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate 

Herbivory). 

(26) Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that the table displaying 

Land Health Standard data on Federal 

lands in Gunnison sage-grouse range is 

confusing. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

restructured the table and included 

additional columns and figures to better 

show how numbers were calculated (see 

Table 8 in Factor A (Domestic Grazing 

and Wild Ungulate Herbivory)). The 

information in the table was also 

updated based on comments received 

from Federal agencies during the public 

comment periods for the proposed rules. 

(27) Comment: One peer reviewer 

commented that mortality of handled 

Gunnison sage-grouse (ranging between 

zero and seven percent) could be 

significant. The peer reviewer would 

prefer to see a summary of the 

percentages by study and age class of 

birds handled and a sample size to 

indicate the potential overall population 

effect. The reviewer suggested that we 

link the summary to match with the 

cited number of research related 

mortalities being typically below three 

percent. The rule stated that ‘‘Mortality 

from scientific research is low (two 

percent) and is not a threat.’’ These all 

need appropriate citations, and the 

differences between these numbers 

should be reconciled. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

describe why, overall, we expect that 

scientific research and related 

conservation efforts, such as 

translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

have a net conservation benefit for the 

species. However, some unintended, but 

minor negative effects are known to 

occur in the process. This topic is 

addressed further in Factor B (Scientific 

Research and Related Conservation 

Efforts, see especially Table 11 

summarizing various research efforts). 

(28) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that in our table of conservation 

easements, we have cumulated the 

percentages based on the area in 

easements out of the total area 

(rangewide) considered, as opposed to 

taking the average of the percentages for 

each population. 

Our Response: In this final rule we 

updated conservation easement 

information and acres, based on Lohr 

and Gray (2013, entire) (see Factor A 

(Other Regulatory Mechanisms: 

Conservation Easements)). Therein, we 

provide conservation easement acres by 

population and rangewide in occupied 

and unoccupied habitats. We feel this is 

a better representation of lands 

protected under conservation easement 

for Gunnison sage-grouse; averaging 

those values across populations would 

not accurately depict protected acres for 

the species. 

(29) Comment: A peer reviewer 

expressed concern about what the 

reviewer perceived as the frequent use 

of speculation and commentaries as 

empirical evidence. The peer reviewer 

stated that we speculate about proposed 

threats (e.g., climate change) that we 

have no information on how they may, 

or may not, affect Gunnison sage-grouse. 

The reviewer stated that we also 

frequently use vague language (i.e., 

‘‘may have’’, or ‘‘is likely to’’) and then 

make definitive statements about 

Gunnison sage-grouse in support for the 

proposed listing decision. 

Our Response: As noted above, 

throughout this rule, we have carefully 

identified and qualified instances of 

speculation or hypotheses from past 

scientific studies and publications. Our 

identification of current and future 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse is based 

on the best available scientific 

information, and we acknowledge 

where there is uncertainty associated 

with data or predictions. For instance, 

in this final rule, we discuss that 

climate change predictions are based on 

models with assumptions, and there are 

uncertainties regarding the magnitude of 

associated climate change parameters 

such as the amount and timing of 

precipitation and seasonal temperature 

changes. 

There is also uncertainty as to the 

magnitude of effects of predicted 

climate parameters on sagebrush plant 

community dynamics. These factors 

make it difficult to predict whether, or 

to what extent, climate change will 

affect Gunnison sage-grouse. We 

recognize that climate change has the 

potential to alter Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat by facilitating an increase in the 

distribution of cheatgrass and 

concurrently increasing the potential for 

wildfires, and reducing herbaceous 

vegetation and insect production in 

drought years, all of which would have 

negative effects on Gunnison sagegrouse. 

This topic is discussed further in 

Factor A (Climate Change) of this rule, 

and in Factor E (Drought and Extreme 

Weather). 

(30) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that we frequently make generalizations 

about the decline of Gunnison sagegrouse abundance, such as, 

‘‘Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats 

are a primary cause of the decline of 

Gunnison and greater sage-grouse 

populations.’’ However, the reviewer 

notes, lek counts in the Gunnison Basin 

population are currently at historic high 

levels and have increased substantially 

since the mid-1990s. The reviewer 

further notes that lek counts from 2005– 

2007 were the highest counts recorded 

in the Gunnison Basin population. 

Since 2007, lek counts in Gunnison 

Basin have averaged 703 males. 

Our Response: Loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat is discussed in Factor A of this 

rule. Population trends based on 1996– 

2014 lek count data show stable to 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69207 

slightly declining levels from 1996 

through 2004, then the high levels 

mentioned from 2005–2007; followed by 

lower but stable levels since (see Figure 

2). The 2008–2014 population level is 

higher than levels prior to 2005, but 

around 20 percent lower than the 2006 

peak (CPW 2014e. p.2). Population 

trends are discussed further in the 

section, Current Distribution and 

Population Estimates and Trends; and 

Factor E (Small Population Size and 

Structure) of this rule. Also see our 

response to State Comment 5 below. 

(31) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that we had not presented a case 

that Gunnison sage-grouse are in danger 

of extirpation in the Gunnison Basin. It 

is the largest of all Gunnison sagegrouse populations, and three different 

population viability analyses have all 

concluded it is relatively stable. 

Our Response: In our proposed rule to 

list Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered 

(78 FR 2486; January 11, 2013), we 

found that the species is in danger of 

extinction throughout its range, 

primarily due to habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation 

associated with residential and human 

development across its range and, in 

particular, in the Gunnison Basin. In 

this final rule we determined that the 

species is not currently in danger of 

extinction throughout its range, but is 

likely to become so in the foreseeable 

future. As a result, this final rule lists 

the species as threatened rather than 

endangered. The basis for this decision 

is set out in the Determination section 

below. We also assess the three 

population viability analyses (PVA) for 

the Gunnison Basin and other 

populations in Factor E (Effective 

Population Size and Population 

Viability Analyses). 

(32) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that we present the PVA from the 

Rangewide Conservation Plan. However, 

the reviewer noted that there are two 

other PVAs we need to address: Garton 

(2005) and Davis (2012). 

Our Response: All three available 

PVAs for Gunnison sage-grouse are 

included in our assessment in this final 

rule (Factor E, Effective Population Size 

and Population Viability Analyses). 

Also see our response to peer review 

comment 31 above. 

(33) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that in referring to the PVA in the 

Rangewide Conservation Plan, we state 

that small populations (<50 birds) are 

‘‘at a serious risk of extinction within 

the next 50 years (assuming some degree 

of consistency of environmental 

influences in sage-grouse 

demography).’’ (p. 2531). However, 

environmental and democratic 

stochasticity were incorporated into the 

model (i.e., the model does not assume 

‘‘consistency of environmental 

influences’’). 

Our Response: The RCP and actual 

PVA (see GSRSC 2005, pp. 170 and G– 

27) state that the estimates assumed 

some degree of consistency of 

environmental factors over time. This 

topic is discussed further in Factor E 

(Small Population Size and Structure). 

(34) Comment: A peer reviewer 

commented that we misapply the terms 

habitat loss, fragmentation, and loss. 

Our Response: In the scientific 

literature and community there are 

widely varying interpretations of habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation 

processes, and various methods are 

applied to measure these processes. 

Therefore, in this final rule, we 

collectively refer to these processes as 

habitat decline, as prefaced in the Factor 

A section below. However, we do not 

alter the terminology as applied by peerreviewed or other studies. For instance, 

if a particular study evaluated and 

presented results on habitat 

fragmentation, we did not interpret the 

study or authors to mean habitat loss, 

instead. This topic is discussed further 

in our introduction to Factor A in this 

rule. 

(35) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that we argue more than once that while 

individual human activities or features 

may not be a significant threat, it is the 

cumulative impact of all these features 

that threatens the Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, the peer reviewer stated that 

this reasoning ignores the spatial (and 

temporal) variation in these potential 

threats. The reviewer is of the opinion 

that proposed threats are not uniformly 

distributed across space and therefore 

will not uniformly impact Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations. The reviewer 

stated that development will only 

impact a very small proportion of the 

habitat in Gunnison Basin and will be 

restricted to zoned areas. The reviewer 

stated that preliminary analyses indicate 

that Gunnison sage-grouse are flexible 

in their movement patterns and the 

habitats they use (CPW Demography 

and Movement project, in prep.). The 

reviewer stated that the cumulative 

negative impacts are not as likely as we 

seem to assume. 

Our Response: The historic loss of 

habitat and current isolation of once 

connected populations, the declining 

status of several satellite populations, 

and presence of current and future 

threats to habitat all indicate that the 

cumulative loss or decline of habitat has 

negatively influenced populations and 

the species as a whole and is likely to 

continue to do so into the future. This 

topic is discussed further in our 

introduction to Factor A in this rule. 

Threats to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

are also discussed under Factor A in 

this rule. We agree that future 

residential development in occupied 

habitat in the Gunnison Basin is likely 

to be more limited than we presented in 

the proposed rule (see Factor A 

(Residential Development), but 

nonetheless find, for the reasons stated 

in Factor A, that this development 

remains a threat to the species and 

supports our determination that the 

species is likely to become in danger of 

extinction throughout its range in the 

foreseeable future. 

(36) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that, related to livestock grazing, 

Williams and Hild (2011) showed that 

vegetation conditions in the Gunnison 

Basin met, or exceeded, the habitat 

structural guidelines in the Rangewide 

Conservation Plan. The peer reviewer 

also stated that we misrepresented the 

objective of this study in our proposed 

rule, stating that it was not a grazing 

study and therefore our criticism is not 

valid. With 392 transects distributed 

across Gunnison Basin for this study, 

the reviewer did not understand our 

statement that ‘‘sampling is limited’’ 

(p. 2503). 

Our Response: Because livestock 

grazing effects were not an objective of 

the Williams and Hild (2011) study, the 

extent of past or ongoing livestock 

grazing in these areas was not described, 

nor did the study compare un-grazed to 

grazed areas. The Williams and Hild 

study found that habitat conditions are 

likely favorable to Gunnison sage-grouse 

in a portion of the Gunnison Basin 

(Williams and Hild 2011, entire), 

although the relationship to livestock 

grazing effects in those areas is 

unknown. In this final rule, we clarify 

that there is limited ability to make 

inferences from this study for other 

areas in the Gunnison Basin, due to 

limitations of the study. Transect 

locations for the study were prioritized 

and selected in areas used by radiocollared Gunnison sage-grouse, 

potentially biasing study results. 

Therefore, the relationship between 

livestock grazing and habitat conditions 

is unclear in this study, and there is 

limited ability to infer from its 

conditions in other portions of the 

Gunnison Basin not prioritized for 

sampling. This topic is discussed 

further in Factor A (Domestic Grazing 

and Wildlife Herbivory) of this rule. 

(37) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 

that our discussion of ‘‘presettlement’’ 

distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse 

was highly speculative. The peer 

reviewer also stated that we assume that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Gunnison sage-grouse distribution 

closely matches the distribution of 

sagebrush, and that this assumption is 

used by some authors (e.g., Schroeder, 

et al. 2004, Wisdom et al. 2011), but is 

not necessarily true. The peer reviewer 

stated that the map by Schroeder et al. 

(2004) is not meant to be a definitive 

description that accurately defines 

historical distribution, but a 

generalization based on available 

information (i.e., the model includes 

areas that are not habitat and omits 

other areas that are habitat). The peer 

reviewer noted that we also state 

Gunnison sage-grouse distribution 

depends on large areas of contiguous 

sagebrush. The peer reviewer also noted 

that this assumption does not seem to be 

well supported since Gunnison sagegrouse have existed in small, isolated 

populations for decades (Rogers 1964). 

Our Response: Related to potential 

historical range of Gunnison sagegrouse, and the estimated loss of 

historical range, see our response to 

Peer Reviewer Comment 17 above. 

Related to our position that the species 

depends on sagebrush on a landscape 

scale for its survival, the best available 

science supports this, and it is an 

empirical principle widely accepted by 

sage-grouse biologists and the scientific 

community. As discussed in this rule, 

Gunnison sage-grouse depend on 

sagebrush for their survival and 

persistence, and 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). Habitat 

fragmentation resulting from human 

development patterns is especially 

detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse 

because of their dependence on large 

expanses of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, 

p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–1; 

Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 72) and more 

contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers 

1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

452–453). The overall declining status 

of several of the satellite populations 

(despite translocation/augmentation 

efforts) does not support the idea that 

the species is capable of persisting at 

low levels or in isolated conditions. 

Refer to Factor E in this rule for more 

discussion on this topic. 

(38) Comment: A peer reviewer noted 

that we describe the genetic work by 

Oyler-McCance et al. (1999, 2005) that 

illustrates the lower genetic diversity of 

Gunnison sage-grouse compared to 

greater sage-grouse, and the lower 

genetic diversity of the small Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations compared to 

the Gunnison Basin population. The 

peer reviewer asserted that lower 

genetic diversity may have important 

consequences, but it is unlikely to have 

an effect anytime in the near future and 

that it must be demonstrated that low 

genetic diversity has negative 

consequences on individuals and 

populations. 

The peer reviewer stated that it is 

inappropriate to suggest that there is a 

specific population size that is 

necessary for long-term population 

survival from a genetic perspective (i.e., 

that there should be 500–5,000 

Gunnison sage-grouse in a population 

for it to be viable). The peer reviewer 

commented that the genetic viability of 

a population depends on the effective 

population size, the type of genetic 

variation in the population, and type of 

selection acting on the population. The 

peer reviewer noted it is possible that 

animals can rapidly adapt to inbreeding 

by the selective elimination of the genes 

responsible for inbreeding depression 

and although highly speculative, this 

may be operating in the small, isolated 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. So, 

the peer reviewer suggested that to 

argue that inbreeding depression due to 

low genetic diversity is a basis for 

listing the species as endangered is not 

warranted without empirical data 

focused on this specific question. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

have determined that listing the species 

as threatened, not endangered, is the 

appropriate determination. We describe 

the potential negative consequences of 

genetic deterioration associated with 

small population size and geographic 

isolation under Factor E (Genetic 

Risks)). We also discuss this topic and 

other relevant information further under 

Factor E (Small Population Size and 

Structure) in this rule. 

Comments From States 

(1) Comment: The Arizona Game and 

Fish Department noted that there are no 

records of Gunnison sage-grouse ever 

existing in Arizona, and estimates of 

historical range in northeastern Arizona 

are based on pre-settlement occurrence 

of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), which has 

largely been extirpated. Consequently, 

no viable habitat remains for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse in Arizona. Any 

future restoration efforts should focus 

on the remaining core distributions in 

Colorado and Utah. 

Our Response: Identification of 

potential pre-settlement Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in Arizona was based on 

both historical sagebrush distribution 

and a 1937 observation of sage-grouse in 

the northeastern corner of that state 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368–369, and 

references therein). Restoration or 

reintroduction of Gunnison sage-grouse 

in Arizona is not being proposed. 

(2) Comment: The Colorado Office of 

the Governor noted that letters had been 

sent from Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

(CPW) and Colorado Department of 

Agriculture (CDA), and recommended 

that the Gunnison sage-grouse should be 

determined not warranted for listing. 

Our Response: The Colorado Office of 

the Governor referenced CPW and CDA 

letters in support of a not warranted 

determination for Gunnison sage-grouse, 

but provided no other information or 

data to support their position. We 

acknowledge receipt of letters from 

CPW and CDA. Their comments will be 

addressed in further detail in this 

section. Our listing determination for 

the Gunnison sage-grouse is explained 

in this final rule. 

(3) Comment: CPW recommended the 

following hierarchy in the evaluation of 

biology and threats. 

a. Use of only Gunnison sage-grouse 

data when it exists. 

b. If Gunnison sage-grouse data does 

not exist, use greater sage-grouse data 

closest to Gunnison sage-grouse range in 

Colorado or Utah. 

c. If greater sage-grouse data from 

adjacent populations does not exist, 

then proceed with the appropriate 

cautions and limited inference to 

available information within the range 

of greater sage-grouse. 

Another State commenter suggested 

that references to greater sage-grouse be 

omitted altogether. 

Our Response: We generally used the 

above approach recommended by CPW, 

although we did not distinguish 

between greater sage-grouse data from 

populations closest to Gunnison sagegrouse’s range. We did not explicitly 

state that in the proposed rule––we 

stated that the ‘‘best available scientific 

and commercial data’’ were used. We 

also noted that we used information 

specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse 

where available but still applied 

scientific management principles for 

greater sage-grouse that we determined 

were relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse 

management needs and strategies. We 

followed the same approach in this final 

rule. 

(4) Comment: CPW and CDA stated 

that lek counts in the San Miguel, 

Crawford, and Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa populations have increased 

in recent years, in contrast to the 

statement in the listing proposal that 

population trends over the last 12 years 

indicate that six of the populations are 

in decline. 

Our Response: We used the same 

CPW lek survey data that these 

comments refer to in our assessment of 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69209 

population trends from 2001 through 

2012. Our conclusion was that the six 

smaller populations had stable to 

declining numbers from the first half of 

the survey period (2001–2006) to the 

second half of the survey period (2007– 

2012). We agree that the three 

previously mentioned populations have 

increased in the past 2–3 years, along 

with Pin ̃ on Mesa, as indicated in Figure 

3 in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 

2492, January 11, 2013). However, these 

populations are not at higher levels than 

in 2001–2006. It should also be noted 

that these declining trends in the 

smaller populations have occurred 

despite translocation efforts (see 

Scientific Research and Related 

Conservation Efforts). Without these 

translocations, bird numbers likely 

would be lower for these populations. 

Furthermore, in this final listing rule, 

we analyzed population estimates over 

a longer period, based on lek count data 

from 1996–2014 (lek count protocols 

were standardized in 1996 by CPW). 

Similar to our previous analysis, the 

long-term data indicate that, despite 

slight increases in the past several years, 

the satellite populations have declined 

overall, with the possible exception of 

the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population, which appears to be stable 

or increasing, and Pin ̃on Mesa, with its 

highest count since standardized lek 

counts began in 1996. This topic is 

discussed further in the Current 

Distribution and Population Estimates 

and Trends section of this rule. 

(5) Comment: CPW stated that the 

listing proposal does not acknowledge 

that male counts from recent lek surveys 

are at historic high levels in the 

Gunnison Basin, and notes that prior to 

1996, surveys lacked a standard 

protocol and may have had an 

inconsistent counting effort. 

Our Response: The proposed listing 

rule stated that the Gunnison Basin 

population, while variable, has been 

relatively stable over the past 13 years. 

As the commenter noted, survey data 

was not standardized until 1996, 

making comparisons between current 

populations and populations prior to 

1996 difficult. If data from 1953–2014 

are considered, the highest lek count 

occurred in 2006, as shown in Figure 2 

in this final listing rule. However, 

apparent increases in population size 

based on lek count data may be the 

result of increased survey effort in 

recent years. Davis (2012, p. 139) noted 

a sharp increase in lek areas counted in 

1996, when the protocol for lek counts 

was standardized in the Gunnison 

Basin. Therefore, the variation in the lek 

counts may reflect a change in survey 

effort and not a change in population 

size. (Also see Davis 2012, p. 143, 

Figure 5.1, which displays the increase 

in lek areas counted beginning around 

1996.) Additionally, Davis (2012, pp. 

137–138) and Davis et al. (in press) 

indicate that the Gunnison Basin 

population, although relatively stable, 

has declined slightly in recent years, 

following earlier increases. These topics 

are discussed further in the following 

sections of this rule: Current 

Distribution and Population Estimates 

and Trends; and Small Population Size 

and Structure. 

(6) Comment: CPW stated that both 

the PVA described in the RCP (GSRSC 

2005) and the Garton (2005) PVA should 

be referenced and considered in the 

final rule. Another commenter stated 

that the Garton (2005) PVA 

overestimated the species’ long-term 

viability. 

Our Response: We describe and 

evaluate the RCP and Garton PVAs, as 

well as that of Davis (2012), in this final 

rule (see Factor E). 

(7) Comment: CPW noted that the 

proposed rule to list the species cites 

the RCP PVA regarding the risk of 

extinction for small populations less 

than 50 birds, but does not explain why 

several small populations have persisted 

at low numbers for decades. 

Our Response: The Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population has 

had an estimated population of less than 

50 birds for 14 of the past 16 years. The 

Poncha Pass population has remained at 

less than 50 birds from 1999–2014, and 

lek surveys found no birds in 2013. 

Poncha Pass is nearing extirpation, and 

the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population may also be at risk––with 

five small leks known in the Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron subpopulations and 

only one lek, which is inactive, in the 

Sims Mesa subpopulation. The four 

remaining satellite populations 

generally have population estimates of 

more than 50 birds, but less than 500 

birds. These four populations would be 

expected to persist for a longer period 

of time than the two smallest 

populations, but are not secure from the 

threats described in this final rule 

below. Additionally, as noted in our 

response to State comment 4, several 

smaller populations have been 

augmented with birds from the 

Gunnison Basin population. Without 

these translocations, the numbers would 

have likely been lower for these 

populations. 

As presented in this final rule, based 

on 1996–2014 lek count data, a number 

of the satellite populations are 

declining. Several population viability 

analyses indicate a high extinction risk 

for all of the satellite populations (see 

response to Peer Review comment 31 

above). Our assessment of the current 

and future threats to these populations 

indicates that these trends are likely to 

continue if the threats are not 

addressed. The best available 

information indicates a reduction of 

Gunnison sage-grouse distribution since 

Euro-American settlement in the 1800s, 

with evidence of the loss of peripheral 

populations and a northward and 

eastward trend of extirpation (Schroeder 

et al. 2004, pp. 369, 371, and references 

therein). These downward trends and 

historical losses further indicate the 

high vulnerability of the satellite 

populations to extirpation. These topics 

are discussed further in the following 

sections of this rule: Current 

Distribution and Population Estimates 

and Trends; and Small Population Size 

and Structure. 

(8) Comment: CPW stated that an 

updated refinement of historical habitat 

estimated by Schroeder et al. (2004) is 

critical to an accurate assessment of 

changes in distribution, since they 

believe this study likely overestimates 

the historical range of Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Our Response: Historical range 

estimates from Schroeder et al. (2004, 

pp. 370–371) were modified by the RCP 

(GSRSC 2005, pp. 34–35) based on more 

complete information on historical and 

current habitat and distribution of the 

species. We are not aware of any further 

refinements to estimates of historical 

range. Information from Braun et al. 

(2014) matches information presented 

by Schroeder et al. (2004) and does not 

add or detract from changes & additions 

to historical range presented in the RCP 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 33–35). Consequently, 

the RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) provides 

the best available information 

concerning the likely historical range of 

the species. That information indicates 

that the Gunnison sage-grouse currently 

occupies about 8.5 percent of its 

potential historical range. Further 

analysis in this final rule indicates that 

approximately 88 to 93 percent of the 

historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

has been lost since Euro-American 

settlement. While there is some 

uncertainty in all of these figures, the 

best available information indicates 

there has been a considerable loss of 

habitat and a reduction in the range and 

distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our listing decision is based on the 

current status of Gunnison sage-grouse 

and the current and future threats to the 

species and its habitat. However, the 

loss of historical range and decline in 

Gunnison sage-grouse abundance, and 

their causes, have contributed to the 

species’ current status. This topic is 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69210 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

discussed further in our introduction to 

Factor A of this rule. 

(9) Comment: CPW noted a 

discrepancy between current occupied 

range estimates of 4,720 square 

kilometers (km2) in our 2006 decision 

and 3,795 km2 in the 2013 proposed 

rule to list the species, which results in 

a loss of 925 km2 of currently occupied 

range. 

Our Response: Both estimates cite 

GSRSC (2005). However, the 2006 final 

listing determination used an initial 

estimate based on Schroeder et al. 

(2004). The 2013 estimate is a refined 

estimate based on the GSRSC and CPW 

data. 

(10) Comment: CPW recommended 

that we rely primarily on Rogers (1964) 

to determine historic distribution of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and noted three 

citations of Rogers (1964) in the 

proposed rule to list the species that 

should more precisely quote the author. 

Another commenter stated that historic 

distribution estimates by Rogers (1964) 

are inferior to Schroeder et al. (2004). 

Our Response: Rogers (1964) was 

written prior to the identification of 

Gunnison sage-grouse as a separate 

species, and summarized overall sagegrouse distribution in Colorado 

(including greater sage-grouse) based on 

both qualitative and quantitative data 

and reports from various sources. This 

study is informative in that it provides 

a broad picture of the species’ status, 

distribution, and trends in Colorado 

over time, among other data and 

information. As such, Rogers (1964) is 

considered and cited in this final rule. 

However, the study did not conduct a 

spatial analysis of the species’ potential 

historic range or the loss of habitat over 

time, as was done by Schroeder et al. 

(2004, entire). Consequently, we 

concluded it is appropriate to consider 

and evaluate this more recent, 

quantitative study specific to Gunnison 

sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 2004, 

entire), as modified by GSRSC (2005, 

pp. 34–35). We verified information 

derived from Rogers (1964, entire) and 

provided more precise citations in this 

final rule. 

(11) Comment: CPW noted that the 

Wisdom et al. (2011) standard for 

identifying a population stronghold 

could likely never have been met in the 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse, even 

historically, due to the high elevation 

basins and naturally fragmented nature 

of sagebrush communities in Colorado. 

Our Response: We agree that the 

distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat is naturally disconnected due to 

the presence of unsuitable habitats such 

as forests, deserts, and canyons across 

the landscape (Rogers 1964, p. 19). This 

is evident in Figure 18.1 of Wisdom et 

al. (2011). The authors combined the 

occupied and extirpated ranges of both 

greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sagegrouse for their ‘‘stronghold’’ analysis. 

Given the much larger range of greater 

sage-grouse, with typically larger 

patches of contiguous sagebrush habitat, 

conclusions from the analysis are likely 

more applicable to greater sage-grouse. 

Therefore, in this final rule, we discuss 

Wisdom et al. (2011, entire) and its 

conclusions, but do not further use the 

term ‘‘stronghold’’ because the term, 

based on the scale of analysis, was more 

applicable to greater sage-grouse. This 

topic and study is discussed further in 

our introduction to Factor A in this rule, 

and throughout the rule where 

applicable. 

(12) Comment: CPW and others stated 

that the proposed rule used the rate of 

residential development associated with 

the entirety of Gunnison County, 

including the Crested Butte area, and is 

not representative of development rates 

in Gunnison sage-grouse habitats. Other 

commenters also noted that human 

population growth rates have slowed in 

recent years leading to slower rates of 

development. Lastly, commenters 

recommended that a single source of 

human population growth (such as 

Colorado Department of Local Affairs) 

be used. Other commenters suggested 

that the human population is increasing. 

Our Response: Our estimates 

regarding human population growth in 

the Gunnison Basin in the proposed rule 

to list the species were largely based on 

Colorado Water Conservation Board 

studies that included all of Gunnison 

County, including areas not occupied by 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and were derived 

before the economic downturn (78 FR 

2495, January 11, 2013). We recognize 

that a large portion of projected human 

population growth for Gunnison County 

is expected to occur outside of 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat, 

such as in the Crested Butte area and 

within the City of Gunnison. For this 

final rule, we apply current data from 

the Colorado Department of Local 

Affairs to our analysis of human 

population growth and project 

residential development in Gunnison 

and other counties across the Gunnison 

sage-grouse range. For each sage-grouse 

population area, we consider total 

private lands available for development 

as a proportion of total occupied habitat, 

accounting for perpetual conservation 

easements that would preclude or limit 

such development. This analysis 

indicates that human populations are 

expected to continue increasing across 

the species’ range, but that residential 

development is a threat of a low 

magnitude in the Gunnison Basin now, 

but is expected to increase in the future. 

Residential development is a substantial 

current and future threat to the San 

Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations. 

This topic is discussed further in the 

Factor A, Residential Development 

section of this final rule. 

(13) Comment: CPW disagreed with 

the conclusion in the proposed rule that 

roads are a ‘‘major threat’’ to the 

continued existence of Gunnison sagegrouse and stated that the proposed rule 

used speculation from Oyler-McCance 

et al. (2001) that overstated the threat 

from roads and powerlines. 

Our Response: In its discussion of 

roads, the proposed rule stated that 

‘‘Roads within Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitats have been shown to impede 

movement of local populations between 

the resultant patches, with road 

avoidance presumably being a 

behavioral means to limit exposure to 

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

330).’’ The proposed rule then gave 

several examples, with additional 

citations, of impacts due to roads 

including: increased disturbance, 

corridors for predators, invasion of 

exotic plants, and resultant avoidance 

by sage-grouse. The proposed rule does 

not cite Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) in 

its discussion of powerlines. In this 

final rule, we describe impacts from 

roads and conclude that increased road 

use and construction will continue at 

least through 2050, and is a current and 

future threat to the species (see Factor 

A). 

(14) Comment: CPW and one other 

commenter questioned the use of 

Aldridge et al. (2012) regarding nest site 

selection and urged caution in applying 

results across the entire Gunnison 

Basin, particularly the firm conclusion 

that habitat within 2.5 km (1.6 miles 

(mi)) of roads and residential 

developments is unsuitable for the 

species. CPW also presented data from 

a GIS analysis that it conducted. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule to 

list the species, we did not use 2.5 km 

(1.6 mi) in any recommendations 

regarding thresholds for nest selection; 

although we did cite papers by Aldridge 

et al. (2008 and 2011). We agree that 

some recommendations from the 

modeling effort completed by Aldridge 

et al. (2012) are based on confusing 

probabilities regarding selection of nest 

sites, in particular, the relationship 

between relative probability of nest 

occurrence and distance to residential 

development. Figure 5f in Aldridge et 

al. (2012) indicates that the probability 

of nest occurrence is greatest when the 

nest is approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi) 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69211 

from development. This probability 

decreases at both shorter and greater 

distances from development; although 

one would expect the probability of nest 

occurrence to continue to increase with 

increasing distance from residential 

development. The variable of residential 

density was more intuitive, with the 

likelihood of nesting decreasing with 

increasing residential density. Other 

variables such as the proportion of 

sagebrush cover and road density had 

more influence on nest site selection 

and were also more intuitive. For 

example, the probability of nesting 

decreased abruptly with decreasing 

sagebrush cover and with increasing 

road density. In this final rule, we 

updated our older citation (Aldridge et 

al. 2011); we added a citation regarding 

CPW’s preliminary GIS analysis of the 

frequency of successful and 

unsuccessful nests at increasing 

distances from roads (CPW 2013b); and 

we do not apply spatial zones of 

influence to evaluate impacts of 

residential development as is discussed 

in Factor A. 

(15) Comment: CPW urged caution in 

citing Braun (1995), Bui et al. (2010), 

and Aldridge and Boyce (2007) 

regarding impacts from roads due to the 

speculative nature of authors’ 

conclusions. 

Our Response: We did not cite Braun 

(1995) or Bui et al. (2010) in discussions 

of Factor A, including roads, in the 

proposed rule or in this final rule. 

Aldridge and Boyce (2007) were cited in 

discussions of residential development, 

roads, and nonrenewable energy 

development. Related to this comment, 

when citing Aldridge and Boyce (2007), 

we indicate that this and other studies 

cited were on greater sage-grouse. 

However, as discussed in our response 

to State comment 3 above, due to 

similar life histories and habitat 

requirements between these two 

species, we consider information 

specific to greater sage-grouse as 

relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse, a 

practice followed by the wildlife and 

land management agencies that have 

responsibility for both species and their 

habitats. 

(16) Comment: CPW and some other 

commenters questioned the conclusions 

regarding powerlines and impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse from raptor 

perches and habitat fragmentation. 

Our Response: The discussion of 

powerlines in the proposed rule 

provided numerous citations regarding 

aspects such as raptor perches, habitat 

fragmentation, and the spread of 

invasive plants. Citations note when the 

studies were specific to greater sagegrouse. In some instances, the only 

information is specific to greater sagegrouse, in which case, we regard it as 

the best available information (see our 

response to comment 3). We revise our 

language in this final rule to clarify 

usage of the terms habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation (see our 

response to peer review comment 34). 

(17) Comment: CPW disagreed with 

the conclusion in the proposed rule to 

list the species that grazing in 

combination with climate change and 

other factors is a threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse and questioned citations 

from Gregg et al. (1994) and Connelly et 

al. (2000a) regarding optimal grass 

height. CPW also noted a conflict 

between critical habitat requirements of 

grass height of 10–15 cm and 

aforementioned citations that 

recommend grass height of 18 cm or 

more. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule, 

we concluded that habitat degradation 

resulting from improper grazing 

(described in Factor A in the proposed 

rule), particularly with the interacting 

factors of invasive weed expansion and 

climate change, is a threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse persistence. The proposed 

rule also noted that livestock grazing 

may have positive effects on sage-grouse 

(78 FR 2501, January 11, 2013). Properly 

managed livestock grazing is not likely 

to adversely impact Gunnison sagegrouse. Gregg et al. (1994) described a 

study conducted on greater sage-grouse 

in Oregon and speculated about 

potential impacts from livestock 

grazing. In this final rule, we clarify that 

‘‘Gregg et al. (1994, p. 165) speculated 

that the reduction of grass heights due 

to livestock grazing in sage-grouse 

nesting and brood-rearing areas may 

negatively affect nesting success when 

cover is reduced below the 18 cm (7 in.) 

needed for predator avoidance.’’ 

Connelly et al. (2000a) was not cited in 

the grazing discussion in the proposed 

rule to list, but was cited in the 

proposed rule to designate critical 

habitat. Seasonally specific primary 

constituent elements described in the 

proposed and final rules to designate 

critical habitat include a guideline of 

10–15 cm (4–6 in) grass height based on 

recommendations in the RCP (GSRSC 

2005, p. H–6). In this final rule, we 

clarify that recommendations vary for 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

requirements and vegetation 

characteristics. We note that Connelly et 

al. (2000a, p. 977) recommended greater 

than 18 cm (7 in) grass height for 

breeding habitats, and that the GSRSC 

(2005, p. H–6) (the basis of the critical 

habitat proposal for breeding habitats) 

recommended a grass height of 10–15 

cm (3.9–5.9 in). 

(18) Comment: CPW noted that the 

proposed rule to list the species suggests 

that livestock trample seedlings, and 

that this constitutes competition. CPW 

stated that they were unaware of any 

research that has demonstrated 

competition between grazers and sagegrouse. One other commenter stated that 

Connelly et al. (2004) does not describe 

trampling of sagebrush seedlings. 

Our Response: Connelly et al. (2004, 

p. 7–31) states that livestock trample 

sagebrush, and provides citations; we 

note in this final rule that Connelly et 

al. (2004) was citing other references. In 

the proposed rule, we surmised that 

livestock may compete directly with 

sage-grouse for rangeland resources by 

consuming forbs and shrubs. However, 

as the commenter mentions, this 

question has not been researched, and 

our conclusion is therefore inferred 

rather than proven. In this final rule, we 

deleted specific references to 

competition between livestock and sagegrouse. However, we present evidence 

that indicates consumption of important 

vegetation by livestock negatively 

affects sage-grouse that use those 

resources, such as the reduction of forbs 

and grasses that may affect chick 

survival (see Factor A). 

(19) Comment: CPW disagreed with 

the conclusion and inference that 

browsing by big game on mountain 

shrubs resulted in a negative effect on 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Our Response: This final rule 

includes a discussion of available 

information regarding impacts of wild 

ungulate herbivory in Gunnison sagegrouse habitat, including one study 

(Japuntich et al. 2010, pp. 7–9) that 

documented reduced size and vigor of 

mountain shrubs (not sagebrush), which 

could reduce accumulations of drifting 

snow, which might in turn reduce the 

availability of soil moisture for forbs 

and grasses. If all of these impacts 

occurred, nesting and brood-rearing 

habitat could be affected. In this final 

rule, we conclude that the effects of 

livestock grazing are likely being 

exacerbated by intense browsing of 

woody species by wild ungulates in 

portions of the Gunnison Basin and the 

Crawford area (see Factor A, Domestic 

Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory). 

(20) Comment: CPW asserted that the 

proposed rule relied on speculation by 

Braun (1998), Oyler-McCance et al. 

(2001), and Stevens (2011) regarding the 

effects of fences on Gunnison sagegrouse. CPW also provided additional 

information regarding research it 

conducted that tracked more than 1,000 

radio-marked greater sage-grouse and 

documented two mortalities from 

collisions with fences. A follow-up 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69212 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

letter from CPW also noted four 

mortalities resulting from collisions 

with utility lines. One other commenter 

stated that fences fragment habitat. 

Our Response: We cite multiple 

references in Factor A of this final rule 

that implicate the potential impacts of 

fences on Gunnison sage-grouse. Based 

on the information provided by CPW 

specific to Gunnison sage-grouse, 

mortalities from collisions with fences 

and utility lines are likely minimal, and 

we have included the information that 

CPW provided on strike-related 

mortalities. We conclude that fences 

may be a contributing factor in the 

species’ decline; however, we have no 

specific data on the scope of this threat 

(see Factor A, Fences). 

(21) Comment: CPW stated that the 

Service does not know what the final 

measures in the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) will be 

concerning travel management, and that 

the Service overstates the threat of 

roads. Consequently, CPW states that 

our conclusion that the revised RMPs 

are inadequate to address that threat of 

roads outlined by Aldridge et al. (2012) 

was premature. 

Our Response: We use the best 

available information to reach our 

conclusion in this final rule that roads 

are a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse (see 

Factor A, Roads). The BLM is in the 

process of amending its RMPs and we 

do not know how road issues will be 

addressed in the amended plans. Under 

the Act, we are required to assess the 

adequacy of RMPs with respect to 

relevant threats based on the RMPs as 

they exist at the time of this listing 

decision. Thus, while we conclude that 

road impacts can be reduced by 

regulatory mechanisms, the existing 

mechanisms are currently not fully 

addressing the threat. We recognize the 

complexity of threats to Gunnison sagegrouse and the limited capacity of 

regulatory mechanisms to address some 

of those threats. For example, impacts 

caused by disease, small population 

size, or climate change are not easily 

addressed by regulatory mechanisms. 

However, other impacts such as current 

and future roads, hunting, grazing, or 

development can often be addressed 

with adequate regulatory mechanisms 

(22) Comment: CPW stated that the 

discussion regarding vegetative 

structure guidelines incorporated into 

management plans and permit renewals 

is confusing. 

Our Response: We clarify discussions 

regarding vegetative structure guidelines 

in this final rule (see Factor A, Domestic 

Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory). 

(23) Comment: CPW asserted that the 

Service did not acknowledge that 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is highly 

variable rather than continuous across 

the landscape. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is highly 

variable across the landscape, and we 

do not consider it to be continuous 

currently or historically. We included a 

discussion of the naturally disconnected 

nature of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

in this final rule (see Factor A). 

(24) Comment: CPW and several other 

commenters suggested that the Service 

evaluate structural habitat guidelines 

recommended in the RCP with data 

reported by the BLM and Williams and 

Hild (2011). 

Our Response: The final rule includes 

conclusions from vegetation monitoring 

efforts in the Gunnison Basin conducted 

by Williams and Hild in 2010 and 2011. 

This topic is discussed further in the 

Domestic Grazing and Wildlife 

Herbivory section in Factor A of this 

final rule. 

(25) Comment: CPW presented new 

information regarding small populations 

and inbreeding depression. 

Our Response: We include and 

consider this information in this final 

rule. We note that this new information 

indicates that the San Miguel Basin 

Gunnison sage-grouse effective 

population size is below the level at 

which inbreeding depression has been 

observed to occur (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 

479), and that the authors postulated 

that the observed lowered hatching 

success rate of Gunnison sage-grouse in 

their study may be caused by inbreeding 

depression. Finally, we conclude that 

because the remaining Gunnison sagegrouse satellite populations are smaller 

than the San Miguel population, they 

are also likely small enough to induce 

inbreeding depression, and could be 

losing adaptive potential (see Factor E). 

(26) Comment: CPW and two other 

commenters disagreed with conclusions 

in the proposed rule regarding 

minimum and effective population 

sizes, and the amount of habitat needed 

to support a viable population. 

Our Response: We do not recommend 

or adopt a specific number for a 

minimum viable population size, other 

than concluding that, based on the best 

available information, several of the 

satellite populations are trending 

toward extirpation. With their low 

absolute and effective population sizes, 

the satellite populations are particularly 

at risk from stochastic environmental 

and genetic factors (see Factor E, Small 

Population Size). We address the 

amount of habitat needed to provide for 

the conservation of the species in our 

final critical habitat determination for 

Gunnison sage-grouse published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

In this final rule we also reviewed the 

three available PVAs for Gunnison sagegrouse, which applied various 

techniques to estimate the viability of 

populations. Collectively, these studies 

and population trends from 1996–2014 

indicate that one or more of the satellite 

populations may become extinct within 

the foreseeable future (see Factor E). 

(27) Comment: CPW noted that 

drought can impact nest success, but not 

adult survival, suggesting that Gunnison 

sage-grouse can accommodate drought 

cycles. 

Our Response: We agree that adults 

are less vulnerable to impacts from 

drought. Adult survival rates of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison 

Basin were not influenced by drought 

conditions in 2005 (CPW 2013c, p. 9; 

Davis 2012, p. 55). However, if a 

drought persists through multiple 

nesting seasons, recruitment will likely 

be impacted. This topic is discussed 

further under the following sections in 

this final rule: Drought and Extreme 

Weather, Small Population Size and 

Structure, and Climate Change. 

(28) Comment: CPW and CDA noted 

that at least 79 percent of occupied 

habitat in the Gunnison Basin is 

protected from development, including 

government-owned lands, private lands 

with Conservation Easements, 

Candidate Conservation Agreements 

with Assurances, and/or similar legal 

agreements that preclude development 

to the detriment of grouse. Therefore, 

these agencies asserted, the Gunnison 

Basin is adequately protected for the 

conservation of the species. 

Our Response: While the conservation 

and habitat protection efforts 

undertaken in the Gunnison Basin are 

commendable, and help reduce the 

impact of development on the species 

and its habitat, these measures vary in 

their capacity to avoid or minimize 

impacts such as the effects of habitat 

decline. Consequently, we were not able 

to conclude that Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat is adequately protected, despite 

the benefits of the various conservation 

efforts. Conservation efforts and 

regulatory mechanisms are evaluated in 

this final rule. 

(29) Comment: CPW, the Utah Office 

of the Governor, and several other 

commenters requested clarification 

regarding the interpretation and use of 

the Significant Portion of Range (SPR) 

policy. 

Our Response: On July 1, 2014, we 

published a final policy interpreting the 

phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of its 

Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 37578). In 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69213 

accordance with that policy, the first 

step in our analysis of the status of a 

species is to determine its status 

throughout all of its range. If we 

determine that the species is in danger 

of extinction (endangered), or likely to 

become so in the foreseeable future 

(threatened), throughout all of its range, 

we list the species as an endangered or 

threatened species and no SPR analysis 

is required. In this case, we have 

determined in this rule that the 

Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened 

throughout all of its range, therefore we 

did not perform an SPR analysis. 

(30) Comment: CPW, CDA, and the 

Utah Office of the Governor asserted 

that speculation in the literature was 

sometimes portrayed as science. 

Our Response: Under the standards of 

the Endangered Species Act (Act), we 

are required to base our determinations 

of species status on the best available 

information. Our first choice is 

information from recent, peer-reviewed 

publications that is specific to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. However, sometimes the 

only available information may be based 

on studies of greater sage-grouse. 

Additionally scientific data are 

sometimes limited, studies are 

conflicting, or results are uncertain or 

seemingly inconclusive. Scientific 

information includes both empirical 

evidence, and expert knowledge or 

opinion. In this final rule, we carefully 

identified and qualified instances of 

speculation or hypotheses from past 

scientific studies and publications. 

(31) Comment: CDA noted that 

agriculture in Colorado generates $40 

billion annually, with cattle anticipated 

to contribute approximately $3.5 billion 

to agricultural production in 2013. CDA 

stated that cattle production would 

likely be seriously harmed, should the 

species be listed. 

Our Response: The Act does not allow 

us to consider economic impacts in 

decisions on whether to list a species, 

which must be made solely on the basis 

of scientific and commercial 

information related to the 5 factors in 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Economic 

impacts may be considered in the 

designation of critical habitat, and are 

discussed in our final critical habitat 

rule. Our final critical habitat 

determination for Gunnison sage-grouse 

is published elsewhere in today’s 

Federal Register. 

(32) Comment: The Utah Office of the 

Governor noted that the timing on the 

proposed rule is based solely on the 

need to meet a court approved 

settlement date, which did not include 

participation by the States of Utah or 

Colorado. Some commenters suggested 

that more time is needed for public 

review. 

Our Response: The publication 

deadline for the proposed rule was set 

by a court approved settlement 

agreement; however, the timeline for 

this final rule was initially set according 

to the statutory requirements of the Act 

and has been extended several times by 

court order. The Act requires that a final 

listing rule be published within one 

year of the publication of the proposed 

rule. As allowed by the Act, however, 

we extended this statutory deadline by 

6 months due to substantial 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

or accuracy of available data relevant to 

our determination. Invoking this 

statutory extension postponed the final 

listing decision from September 30, 

2013 to March 31, 2014. We also reopened the public comment period 

several times. In addition, due to a 

government shutdown in October 2013 

that caused us to postpone and 

reschedule public meetings, the court 

granted our request for an additional 6 

weeks beyond the statutory timeline. 

Finally, the court granted our 

subsequent request for an additional 6 

month extension to allow us to consider 

the possibility that the species should 

be listed as threatened rather than 

endangered, and to consider whether a 

4(d) rule would be appropriate. This 

action extended the deadline for this 

final rule until November 12, 2014. 

(33) Comment: The Utah Office of the 

Governor stated that the Service’s 2010 

warranted-but-precluded finding and 

2013 proposed rule to list Gunnison 

sage-grouse under the Act differs from 

the 2006 finding that concluded the 

species was not warranted for listing, 

without presentation of any new 

information that would indicate a 

different conclusion is justified. Several 

commenters asserted that the decision 

to list was due to litigation. 

Our Response: Litigation resulted in a 

settlement agreement that established a 

schedule for us to submit a proposed 

rule to list the species or a finding that 

listing was not warranted by a date 

certain. The litigation had nothing to do 

with the ultimate decision to list, or not. 

The 2006 not-warranted, the 2010 

warranted-but-precluded finding, and 

the 2013 proposed rule to list the 

species were based upon the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available at that time. The 2006 finding 

concluded that the rangewide 

population was stable to slightly 

increasing (71 FR 19961–19962, April 

18, 2006). The 2013 proposed listing 

rule included information from new 

studies, 8 additional years of recent 

survey information (2006–2013), as well 

as population data from 1996–2000, and 

concluded that the Gunnison Basin 

population was relatively stable and the 

six smaller populations were in decline 

(78 FR 2488, January 11, 2013). This 

final rule incorporates additional 

information received since publication 

of the proposed rule. The basis for our 

determination in this final rule is 

provided in the Determination section 

of this rule. 

(34) Comment: The Utah Office of the 

Governor and one other commenter 

stated that a Federal listing of the 

species at this time provides no 

additional protection or resources from 

those already in place and that 

voluntary cooperation of private 

landowners will be much more effective 

in improving habitat than protections 

than what may be afforded by listing 

and critical habitat designation. The 

Utah Office of the Governor also noted 

that a final regulation providing for a 

listing will cause the State to reassess its 

conservation efforts for this species, and 

may result in reallocation of these 

efforts to other species. 

Our Response: By statute, the Service 

must list a species if it meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered. 

There is no provision in the Act that 

would allow us to decline to list a 

species that meets the definition of 

threatened or endangered if no 

additional protection would occur. 

Moreover, the Act would confer 

additional protection to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse that could help arrest and 

reverse its decline. Once listing of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse becomes 

effective, actions authorized, funded or 

carried out by Federal agencies that may 

affect the species will require section 7 

consultations under the Act in all areas 

occupied by the species. Section 9 

prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ will further 

protect the species from human-caused 

mortality due to both direct effects and 

indirect effects such as continued 

habitat decline and harassment. We 

recognize that the voluntary cooperation 

of private landowners has improved 

conservation of the species in many 

areas. However, declining population 

trends indicate that these efforts have 

not been able to stabilize rangewide 

conditions (habitat and populations) for 

the species. We maintain that the best 

chance for conservation and ultimately 

recovery of the species will require both 

the protections afforded by listing and 

critical habitat designation as well as 

voluntary conservation measures 

undertaken by private landowners, with 

support from the States in 

accomplishing these measures. 

(35) Comment: The Utah Office of the 

Governor described efforts of the San 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69214 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Juan Local Working Group, by Federal 

and State agencies, private landowners, 

and universities to address concerns 

regarding declining numbers of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Similarly, 

Colorado’s Office of the Governor 

identified dozens of conservation efforts 

that have been carried out in Colorado 

that they believe address Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Our Response: We acknowledge and 

commend conservation efforts 

undertaken in Utah and recognize their 

importance in a county where more 

than 90 percent of occupied habitat is 

on private lands. We also commend the 

conservation efforts undertaken in 

Colorado by CPW, local jurisdictions 

and other entities. This final rule 

describes many of the conservation 

measures, including local, State, and 

Federal laws and regulations, 

conservation easements, the Gunnison 

Basin CCA, and enrollment in the 

Colorado CCAA, that have been 

undertaken to improve or protect 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We have 

carefully considered the projects and 

programs noted by Colorado and Utah 

in the development of this final rule. 

(36) Comment: The Utah Office of the 

Governor described Gunnison sagegrouse population trends in Utah and 

stated that reliance on current 

population figures would be an arbitrary 

and capricious application of facts 

because adequate time has not been 

allowed to determine if numbers will 

return to stable levels following the 

severe winter in 2010. In contrast, CPW 

stated that severe winters are not a 

threat to the species. 

Our Response: We recognize that 

there is annual variability in population 

numbers for the Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Consequently, we place more emphasis 

on longer-term population trends over a 

number of years than on population 

estimates from any given year. Our 

analysis considers Gunnison sagegrouse population trends from 1996 

(when lek count protocols were 

standardized) through 2013. We do not 

conclude that severe winters are a threat 

to the species. 

Comments From Federal Agencies 

(37) Comment: We received multiple 

comments expressing concerns 

regarding the long-term viability of the 

Poncha Pass population, noting that 

bird movement between Poncha Pass 

and the Gunnison Basin is not likely. 

One commenter suggested that Poncha 

Pass and other small populations may 

be better managed as satellite 

populations, rather than individual selfsustaining populations. 

Our Response: We are also concerned 

about the long-term viability of the 

Poncha Pass population, particularly in 

view of the 2013 lek count surveys, 

which did not detect any birds. CPW 

translocated 17 additional birds from 

the Gunnison Basin in the fall of 2013, 

and 10 more in spring of 2014 (CPW 

2014e, p.7). Six males were counted in 

the Poncha Pass population during the 

spring 2014 lek count (CPW 2014d, p.2). 

This population will likely require 

repeated augmentations to avoid 

extirpation. This topic is discussed 

further under the following sections in 

this final rule: Current Distribution and 

Population Estimates and Trends; and 

Factor E. 

(38) Comment: One agency noted that 

although the proposed rule to list the 

species repeatedly states that the effects 

from grazing are inconclusive, the final 

conclusion was that habitat degradation 

from improperly managed grazing, 

particularly with the interacting factors 

of invasive weed expansion and climate 

change, is a threat to the species. 

Several commenters recommended that 

historical grazing practices be 

differentiated from improved current 

grazing practices. 

Our Response: The key word in our 

conclusion in the proposed rule is 

‘‘improperly.’’ Livestock grazing that is 

done in a manner consistent with local 

ecological conditions, including soil 

types, precipitation zones, vegetation 

composition and drought conditions, is 

not likely to negatively impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and is 

compatible with the needs and 

conservation of the species. See 

discussion under Factor A. The final 

rule also notes that properly managed 

livestock grazing may have positive 

effects on sage-grouse. We also 

recognize that maintenance of 

sustainable grazing practices on private 

rangelands can aid in recovery of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse by discouraging 

further conversion of the species’ 

habitat into habitat unsuitable to the 

species (i.e., due to development). 

(39) Comment: Several commenters 

noted that the proposed rule might have 

overstated the impacts from grazing on 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat as 

indicated by BLM Land Health 

Assessments (LHA). A comment stated 

that available data may vary by office, 

and the LHA is only a snapshot in time; 

therefore, it cannot indicate trends. 

Additionally, grazing is only one of 

many causal factors on land health. The 

commenter also noted that failure to 

meet indicators for Land Health 

Standard 4 (which evaluates ecological 

indicators for Special Status Species) 

may be due to population trends rather 

than existing habitat conditions. 

Our Response: This final rule 

recognizes the limitations and 

uncertainties associated with LHA and 

supporting data. Our conclusion for 

livestock grazing effects on Gunnison 

sage-grouse and its habitat also 

acknowledges limitations associated 

with LHA data (see Factor A, Domestic 

Grazing and Wildlife Herbivory). 

(40) Comment: One commenter 

recommended we clarify the impact 

from different fence types with regard to 

habitat fragmentation, increased 

predator activities, and collisions. 

Our Response: This final rule 

discusses the various factors that 

influence fence strike risks. We 

acknowledge that those risks vary 

depending on fence design, landscape 

topography, and spatial configuration. 

In the Factor A discussion of fences, we 

note that in 10 years of tracking radiocollared sage-grouse in Colorado, CPW 

has documented only two fence strike 

mortalities in Gunnison sage-grouse. 

This information suggests that direct 

mortality of Gunnison sage-grouse due 

to fence strikes is low. 

(41) Comment: We received a 

comment requesting that the Service 

recognize that fire and fuels treatment 

projects managed under very narrow 

parameters may be a beneficial tool in 

managing Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

The commenter also noted that impacts 

from cheatgrass on fire regimes in 

Colorado do not appear to be the same 

as in the Great Basin, and suggests that 

fire has a role to play in rejuvenating 

unoccupied or marginal habitats by 

creating ‘‘micro-mosaics’’ that benefit 

the species during different portions of 

its life cycle. 

Our Response: The final rule 

acknowledges that small fires may have 

beneficial impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse habitat and concludes that fire is 

currently not a threat to the species. It 

also concludes that wildfires may 

become a threat in the future if 

cheatgrass continues to expand. Recent 

research indicates that prescribed fire 

may be inappropriate due to the direct 

loss and fragmentation of the remaining 

sagebrush habitat within the species’ 

range, (Baker 2013, p. 8). We include 

this information and citation in this 

final rule (see Factor A, Fire). 

(42) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern regarding the 

potential effects of climate change to the 

long-term sustainability of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, particularly in the Dove 

Creek and Dry Creek areas. 

Our Response: We too are concerned 

about the potential effects of climate 

change on Gunnison sage-grouse 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69215 

rangewide. The final rule concludes that 

climate change is currently not a threat 

to the species, but is likely to become 

a threat in the foreseeable future. Our 

analysis includes consideration of 

climate change projections for the 

western U.S. A climate change 

vulnerability assessment for the 

Gunnison Basin described the Gunnison 

sage-grouse as highly vulnerable to 

impacts from climate change (TNC et al. 

2011, p. iii). This topic is discussed 

further under Factor A, Climate Change 

in this final rule. 

(43) Comment: The United States 

Forest Service (USFS) suggested 

expanding the CCA from Gunnison 

Basin to other Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations on Federal lands. One other 

commenter expressed concern regarding 

a possible expansion of the CCA to areas 

outside of the Gunnison Basin. 

Our Response: We agree that the CCA 

could have benefitted Gunnison sagegrouse in other populations outside of 

the Gunnison Basin, and provided a 

means for Federal land agencies to 

streamline ESA section 7 requirements 

associated with their programs and 

activities. Although CCAs cannot be 

implemented for listed species, 

adoption of a similar plan that builds on 

the principles of the CCA is a viable 

option for the satellite populations in 

the future. We also note the BLM is now 

in the process of amending all field 

office resource management plans 

within the range of the Gunnison sagegrouse to increase protections for this 

species. This effort will likely build on 

what was included in the CCA for BLMmanaged lands in the Gunnison Basin. 

Comments From the Public 

(44) Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that listing the Gunnison sagegrouse will adversely impact the local 

economy. 

Our Response: The Act does not allow 

us to consider economic impacts in 

decisions on whether to list a species, 

which must be made solely on the basis 

of scientific and commercial 

information regarding the 5 factors in 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. However, 

economic impacts may be considered in 

the designation of critical habitat. Our 

final critical habitat determination for 

Gunnison sage-grouse is published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. 

As part of the process of completing the 

final critical habitat rule, we completed 

an Economic Analysis that evaluates the 

potential economic impacts of 

designating critical habitat on 

transportation, livestock grazing, 

mineral and fossil fuel extraction, 

residential development, recreation, 

agriculture, and renewable energy 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). We 

also completed an environmental 

assessment pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on 

the proposed critical habitat designation 

that evaluated the affected environment, 

including potential economic impacts to 

the human environment. These are 

discussed further in our final critical 

habitat rule, published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. 

(45) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Service should work 

cooperatively with other Federal 

agencies, State wildlife agencies, farm 

bureaus, and local governments to 

partner with landowners on 

conservation efforts. One commenter 

asserted that the Service has no on-theground experience with Gunnison sagegrouse conservation. 

Our Response: We encourage 

partnerships between the Service, other 

agencies, and landowners and have 

worked cooperatively in such 

partnership to further Gunnison sagegrouse conservation. In 2005, for 

example, we participated in 

development of the RCP (GSRSC 2005). 

This Plan established management 

guidelines throughout the range of the 

species. In 2006, we entered into a 

CCAA for the Gunnison sage-grouse 

with Colorado Division of Wildlife (now 

CPW). We estimate, in of December, 

2014 when this rule becomes effective, 

40 Certificates of Inclusion (CI) will 

have been completed for private 

properties, enrolling 94,391 ac in four 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations, 

although only roughly 81,156 ac of these 

acres fall within suitable Gunnison sagegrouse habitat. We also cooperated with 

Federal agencies and other stakeholders 

in the Gunnison Basin to complete a 

CCA to promote conservation of the 

species in the Gunnison Basin 

population on Federal lands. As stated 

above, our listing decision is based on 

the best available scientific information. 

Accordingly, our focus is on wellsupported, scientific data and 

information for the species, generally at 

a broader scope than is acquired at the 

local level. 

(46) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed differing views on whether 

livestock grazing in Gunnison sagegrouse habitat should be restricted. 

Our Response: We determined that 

grazing that is inconsistent with local 

ecological conditions is a threat to the 

species, and grazing in general may 

have inadvertent effects at a local level 

(Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild 

Ungulate Herbivory). 

Although grazing on both public and 

private lands may affect Gunnison sagegrouse, privately owned lands typically 

lack a Federal nexus for section 7 

consultations under the Act, in which 

case grazing practices would not be 

affected by the Act unless they were to 

result in ‘‘take’’ of Gunnison sagegrouse, as prohibited by section 9 of the 

Act. However, more than 300 Federal 

grazing allotments on nearly 405,000 ha 

(1,000,000 ac) are located within the 

final critical habitat designation 

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

1). On Federal allotments, through the 

section 7 consultation process, the 

managing agency (BLM or USFS) may 

choose to implement AUM reductions, 

seasonal restrictions, rotational grazing, 

or other changes to minimize impacts or 

avoid jeopardy to the species and any 

adverse modification to critical habitat. 

We do not intend to preclude grazing 

within critical habitat, but may seek 

grazing modifications where warranted 

to promote the conservation and 

recovery of the species. We discuss 

livestock grazing under Factor A, 

Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate 

Herbivory in this final rule. 

(47) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed differing views on whether 

energy and mineral development should 

be further restricted. 

Our Response: The Monticello-Dove 

Creek and San Miguel Basin 

populations support numerous mineral 

and fossil fuel extraction activities. One 

wind project and one potash mine are 

under development in the MonticelloDove Creek population. There are no 

active uranium mines in Gunnison sagegrouse habitat. Oil and gas extraction 

occurs on both Federal and private 

lands within the species’ range. Mineral 

and fossil fuel extraction activities on 

private lands without Federal mineral 

rights are unlikely to have a Federal 

nexus for section 7 consultations under 

the Act. Existing Federal regulations, 

such as BLM RMPs, and State 

regulations from the Colorado Oil and 

Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) 

provide some protection to the species 

and its habitat. With respect to mineral 

and energy development projects on 

Federal lands or that otherwise have a 

Federal nexus (e.g., the project is 

authorized, funded or carried out by a 

Federal agency), we may seek project 

modifications during ESA section 7 

consultations to benefit Gunnison sagegrouse. We consider current energy and 

mineral development a low threat to the 

species, as discussed under Factor A, 

Mineral Development and Renewable 

Energy Development, in this final rule. 

(48) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed differing views regarding the 

effectiveness of predator control. 

Our Response: Predator removal 

efforts may sometimes provide shortVerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2

rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

term gains in sage-grouse numbers, but 

predator numbers quickly rebound 

without continual control efforts (Hagen 

2011, p. 99). The impacts of predation 

on greater sage-grouse can increase 

where habitat quality has been 

compromised by anthropogenic 

activities such as exurban development 

and road development (Coates 2007, pp. 

154–155; Bui 2009, p. 16; Hagen 2011, 

p. 100). This is discussed further under 

Factor C, Predation. 

(49) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that conservation efforts and 

recovery should focus on public lands. 

Our Response: Conservation of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse will require 

collaboration between Federal, State, 

and local agencies wherever the species 

occurs. Federal agencies manage 54 

percent of currently occupied habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Although there is 

an abundance of public lands within the 

current range of the Gunnison sagegrouse, Federal lands alone are 

insufficient to conserve the species. 

Therefore, conservation and recovery 

efforts limited to public lands are not 

sufficient to ensure conservation of the 

species. 

(50) Comment: Some commenters 

support or oppose development of a 

captive breeding program or 

translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

One commenter stated that the State of 

Colorado does not have the funds 

necessary to conduct a long-term 

captive breeding program. 

Our Response: Establishing wild 

populations from captive-reared 

gallinaceous birds is very difficult, 

expensive, and only rarely successful; a 

captive breeding program in Idaho for 

greater sage-grouse had only minimal 

success (GSRSC 2005, p. 181). The CPW 

started a captive-rearing program in 

2009 to study whether techniques can 

be developed to captively rear and 

release Gunnison sage-grouse. To date, 

survival of captive-reared chicks has 

been low, as we cited in our proposed 

rule (78 FR 2518, January 11, 2013). 

Translocation of wild Gunnison sagegrouse from Gunnison Basin to other 

populations has had some success, 

although our understanding of 

translocation contributions is limited. 

Without these translocations, current 

numbers would likely be lower for these 

populations. These topics are discussed 

further under Scientific Research and 

Related Conservation Efforts in this final 

rule. 

(51) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that a Gunnison sage-grouse 

working group or recovery team should 

be established. 

Our Response: Local working groups 

including landowners, interested 

individuals and groups, local 

governments, land management 

agencies, and State wildlife agencies 

have developed conservation plans for 

the following Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations: Gunnison Basin, Crawford, 

Dove Creek, San Miguel Basin, 

Monticello, Pin ̃ on Mesa, and Poncha 

Pass. As a result, all populations with 

the exception of the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population have 

conservation plans. Following the 

development of these local conservation 

plans, the RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) 

was developed, which included 

participation by the BLM, CPW, NPS, 

NRCS, USFS, the Service, and Utah 

Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 

The RCP was intended to supplement 

local plans and provide guidance to aid 

in conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. Population targets were 

recommended for each population. 

These planning efforts are discussed in 

further detail in Factor A of this final 

rule. We also discuss future 

conservation measures for this species 

below in this final rule. The Act 

requires development of a recovery plan 

in most cases for endangered and 

threatened species, which often results 

in establishment of a recovery team. 

(52) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that sagebrush habitat should 

be preserved and, when necessary, 

recovered. 

Our Response: Because sage-grouse 

are obligate users of sagebrush, 

preserving and recovering sagebrush 

habitat is key to sage-grouse 

conservation. Other habitat types such 

as riparian meadows and agricultural 

lands may also be important for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, but only if they 

are in close proximity to sagebrushdominated habitat (75 FR 59808, 

September 28, 2010). Several Federal 

agencies as well as CPW and UDWR 

continue to work to improve the quality 

of sagebrush communities through 

grazing management, fencing, reseeding, fuels management, and other 

habitat improvement strategies (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 214–219). Listing the species 

and designating critical habitat will 

further conserve Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. 

(53) Comment: Several commenters 

noted the importance of open water and 

wet meadows and some also suggested 

that these habitat types should be reestablished in some areas by removal of 

sagebrush. 

Our Response: High quality broodrearing habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse 

includes mesic meadows, springs, 

seeps, and low vegetation riparian areas, 

all dependent on adequate moisture and 

consequently at risk in today’s changing 

climate (TNC et al. 2011, p. H–9). 

Prescribed burning and mechanical 

treatments can be used on a small scale 

to create a mosaic of small open 

patches; however, care should be taken 

to avoid further fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

206–207). 

(54) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that seasonal closures of roads 

and recreation areas should be 

implemented as appropriate. 

Our Response: Closures have been 

authorized and used by Federal agencies 

and counties to protect Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in several populations 

(BLM 2013c, attachment 2; Gunnison 

County Board of County Commissioners 

2013a, Appendix A; NPS 2013, p. 1; 

USFS 2013, pp. 11 and 14). We evaluate 

these efforts in this final rule (see Factor 

A, Roads, and Factor D). 

(55) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that number of leks, number 

of birds on leks, survival rates, and 

other ecological parameter be monitored 

and used as triggers for requiring 

additional conservation efforts. 

Our Response: The local and 

rangewide conservation plans include 

monitoring plans. The CPW has 

conducted annual monitoring of these 

parameters following a standard 

protocol since 1996. Monitoring of 

habitat conditions, treatment actions, 

and compliance are an integral part of 

the CCAA for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

(56) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Gunnison sage-grouse 

population in the Gunnison Basin is 

stable and not at risk of extinction; 

consequently, since this is a significant 

portion of the species’ range, the species 

is not endangered. One commenter 

noted that the six smaller populations 

did not constitute a significant portion 

of the species’ range. 

Our Response: Please see our 

response to comment 29 above. We 

include an explanation of how we 

considered and applied the concept of 

SPR in this final rule. 

(57) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed various opinions regarding 

the stability of the six smaller 

populations outside of Gunnison Basin. 

Our Response: The six satellite 

populations are small, all were generally 

in decline from 1996 until 2010, and 

several continue to show a declining 

trend. The San Miguel and Pin ̃ on Mesa 

populations are currently the largest of 

the satellite populations, with 206 and 

182 birds, respectively, in 2014. The 

Monticello-Dove Creek population 

currently has less than 100 birds total. 

Population estimates in 2014 for what 

have been the two smallest populations, 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69217 

Poncha Pass, were 74 and 16, 

respectively (CPW 2014a, p.1). Based on 

lek count-based population estimates, 

some satellite populations have 

increased slightly over the last several 

years, or intermittently over time. 

However, the last 19 years (1996 to 

2014) of lek count data as a whole 

indicate all the satellite populations are 

were in decline in 2010. Several of the 

satellite populations have increased 

since 2010. Although population 

estimates for Pin ̃ on Mesa are currently 

higher than in any year since 1996, this 

population has been augmented with 93 

birds from Gunnison Basin since 2010. 

The Crawford population has also been 

augmented, with 73 birds over the same 

period; and while the 2014 population 

estimate of 157 in this population is the 

highest since 2006, it is considerably 

less than the post-1996 high of 270 in 

1998. 

For all six satellite populations, 

population estimates from 1996 to 2014 

are below population targets (based on 

a 10-year average), set forth by the RCP 

(CPW 2014d, p. 1; GSRSC 2005, pp. 

255–302). The RCP population targets 

are the number of birds thought 

necessary to conserve Gunnison sagegrouse in those population areas 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 255). Combined, the 

satellite populations comprise about 16 

percent of the rangewide population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and include 

approximately 37 percent of rangewide 

occupied habitat. These topics are 

discussed further in Factors A and E of 

this rule. 

(58) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that lek counts are not accurate. 

Our Response: As described in this 

final rule (see Current Distribution and 

Population Estimates and Trends), lek 

count data are the primary means of 

estimating and monitoring Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations. However, sagegrouse populations can fluctuate widely 

on an annual basis, and there are 

concerns about the statistical reliability 

of population estimates based on lek 

counts (CDOW 2009b, pp. 1–3). Stiver et 

al. (2008, p. 474) concluded that lek 

counts likely underestimate population 

size. Another study (Davis 2012, p. 136) 

indicated that, based on demographic 

data, lek count indices overestimate 

population size. Although lek count 

data are available from as early as the 

1950’s for some populations, lek count 

protocols were first standardized and 

implemented in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 

46). Prior to 1996, lek count data are 

highly variable and uncertain, and are 

not directly comparable to recent 

population data (Braun 1998, p. 3; Davis 

2012, pp. 139, 143). Therefore, for the 

purposes of evaluating current 

population sizes and trends, the 

analysis in this final rule is focused on 

the standardized lek count data from 

1996 to 2013. We also consider other 

available scientific information 

regarding Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations such as demographic data 

and population viability analyses (see 

Factor E). 

(59) Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that population data 

prior to 2001 be evaluated. 

Our Response: In the 2010 12-month 

finding we relied on population data 

over the past decade to quantitatively 

assess recent trends (75 FR 59808, 

September 28, 2010). The starting point 

of 2001 was also used for trend analysis 

in the 2013 proposed rule (78 FR 2491, 

January 11, 2013). In this final listing 

rule, we analyzed population estimates 

over a longer period, based on lek count 

data from 1996–2013. Similar to our 

previous analysis, the long-term data 

indicates that despite slight increases in 

the past several years, the satellite 

populations have declined overall, with 

the possible exception of the Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population, which appears stable to 

increasing at this time. 

(60) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that there are too many caveats in 

the rangewide conservation plan to rely 

on it for distribution and abundance 

information. 

Our Response: The current 

distribution of the Gunnison sage-grouse 

is thought to be well understood, based 

on several decades of surveys and data. 

Although not conclusive, CPW aerial 

surveys during 2013 found no new leks 

or occupied areas. Nevertheless, current 

distribution and abundance data are 

estimates due to adverse weather, 

access, and survey error. Earlier data is 

further compromised by the use of 

incomplete museum records and 

historical accounts, as well as varying 

methodologies and survey intensities. 

Pre-settlement data is by necessity an 

extrapolation based on species accounts 

and the likely distribution of suitable 

habitat. This is the best available 

information, and forms the basis of 

historical and current distribution and 

abundance information, as presented in 

this final rule. 

(61) Comment: Some commenters 

asserted that the Gunnison sage-grouse 

is not a separate species from greater 

sage-grouse. 

Our Response: Gunnison sage-grouse 

and greater sage-grouse were recognized 

as separate species in 2000 based on 

morphological, genetic, and behavioral 

differences, and geographical isolation. 

Consequently, the American 

Ornithologist’s Union accepted the 

Gunnison sage-grouse as a distinct 

species. Due to the several lines of 

evidence separating the two species, we 

determined in our 2010 12-month 

finding that the best available 

information indicates that the Gunnison 

sage-grouse is a valid taxonomic species 

and a listable entity under the Act (75 

FR 59804, September 28, 2010). 

(62) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that habitat fragmentation and 

degradation are the main reasons for a 

steep decline in Gunnison sage-grouse 

abundance. One commenter asserted 

that we overestimated the impact from 

fragmentation, and another commenter 

asserted that habitat has not been lost or 

fragmented in the past 50 years. 

Our Response: Habitat loss and 

fragmentation are recognized as primary 

causes of the decline in abundance and 

distribution of sage-grouse across 

western North America (Rogers 1964, 

pp. 13–24; Braun 1998, entire; 

Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371), and in 

Gunnison sage-grouse across its former 

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

330; GSRSC 2005, p. 149; Wisdom et al. 

2011, pp. 465–469). Gunnison sagegrouse depend on sagebrush for their 

survival and persistence, and 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). Current 

and future threats described under 

Factor A of this final rule will further 

contribute to habitat loss and decline 

and, based on historical and current 

population trends, a continued decline 

in the abundance of Gunnison sagegrouse across its range. 

(63) Comment: One commenter noted 

that there has been no chick survival in 

the Miramonte area of the San Miguel 

population. 

Our Response: Although sample size 

in a study of the San Miguel Basin 

(Miramonte subpopulation) was small 

(eight chicks were studied), no chicks 

survived to 30 days of age, meaning no 

recruitment (survival of bird from 

hatching to breeding age) occurred over 

a 4-year period (Davis 2012, p. 37). We 

provide this information in this final 

rule (see Predation; and Davis 

Population Viability Analysis sections). 

(64) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that the bio-geographical 

characteristics of the upper Gunnison 

Basin differ markedly from the lower 

Gunnison Basin. 

Our Response: There is wide habitat 

variation within and between all of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. We 

presume this comment is directed to the 

idea of population redundancy in the 

Gunnison Basin. This topic is discussed 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

in Factor E, Small Population Size and 

Structure, of this final rule. 

(65) Comment: One commenter stated 

that there is no data indicating the Dove 

Creek population was within the 

historical range of the Gunnison sagegrouse prior to introducing the species 

to this area in 2010 and 2011. 

Our Response: CPW began collecting 

lek count data from Dove Creek in 1993, 

which predates efforts to augment that 

population. Dove Creek is included in 

historical, recent, and current 

descriptions of the species’ range 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368–371). 

The 2006 not warranted finding 

described the Dove Creek subpopulation 

as ranging from 10–358 birds from 

1995–2005 (71 FR 19957–19961, April 

18, 2006). 

(66) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the Dove Creek population declined 

following the 2002–2003 drought and 

has not yet rebounded. 

Our Response: Drought conditions 

from 1999 through about 2003 (with 

residual effects lasting through about 

2005) were closely associated with 

reductions in the sizes of all 

populations (CDOW 2009b, entire; CPW 

2013c, p. 9) (see Figures 2 and 3 in this 

final rule) and lower nest success (CPW 

2013c, p. 2). To date, several of the 

smaller satellite populations have not 

rebounded from declines around that 

time (see Figure 3 in this final rule). 

(67) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that conversion to cropland has 

not fragmented sagebrush habitat in the 

past 20–30 years. 

Our Response: As stated in this final 

rule (Factor A, Agricultural Conversion), 

except in Gunnison County, the total 

area of harvested cropland has declined 

over the past two decades in all counties 

within the occupied range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse (USDA NASS 2010, entire). 

Further, the majority of agricultural land 

use in Gunnison County is in hay 

production, and this has also declined 

over the past two decades (USDA NASS 

2010, p. 1). We do not have any 

information to predict changes in the 

amount of land devoted to agricultural 

purposes. However, because of this 

long-term trend in reduced land area 

devoted to agriculture, we do not expect 

a significant amount of Gunnison sagegrouse habitat to be converted to 

agricultural purposes in the future. 

(68) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that there are no new road 

projects; therefore, roads have not 

increased fragmentation. 

Our Response: Roads of all kinds can 

impact Gunnison sage-grouse through 

direct loss of habitat, mortality from 

collisions, habitat fragmentation, and 

habitat degradation. Existing roads will 

continue to require maintenance, and 

usage may increase due to increases in 

recreational activities or in the human 

population. We discuss roads under 

Factor A in this final rule. 

(69) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that grazing minimizes 

fragmentation by preventing 

development, conversion to cropland, 

and loss of water rights. 

Our Response: We agree that livestock 

grazing operations generally result in 

less habitat fragmentation than 

alternatives such as residential 

development, conversion to cropland, 

mineral and fossil fuel extraction, or 

road construction. 

(70) Comment: Two commenters 

noted that ranches are no longer being 

subdivided; therefore, fragmentation 

due to this factor is not occurring. 

Our Response: Exurban development 

and subdivision of ranches likely 

slowed during the recent economic 

downturn. However, it still occurs, 

particularly in the Pin ̃ on Mesa and 

Gunnison Basin populations, and we 

expect it to continue into the future in 

some areas. We discuss this issue in this 

final rule (see Factor A, Residential 

Development). 

(71) Comment: Some commenters 

asserted that the conclusion that large 

blocks of sagebrush habitat are needed 

by Gunnison sage-grouse is in error 

because it is based on greater sagegrouse research. Other commenters 

stated that not all sagebrush habitat will 

support Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: With regard to the first 

comment, references cited in the 

proposed and final rules regarding the 

need for large expanses of sagebrush 

sometimes pertain to greater sagegrouse, but also include references 

specific to Gunnison sage-grouse. 

References specific to Gunnison sagegrouse that discuss the need for large 

blocks of sagebrush habitat include 

Oyler-McCance et al. (2001, pp. 327– 

330), Wisdom et al. (2011, p. 451), and 

Baker (2013, p. 8). Regarding the second 

comment, we agree that not all 

sagebrush habitat will support 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Much sagebrush 

habitat is outside the current range of 

the species or is in patches that are too 

small in size and are fragmented, and 

some sagebrush habitat does not contain 

the physical and biological features 

necessary to sustain the species. 

(72) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Blue Mesa Reservoir resulted in the 

largest habitat fragmentation in 

Gunnison County. 

Our Response: Our proposed rule 

noted the potential impacts of 

development of a large irrigation 

project, but it was not clear that we were 

referring to Blue Mesa Reservoir. As 

clarified in this final rule (see Factor A, 

Large Scale Water Development), 

development of Blue Mesa Reservoir in 

1965 in the Gunnison Basin flooded an 

estimated 3,700 ha (9,200 ac), or 1.5 

percent of potential habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison 

Basin (McCall 2005, pers. comm.), and 

according to Gunnison County (2013a, 

p. 124), at least one known lek. Based 

on the size and location of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir, we presume that habitat 

connectivity and dispersal of birds 

between the Gunnison Basin population 

and satellite populations to the west 

were impacted. 

(73) Comment: One commenter noted 

that mountain shrub habitat is used by 

the Gunnison sage-grouse and therefore, 

mountain shrub should not be lumped 

in with pin ̃ on-juniper (Pinus edulisJuniperus spp.) habitat. 

Our Response: We agree that some 

deciduous shrub communities 

(primarily Gambel oak and serviceberry) 

are used seasonally by Gunnison sagegrouse (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). See 

discussion under Factor A, Pin ̃ onJuniper Encroachment. 

(74) Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that Gunnison sage-grouse 

numbers were highest during a period of 

higher livestock grazing, and that there 

is no negative correlation between 

grazing intensity and Gunnison sagegrouse numbers. Other commenters 

noted either improvement or 

degradation of habitat associated with 

livestock grazing. One commenter asked 

what we consider to be a proper grazing 

regime. 

Our Response: Excessive grazing by 

domestic livestock during the late 1800s 

and early 1900s, along with severe 

drought, significantly impacted 

sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 616). Overgrazing by livestock was 

cited as one of several contributing 

factors in the early loss and 

deterioration of sagebrush range in the 

region (Rogers 1964, p. 13). Historical 

accounts indicate that overgrazing of 

sagebrush range in Colorado began 

around 1875. Overgrazing was 

apparently at its worst in the early 

1900s and continued until the BLM was 

organized in 1934 (Rogers 1964, p. 13). 

Around 1910, a gradual but marked 

decline in sage-grouse numbers and 

distribution in Colorado had begun 

(Rogers 1964, pp. 20–22). This 

information indicates that historical 

livestock grazing practices and 

overgrazing were a contributing factor in 

the early loss and degradation of 

sagebrush habitats and initial declines 

in sage-grouse numbers and 

distribution. Although current livestock 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69219 

stocking rates in the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse are lower than historical 

levels (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3), longterm effects from historical overgrazing, 

including changes in plant communities 

and soils, persist today (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 116). In addition, widespread 

use of water developments across the 

West has since increased livestock 

access to sagebrush habitats, and so 

even reduced numbers of livestock still 

pose impacts (Connelly 2004, pp. 7–33, 

7–35, 7–92). We know that grazing can 

have negative impacts to sagebrush and 

consequently to Gunnison sage-grouse 

at local scales. Grazing inconsistent 

with local ecological conditions is 

occurring over a large portion of the 

range of the species. Habitat degradation 

that can result from grazing practices 

inconsistent with local ecological 

conditions, particularly with the 

interacting factors of invasive weed 

expansion and climate change, is a 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

persistence. See Factor A, Domestic 

Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory. 

(75) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that Gunnison sage-grouse chicks 

depend on insects in cattle manure. 

Our Response: Anecdotal reports and 

opinion papers (Brunner 2006, p. 16; 

Gunnison County 2013a, p. 95) have 

suggested that cattle manure attracts and 

supports insect populations upon which 

sage-grouse depend for survival, and 

that sage-grouse ‘‘follow’’ cattle through 

pastures. However, there is no evidence 

to support this theory. Further, there are 

no data to substantiate the idea that in 

sagebrush areas not actively grazed by 

livestock, sage-grouse are limited in 

some way (Connelly et al. 2007, p. 37). 

This topic is discussed in Factor A of 

this final rule (see Factor A, Domestic 

Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory.). 

(76) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed differing opinions on whether 

livestock grazing reduces or increases 

the risk of catastrophic fire. 

Our Response: We know that 

livestock grazing influences fire ecology 

in sage-grouse habitat. However, due to 

the spatial complexity of fire in 

sagebrush ecosystems (Crawford et al. 

2004, p. 7), and the numerous factors 

that determine the effects of grazing on 

sagebrush habitats, the effects of grazing 

on sage-grouse by altering fire regimes 

likely vary widely across time and 

space. This topic is discussed in detail 

in Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild 

Ungulate Herbivory, of this final rule. 

(77) Comment: Several commenters 

asked what has changed from 2006, 

when the Service concluded that 

grazing was not a threat, to 2013, when 

the Service concluded that grazing was 

a threat. 

Our Response: Both the 2006 not 

warranted determination (71 FR 19954, 

April 18, 2006) and the 2013 proposed 

rule to list the species (78 FR 2486, 

January 11, 2013) presented similar 

observations: 

• Excessive grazing by domestic 

livestock during the late 1800s and early 

1900s, along with severe drought, 

significantly affected sagebrush 

ecosystems, causing long-term impacts 

that persist today. 

• Although we know that historical 

livestock grazing practices and 

overgrazing were a contributing factor in 

the early loss and degradation of 

sagebrush habitats and initial declines 

in sage-grouse numbers and 

distribution, the correlation between 

historical grazing and reduced sagegrouse numbers is not exact. 

• Habitat manipulations to improve 

livestock forage, such as sagebrush 

removal, can affect sage-grouse habitat. 

In 2006, we concluded that there was 

insufficient data to demonstrate that 

current grazing was a rangewide threat 

to the species. In 2013, several new 

references related to grazing were 

available for consideration (Coates 2007, 

Hagen et al. 2007, Aldridge et al. 2008, 

France et al. 2008, BLM 2008, BLM 

2009a, Gunnison County Stockgrowers 

2009, Knick et al. 2011, Pyke 2011, 

Williams and Hild 2011, BLM 2012a). 

Our conclusion in 2013 was that habitat 

degradation can result from improperly 

managed grazing, and, particularly with 

the interacting factors of invasive weed 

expansion and climate change, is a 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

persistence. Climate change was not 

included as a factor in 2006, but in 2013 

we stated that climate change is likely 

to become an increasingly important 

threat to the persistence of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. We also noted in our 2013 

proposed rule that livestock grazing can 

cause local impacts, but populationlevel impacts are unlikely. We make the 

same conclusions in this final rule (see 

Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild 

Ungulate Herbivory). 

(78) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that wildlife herbivory needs to 

be addressed. 

Our Response: In the proposed and 

final rules, we discuss wild ungulate 

herbivory. It occurs throughout the 

range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and 

there are instances of overgrazing by 

wild ungulates on a local level. In this 

final rule, we note that the effects of 

livestock grazing are likely being 

exacerbated by browsing of woody 

species by wild ungulates in portions of 

the Gunnison Basin and the Crawford 

area (see Factor A, Domestic Grazing 

and Wild Ungulate Herbivory). 

(79) Comment: One commenter noted 

that very little private or public land in 

Dolores County is grazed. 

Our Response: More than 81 percent 

of lands in Dove Creek are privately 

owned. We do not have information 

regarding what percentage of private 

lands occupied by Gunnison sagegrouse in Dolores County is grazed. 

(80) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that grazing should be 

reduced or eliminated on public lands. 

Our Response: Properly managed 

livestock grazing is not likely to impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse such that it 

threatens populations or the species. 

The BLM and USFS manage grazing 

allotments on their lands, and currently 

consider conservation of Gunnison sagegrouse on many of their allotments. 

Allotments occur on approximately 

292,000 ha (720,000 ac) or 77 percent of 

occupied habitat (Industrial Economics, 

Inc. 2013, p. 3–1). Stocking rates have 

declined significantly in recent years. 

Both agencies have designated the 

Gunnison sage-grouse as a ‘‘Sensitive 

Species.’’ This designation requires the 

BLM and the USFS to address the 

species in their RMPs, and their Land 

and Resource Management Plans 

(LRMPs), respectively. Management 

actions in these plans include changes 

to seasons of use, AUM reductions, 

rotational grazing, and other changes to 

grazing management practices. When 

the Gunnison sage-grouse is listed, 

actions on allotments that might affect 

the species will require ESA section 7 

consultations under the Act in all areas 

occupied by the species. Section 9 

prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ will also 

apply. 

(81) Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that invasive plants such as 

cheatgrass and pin ̃ on-juniper are not a 

proven threat to Gunnison sage-grouse; 

they have only been proven a threat 

with greater sage-grouse. One 

commenter noted that cheatgrass has 

increased within the Gunnison sagegrouse range and is a major threat in the 

Gunnison Basin. 

Our Response: Cheatgrass can shorten 

fire intervals in sagebrush communities. 

Pin ̃ on-juniper encroachment is potential 

evidence of extended fire intervals. 

Either change in fire intervals can 

adversely impact habitat for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse by reducing 

sagebrush cover. Based on what is 

known about the effects of cheatgrass 

and pin ̃ on-juniper on greater sagegrouse, it is reasonable to infer their 

expansion has similar effects on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. In this final rule 

we conclude that neither invasive 

weeds nor pin ̃ on-juniper encroachment 

are substantial threats to Gunnison sageVerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2

rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69220 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

grouse at this time, due to their limited 

extent; however, they are potential 

future threats (see Factor A, Invasive 

Plants and Pin ̃ on-Juniper 

Encroachment). 

(82) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that drought is causing a decline 

in Gunnison sage-grouse numbers; 

conversely, one commenter stated that 

drought is not a threat. Several 

commenters also stated that the 

Monticello-Dove Creek area has 

degraded Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

due to climate change and drought. 

Our Response: The proposed rule to 

list the species stated that it is too 

speculative to conclude that drought 

alone is a threat to the species at this 

time; however, based on rapid species 

decline in drought years, it is likely that 

drought exacerbates other known threats 

and thus can negatively affect the 

species. Drought and associated effects 

are discussed further in Factors A and 

E and Cumulative Effects From Factors 

A through E of this rule. 

(83) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that prescribed fire creates a 

desirable habitat mosaic, but may also 

cause a short-term decline in sagebrush. 

Our Response: In Factor A (Fire) of 

the proposed and final rules we state 

that in mesic areas used for broodrearing, small fires may maintain a 

suitable habitat mosaic by reducing 

shrub encroachment and encouraging 

understory growth. However, without 

available sagebrush cover nearby, the 

utility of these sites is questionable. 

(84) Comment: Some commenters 

asserted that climate change is not a 

threat because it will not occur within 

the foreseeable future. 

Our Response: Climate change is 

ongoing and cumulative. The proposed 

and final rules conclude that climate 

change is not a threat to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse at this time, but is likely to 

become a threat to the persistence of the 

species over the next 40 years. The 

Gunnison sage-grouse was found to be 

‘‘highly vulnerable’’ to climate change 

in the Gunnison Basin (TNC et al. 2011, 

p. 48). 

(85) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that fire suppression and reduced 

fire frequency due to grazing have 

caused pin ̃ on-juniper encroachment 

into sagebrush habitat. 

Our Response: Pin ̃on-juniper 

encroachment has been attributed to the 

reduced role of fire, the introduction of 

livestock grazing, increases in global 

carbon dioxide concentrations, climate 

change, and natural recovery from past 

disturbance. Most Gunnison sage-grouse 

population areas are experiencing low 

to moderate levels of pin ̃on-juniper 

encroachment, although considerable 

encroachment has occurred at Pin ̃ on 

Mesa (see Factor A, Pin ̃ on-Juniper 

Encroachment in All Population Areas). 

We discuss the relationship between fire 

and pin ̃on-juniper encroachment in this 

final rule (see Factor A, Fire and Pin ̃ onJuniper Encroachment). 

(86) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that the historical fire rotation 

was 178–357 years in Wyoming big 

sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis) and 90– 

143 years in mountain big sagebrush; 

these rotation intervals may or may not 

be changing. 

Our Response: These time periods are 

from Bukowski and Baker (2013, p. 5). 

The authors concluded that fire size, 

rate of burning, and severity may be 

changing due to land-use changes, fire 

exclusion, and invasive species such as 

cheatgrass. Crawford et al. (2004, p. 2) 

stated that fire ecology changed 

dramatically with European settlement. 

In high elevation sagebrush habitat, fire 

return intervals increased from 12–24 

years to more than 50 years, resulting in 

invasion of conifers and a resulting loss 

in shrubs and herbaceous understory; at 

lower elevations, fire return intervals 

decreased dramatically from 50–100 

years to less than 10 years due to 

invasion by annual grasses. TNC et al. 

(2011, p. 12) predicted a trend of higher 

fire frequency and severity in the 

Gunnison Basin due to climate change. 

(87) Comment: Two commenters 

noted that drought has encouraged 

invasive plants. 

Our Response: Drought can increase 

the likelihood of some invasive plants 

such as cheatgrass out-competing native 

perennials. The potential effects of 

drought and invasive plants on 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat are 

further described in Factors A (Invasive 

Plants) and E (Drought) of this final rule. 

(88) Comment: One commenter stated 

that climate change is adversely 

affecting Gunnison sage-grouse, but it 

cannot be mitigated by the Service. 

Our Response: The Service can do 

little to avert climate change; however, 

actions can be taken to minimize 

specific impacts and improve the 

resiliency of species in the face of 

climate change. For example, the 

preferred Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

for early brood-rearing includes riparian 

areas and wet meadows near sagebrush 

that provide the insects and forbs 

essential for chick survival. These 

habitat types are highly vulnerable to 

impacts from climate change and have 

been seriously degraded, but 

management actions can be taken to 

maintain and restore these important 

habitats (TNC et al. 2011, p. H–9–10). 

(89) Comment: One commenter stated 

that if there are similar trends in 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations 

separated by long distances, the driver 

could be climate change. 

Our Response: This hypothesis is 

plausible, although there is no evidence 

to support this hypothesis. This final 

rule discusses the potential impacts of 

climate change and drought in Factors 

A (Climate change) and E (Drought), and 

the associated effects on Gunnison sagegrouse. 

(90) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that predator numbers have 

increased and are likely a threat to the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: Predator populations 

can increase as a result of habitat 

fragmentation and degradation, causing 

otherwise suitable habitat to become a 

population sink for sage-grouse. The 

best available information indicates 

that, as we stated in our proposed rule, 

predation is a current and future threat 

to the species, particularly in the 

satellite populations Predation is 

discussed further under Factor C in this 

final rule. 

(91) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that predator levels could be 

managed to relieve the threat from 

predation. 

Our Response: Predator removal 

efforts sometimes result in short-term 

population gains for sage-grouse, but 

predator numbers quickly rebound 

without continual control (Hagen 2011, 

p. 99). Predation may be limiting some 

of the smaller populations of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, and in those cases predator 

control efforts may be appropriate. The 

best available information indicates 

that, as we stated in our proposed rule, 

predation is a current and future threat 

to the species, particularly in the 

satellite populations. While predation 

likely acts as a threat in localized areas 

across the range of the species, the 

stability of the Gunnison Basin 

population over the last 19 years 

indicates that predation is not having a 

significant impact on that population. 

We believe, however, that the effects of 

predation are more pronounced in the 

satellite populations. Given the stability 

of the Gunnison Basin population, we 

do not believe that the magnitude of this 

threat is significant at the rangewide 

level.While predation is a threat 

rangewide, we believe that the effects of 

predation are localized and more 

pronounced in the satellite populations, 

and therefore we do not believe that the 

magnitude of this threat is significant 

(see Factor C, Predation). 

(92) Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that we reevaluate our 

conclusions regarding nest depredation 

by elk (Cervus canadensis) and cattle. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69221 

Our Response: The proposed and final 

rules document that livestock can 

trample nests, either destroying eggs or 

causing abandonment by hens. We also 

cite references that list several species of 

nest predators, including elk and 

domestic cows (see Factor C). However, 

the best available information indicates 

that nest predation by livestock and elk 

has negligible impacts on Gunnison 

sage-grouse at the population level (See 

Factor C, Predation). 

(93) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that many predators of Gunnison 

sage-grouse are protected and cannot be 

controlled. 

Our Response: Migratory birds such 

as raptors are protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 

703–712). Take of these species requires 

a Federal permit. However, most 

mammalian predators of Gunnison sagegrouse and some birds may be 

controlled. Nevertheless, predator 

control efforts will likely only be 

effective under special circumstances 

(see our response to comment 48). 

(94) Comment: Some commenters 

believed that raptor concentrations 

associated with powerlines are not 

evidence of increased predation on 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and that perch 

deterrents are not successful over the 

long-term. One commenter provided a 

paper that summarized studies 

regarding sage-grouse and powerlines 

(EDM International, Inc. 2011). 

Our Response: In the proposed and 

final rules, we present numerous peerreviewed studies that have 

demonstrated an increase in corvids and 

raptors associated with powerlines and 

transmission lines, which we infer 

could logically lead to increased 

predation of sage-grouse. We discuss 

these topics further under Factors A 

(Powerlines) and E (Predation) in this 

final rule. 

(95) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the risk from the parasite 

Tryptmosoma cruzi and the encephalitis 

virus should be investigated. 

Our Response: In Factor C of this final 

rule we evaluate the best available 

information on diseases in Gunnison 

sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse, 

including West Nile virus, an 

encephalitis virus lethal to greater sagegrouse and other gallinaceous birds. We 

also discuss other pathogens potentially 

relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse, based 

on data provided by CPW. We are not 

aware of other scientific information 

related to disease in Gunnison sagegrouse. To our knowledge, 

Tryptmosoma cruzi is a disease endemic 

to Latin America and does not pose a 

threat to sage-grouse. 

(96) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that there is no evidence that 

disease is currently a threat. One 

commenter noted that there is a low 

abundance of the mosquito species that 

are known vectors of West Nile virus, 

and all mosquitos and Gunnison sagegrouse sampled by CPW tested negative. 

Our Response: In the proposed rule, 

we determined that West Nile virus is 

a potential future threat, but it, and 

other diseases and parasitic infections, 

were not considered a current threat. 

We received comments from the 

scientific community expressing 

concern with this conclusion, 

particularly in regard to West Nile virus, 

based on the following information: To 

date, West Nile virus has not been 

documented in Gunnison sage-grouse, 

but is present in all counties throughout 

the species’ range (USGS 2013, entire). 

Walker and Naugle (2011, p. 140) 

predicted that West Nile virus outbreaks 

in small, isolated, and genetically 

depauperate populations could reduce 

sage-grouse numbers below a threshold 

from which recovery is unlikely because 

of limited or nonexistent demographic 

and genetic exchange from adjacent 

populations. Therefore, a West Nile 

virus outbreak in any Gunnison sagegrouse population, except perhaps the 

Gunnison Basin population, could limit 

the persistence of that population. This 

information is discussed further in 

Factor C of this final rule. 

(97) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Sovada et al. (1995) does not 

support the assertion that red fox and 

corvid populations are increasing. 

Our Response: We removed this 

citation from the final rule, because the 

study is not relevant to our analysis. 

Our proposed rule, in error, stated that 

Sovada et al. (1995, p. 5) found that ‘‘red 

fox and corvids, which historically were 

rare in the sagebrush landscape, have 

increased in association with human 

altered landscapes.’’ However, the 

author only speculated that abundance 

of these species had increased in 

sagebrush habitats over time. In this 

final rule, we discuss how 

anthropogenic pressures can influence 

the diversity and density of predators 

based on other studies (see Factor C). 

(98) Comment: One commenter stated 

that predation threats to Gunnison sagegrouse cannot be presumed to be similar 

to predation threats to greater sagegrouse. 

Our Response: In the proposed and 

final rules, we use the best available 

scientific and commercial data. We also 

note that we use information specific to 

the Gunnison sage-grouse where 

available but still applied scientific 

management principles for greater sagegrouse that are relevant to Gunnison 

sage-grouse management needs and 

strategies. 

(99) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that the threat of predation by 

raptors is exaggerated. 

Our Response: The proposed and final 

rules state that predation is the most 

commonly identified cause of direct 

mortality for Gunnison sage-grouse 

during all life stages and discuss 

common predators of adults, juveniles, 

and eggs. We also present information 

from scientific studies that demonstrate 

the potential impact of raptor predation 

on sage-grouse (see Factor C, Predation). 

(100) Comment: One commenter 

noted that in Dolores County at least 

one person has contracted West Nile 

virus, and a significant number of dead 

birds have been found. 

Our Response: The proposed rule to 

list the species stated that there have 

been no confirmed avian mortalities 

from West Nile virus in San Miguel, 

Dolores, and Hinsdale Counties (78 FR 

2519, January 11, 2013). For updates in 

the final rule, we revisited records from 

the Centers for Disease Control (USGS 

2013, entire) for West Nile reports in 

Colorado and Utah. Those records 

indicate that a total of 84 dead wild 

birds (species other than Gunnison sagegrouse) infected by West Nile virus have 

been reported from nine counties within 

the current range of the Gunnison sagegrouse since 2002, when reporting 

began in Colorado and Utah. In this 

final rule we conclude that West Nile 

virus is a future threat to Gunnison sagegrouse (see Factor C). 

(101) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that conservation easements, 

CCAs, and CCAAs protect Gunnison 

sage-grouse, either directly or through 

protection of sagebrush habitat. Varying 

estimates of lands under conservation 

easements were provided, with most 

commenters citing the properties and 

acreages identified in Lohr and Gray 

(2013). Other commenters provided 

estimates of lands enrolled in the 

CCAA. Another commenter noted that 

17.4 percent of all private lands in both 

occupied and unoccupied proposed 

critical habitat are protected through 

either conservation easements or 

CCAAs. Since 1995, a commenter 

reported, private landowners, local, and 

State expenditures towards Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation exceed $31 

million. 

Our Response: We applaud these 

efforts towards Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation. Continuation of 

conservation efforts across the species’ 

range will be necessary for conservation 

and recovery of the species. 

Conservation easements and CCAAs 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69222 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

provide some level of protection for the 

species from future development on 

enrolled lands. In this final rule, we add 

information provided in Lohr and Gray 

(2013), update estimates for lands 

enrolled in CCAAs and conservation 

easements, and consider these 

conservation efforts in our listing 

decision as appropriate (see Factors A 

and D). 

(102) Comment: Several commenters 

asserted that the current regulations are 

either adequate or inadequate to address 

threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: There have been major 

strides in improving regulations to 

protect Gunnison sage-grouse and its 

habitat. Examples include Gunnison 

and Montrose County regulations for 

land use permitting in occupied habitat. 

Nonetheless, for the reasons stated in 

Factor D of this rule, existing regulatory 

mechanisms currently do not fully 

address the threat of habitat decline 

caused by human development in the 

species range. In addition, under the 

Act, the adequacy or inadequacy of 

regulatory mechanisms is just one of 

several factors upon which our 

determination to list a species must be 

based. As described in the proposed and 

final rules, there are multiple other 

threats contributing to the species’ 

decline rangewide. Therefore, even the 

most protective local regulations may be 

insufficient to address all threats to the 

species, or halt recent declines in many 

of the populations, such that protection 

of the species under the Act is not 

warranted. In Factor D of this final rule, 

we evaluate the best available 

information related to existing 

regulatory mechanisms that address 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and its 

habitat (Factors A through C, and E). 

(103) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Service should discuss 

existing land use policies and regulatory 

mechanisms with local governments. 

Our Response: The Service has been 

engaged with Federal agencies, the 

States of Colorado and Utah, the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe, affected counties, 

and other interested parties throughout 

the listing process via letters, emails, 

telephone calls, meetings, and other 

means. Verbal and written comments 

have been carefully considered and in 

many instances incorporated into this 

final rule. 

(104) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that resources on private lands are 

not managed to a lesser standard than 

resources on Federal lands. 

Our Response: These comments may 

have been referring to our assessment of 

private lands in the grazing section of 

the proposed rule. In this final rule (see 

Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild 

Ungulate Herbivory), we revise our 

language to state that we have more 

limited information on the extent of 

grazing, management, and habitat 

conditions on non-Federal lands. 

Although Federal land and livestock 

grazing may be more regulated, we 

cannot make any generalizations about 

how habitat conditions in those areas 

might compare with private lands where 

livestock grazing occurs. We note, 

however, that grazing allotments 

containing both Federal and private 

lands are, in some cases, managed to 

meet BLM land health standards 

through coordination and cooperation 

with grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, 

p. 1–2). 

(105) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that as a designated ‘‘sensitive 

species’’ the BLM must address 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation in 

their Resource Management Plans and 

associated activity plans. 

Our Response: We acknowledge that 

the commenter is correct (see Factor D, 

Federal Laws and Regulations). 

(106) Comment: Some commenters 

stated that the COGCC protects wildlife 

resources and their habitat. 

Our Response: The COGCC 

implements several environmental 

regulations that provide protection to 

the Gunnison sage-grouse and its 

habitat. These regulations generally 

apply to both Federal and private lands, 

although they may conflict with Federal 

regulations in some cases. The COGCC 

classifies all Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied habitat as ‘‘Sensitive Wildlife 

Habitat’’ that requires operators to: (1) 

Consult with CPW to evaluate options 

for minimizing adverse habitat impacts, 

(2) educate employees and contractors 

on conservation practices, (3) 

consolidate new facilities to minimize 

disturbance, (4) control road access and 

limit traffic, and (5) monitor wells 

remotely when possible. The COGCC 

also designates lek areas as ‘‘Restricted 

Surface Occupancy Areas’’ that requires 

operators to: (1) Comply with all 

requirements for ‘‘Sensitive Wildlife 

Habitat’’ and (2) avoid all new grounddisturbing activities if feasible. The 

COGCC does not require these 

protections in unoccupied habitat 

(COGCC 2014). We discuss COGCC 

regulations in this final rule (see Factor 

D, State Laws and Regulations). 

(107) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that parcels of 35 ac (14 ha) or 

more are not exempted from State or 

county oversight. 

Our Response: We include this 

information in this final rule, and 

acknowledge that counties have 

regulatory controls applicable to plus-35 

acre development and projects (see 

Factor D, Local Laws and Regulations). 

(108) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that a PECE analysis should 

be conducted. 

Our Response: Our Policy for 

Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 

(PECE) is used by the Service when 

making listing decisions under the Act. 

It established criteria for determining 

when we can consider in our listing 

determination future formalized 

conservation efforts that have not yet 

been implemented, or have been 

implemented, but have not yet 

demonstrated whether they are effective 

at the time of the listing decision. 

Numerous conservation actions have 

already been implemented for Gunnison 

sage-grouse, and these efforts have 

provided and will continue to provide 

conservation benefit to the species. 

These implemented efforts are 

considered in the appropriate section of 

this rule. Additionally, there are 

recently formalized future conservation 

efforts that intend to provide 

conservation benefits to the Gunnison 

sage-grouse; some of which have not 

been fully implemented or shown to be 

effective. A PECE analysis was 

conducted by the Service for these 

conservation efforts that are too recent 

to have demonstrated effectiveness as of 

this listing determination. This is 

described further under Conservation 

Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat 

Conservation. Efforts that are considered 

regulatory are considered under Factor 

D of this rule. 

(109) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that the BLM and USFS must 

modify all existing leases and permit 

allotments in Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat to incorporate enforceable terms 

and conditions to protect the species. 

Our Response: Current BLM RMPs 

and USFS LRMPs provide some 

regulatory protection for the species. 

Changes to grazing allotment 

management have occurred, consistent 

with existing RMPs, over the past 10 

years as permits have been revised or 

renewed. The extent to which 

appropriate measures to reduce or 

eliminate other threats to the species 

have been incorporated into planning 

documents or are being implemented, 

varies across the species’ range and will 

likely continue to evolve as a result of 

BLM’s on-going revision of several 

RMPs in the species’ range and its 

planned landscape-level, targeted RMP 

amendments for the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse on BLMadministered public lands in Colorado 

and Utah (see Factor D, Federal Laws 

and Regulations). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69223 

(110) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that although conservation 

easements are voluntary, they are legally 

binding once they have been recorded; 

therefore, they may offer regulatory 

protection. One commenter stated that 

voluntary conservation measures do not 

constitute adequate regulatory 

mechanisms if they are not enforceable 

and are not rangewide. 

Our Response: We consider 

conservation easements to be an 

effective regulatory tool for the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

to the extent that they permanently limit 

or restrict land uses for identified 

conservation values and purposes and 

prevent long-term or permanent habitat 

loss (see Factor D, Other Regulatory 

Mechanisms: Conservation Easements). 

Other conservation efforts such as the 

CCA and CCAA are not considered 

regulatory mechanisms; and are 

therefore evaluated in Factor A, 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Protection. 

(111) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund could be used to 

acquire Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Our Response: We agree that this 

would be a reasonable expenditure for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

However, there is a backlog of Federal 

land acquisition needs, estimated at 

more than $30 billion, which could 

impede timely use of the Fund for this 

purpose. 

(112) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that conservation agreements 

are a violation of Federal and State 

constitutions. 

Our Response: Conservation 

agreements have been successfully used 

by Federal and State agencies for several 

years to improve the status of many 

wildlife species and their habitats; we 

are not aware of any instances where 

they have been found to be 

unconstitutional, nor do we have any 

reason to believe that they are 

unconstitutional. 

(113) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that oil and gas companies may 

cease operations if the Gunnison sagegrouse is listed or critical habitat is 

designated for the species. Some 

commenters asserted that they have 

been unable to lease their mineral rights 

as a result of the anticipated listing of 

the species. Several commenters also 

noted that a large percentage of county 

revenues in Dolores and Montezuma 

Counties are from oil and gas activities. 

Our Response: While restrictions may 

be placed on various types of 

development that are subject to 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

(on Federal lands or with Federal 

permitting or funding), the Service does 

not intend to preclude mineral or fossil 

fuel extraction as a result of listing or 

designating critical habitat. As noted in 

our response to comment 106, the 

COGCC implements several 

environmental regulations on both 

Federal and private lands that provide 

some protection to the Gunnison sagegrouse and occupied habitat. The BLM 

generally requires conservation 

measures on leases it issues. We may 

also seek project modifications during 

section 7 consultations to benefit 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

(114) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that wind energy 

development should be allowed to 

proceed. 

Our Response: The Endangered 

Species Act contains provisions to allow 

development projects to go forward 

even if they are within critical habitat or 

could result in take of a listed species, 

if those projects are done in accordance 

with sections 7 and 10 of the Act. For 

a discussion of wind energy 

development as a threat to the species, 

see discussion of Renewable Energy 

Development in Factor A. 

(115) 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 habitat in San 

Miguel and Dolores Counties. The BLM 

requires operators to adopt conservation 

efforts specified in the RMP for this 

area. These conservation efforts are 

required with or without listing the 

species under the Act. When the species 

is listed and critical habitat is 

designated, section 7 consultation will 

also be required. 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 to the 

species. In this final rule we consider 

the development of leasable minerals 

such as potash a low threat to the 

species (see Factor A, Mineral 

Development). 

(116) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that oil and gas development 

threatens some Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations in San Miguel County. 

Our Response: Approximately 13 

percent of occupied habitat within the 

San Miguel Basin population has 

authorized Federal leases for oil and gas 

development; production is currently 

occurring on approximately five percent 

of this lease area. Currently, 25 gas wells 

are active within occupied habitat and 

18 additional active wells are 

immediately adjacent to occupied 

habitat. All of these wells are in or near 

the Dry Creek subpopulation. In this 

final rule we consider the development 

of leasable minerals such as oil and gas 

a low threat to the species (see Factor A, 

Mineral Development). 

(117) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that energy companies could 

contribute money for Gunnison sagegrouse conservation. 

Our Response: Energy companies that 

pursue development in Gunnison sagegrouse habitat must follow stipulations 

provided in the applicable BLM RMP (if 

Federal minerals are involved) and 

comply with applicable COGCC 

regulations. The annual costs associated 

with required conservation efforts 

represent a contribution by energy 

companies. 

(118) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that energy development is 

not a threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse 

because: (1) There is not adequate 

information to indicate that renewable 

energy development is a threat, and (2) 

impacts from non-renewable energy 

development are very localized. 

Our Response: We do not consider 

renewable energy development to be a 

threat to the species at this time (see 

Factor A, Renewable Energy 

Development). As noted in our 

responses to comment 116, we consider 

the development of non-renewable 

energy (leasable minerals) a low threat 

to the species (see Factor A, Mineral 

Development). 

(119) Comment: One commenter 

asked if power companies will be able 

to clear sagebrush under their power 

lines. 

Our Response: The Endangered 

Species Act contains provisions to allow 

projects to go forward even if they are 

within habitat, critical habitat or could 

result in take of a listed species, if those 

projects are done in accordance with 

sections 7 and 10 of the Act. Listed 

species, both within and outside of 

critical habitat, are protected from take, 

which includes harming (e.g., shooting, 

killing, trapping, collecting) and 

harassing individual animals. Incidental 

take that may result from, but is not the 

purpose of, otherwise legal activities 

without a Federal nexus may be allowed 

with a permit available from the Service 

under section 10 of the Act. Pursuant to 

section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies 

are also required to consult with the 

Service regarding any action authorized, 

funded, or carried out by the agency that 

may affect a listed species, both within 

and outside of critical habitat, to ensure 

that the Federal action does not 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69224 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

jeopardize the existence of any listed 

species. Sagebrush clearing under 

power lines would likely need to be 

addressed, and effects minimized, 

through section 7 or 10 of the Act. 

(120) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that leks in areas of energy 

development be relocated. 

Our Response: Relocating leks is 

likely not in the best interest of the 

species. Sage-grouse often will continue 

to return to altered breeding habitats 

including leks, nesting areas, and early 

brood-rearing areas due to the species’ 

strong site fidelity, despite past nesting 

or productivity failures (Rogers 1964, 

pp. 35–40; Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, 

p. 666; Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon 2000, 

p. 20; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 3–4–3– 

6; Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. 747). 

Broad-scale characteristics within 

surrounding landscapes influence 

habitat selection, and adult Gunnison 

sage-grouse exhibit a high fidelity to all 

seasonal habitats, resulting in low 

adaptability to habitat changes. A study 

of greater sage-grouse concluded that 

strong site fidelity makes natural recolonization slow and that 

anthropogenic translocations into areas 

with no resident populations are 

unlikely to succeed (Doherty 2008, pp. 

80–81). We believe that this conclusion 

applies to the Gunnison sage-grouse as 

well because it exhibits similar site 

fidelity characteristics. 

(121) Comment: One commenter 

stated that information regarding 

impacts from energy development is 

based on studies of greater sage-grouse 

rather than Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: There is more 

information available specific to greater 

sage-grouse due to the fact that 

Gunnison sage-grouse was not 

recognized as a distinct species until 

2000, which means only 14 years of 

species-specific research is potentially 

available. The greater sage-grouse also 

has a much broader range, with several 

states monitoring and managing the 

species. The life history and ecology of 

the two species are very similar, 

therefore, with minimal information 

available regarding impacts to Gunnison 

sage-grouse from energy development, it 

is reasonable to also consider impacts to 

greater sage-grouse from energy 

development when determining 

whether or not this development is a 

threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse. In 

this final rule we do not consider 

renewable energy development to be a 

current threat to the species rangewide; 

we consider non-renewable energy 

development to be a threat of low 

magnitude to Gunnison sage-grouse (see 

Factor A, Mineral Development and 

Renewable Energy Development). 

(122) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that the Federal government 

has put an end to oil and gas drilling 

throughout the range of the Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Our Response: Of approximately 

22,000 ha (54,000 ac) leased by BLM 

within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 

Colorado, 38 percent are currently in 

production, with 67 active wells. In 

Utah, approximately 1,100 ha (2,700 ac) 

are leased within Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat, with none currently in 

production. On non-Federal lands there 

are five active wells in Colorado and 

three active wells in Utah (Industrial 

Economics, Inc. 2013, p. 5–4). Since 

2005, the BLM has temporarily withheld 

new oil and gas leases from sales 

throughout occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in Colorado. However, 

leases can be sold on unoccupied 

habitat, and oil and gas development 

continues on private lands. 

(123) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that voluntary conservation 

measures and local regulations should 

be fully considered. 

Our Response: We agree. Local 

regulations and voluntary conservation 

measures such as conservation 

easements, CCAAs, and CCAs provide 

formal protection for the Gunnison sagegrouse. We recognize that such efforts 

contribute to the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Under Factor D 

we evaluate whether threats to the 

Gunnison sage-grouse are adequately 

addressed by existing regulatory 

mechanisms, including local 

regulations, conservation easements, 

State regulations, and Federal 

regulations. CCAAs and CCAs are 

discussed under Factor A, Conservation 

Programs and Efforts Related to habitat 

Protection. 

(124) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the DPS analysis needs to be 

described in more detail for the seven 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

Our Response: The term ‘‘distinct 

population segment’’ (DPS) is included 

in the definition of species in Section 

3(16) of the Act, which describes a DPS 

as any species of vertebrate fish or 

wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature. We have a policy that guides 

our consideration of DPS issues. In 

addition to full taxonomic species and 

subspecies, a DPS of any vertebrate 

species is eligible for consideration for 

purposes of listing, delisting, or 

reclassifying. The authority to list a DPS 

is to be used sparingly and only when 

the biological evidence indicates that 

such action is warranted. In order to be 

considered a DPS, a population must be 

both discrete and significant. If a 

population segment is discrete and 

significant, it can be evaluated with 

regard to whether it is endangered or 

threatened. This analysis is different 

from an SPR (Significant Portion of the 

Range) analysis. We considered the 

entire range of the Gunnison sage-grouse 

in our listing evaluation and found that 

it warranted listing throughout its range; 

therefore, there was no need to evaluate 

individual population segments for 

consideration as a DPS. In addition, we 

do not believe any biological evidence 

warrants the listing of any DPS. 

(125) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the proposed rules rely too 

much on the use of linguistically 

uncertain or vague wording to support 

their conclusions. 

Our Response: Natural sciences, 

including wildlife biology, typically do 

not deal in absolutes. Studies seldom 

evaluate all members of a species or 

address all possible variables. 

Consequently, conclusions often 

include wording to address this 

uncertainty. Tools such as adaptive 

management can strengthen the 

decision-making process by 

incorporating new information and 

adjusting decisions accordingly. This 

has occurred with the Gunnison sagegrouse––as more information has 

become available, we have adjusted and 

refined our recommendations from the 

proposed to the final rule. 

(126) Comment: One commenter 

stated that if a stressor is not a threat; 

the regulatory mechanisms associated 

with that stressor cannot be considered 

a threat. 

Our Response: We agree. For example, 

if hunting is not considered a threat, 

then the regulations associated with 

hunting would not be considered 

inadequate. In other instances, it may 

not be possible to adequately address a 

threat through regulatory mechanisms 

(e.g., small population size, disease, 

climate change). We also recognize that 

regulatory mechanisms may help reduce 

impacts of a particular threat (e.g., 

residential development in Gunnison 

County), and yet not fully address this 

or other threats to the species. 

(127) Comment: Two commenters 

asserted that tribal concerns have not 

been addressed. 

Our Response: We have considered 

tribal concerns in this final rule. The 

Service underwent a Government to 

Government consultation with the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe regarding the 

Species Management Plan developed for 

the tribal-owned Pinecrest Ranch. This 

topic is discussed in detail in Factor A 

(Conservation Programs and Efforts) of 

this final rule. 

(128) Comment: Some commenters 

asserted that initial town hall meetings 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69225 

were not conducted properly because no 

public meetings were held in 

Montezuma County, there was a faulty 

sound system, too short of a time-frame 

for the meeting, poor coordination, and 

some comments were not recorded. 

Our Response: No public meetings 

were held in Montezuma County 

because no critical habitat was proposed 

in that county, nor is the species known 

to occur in that area. We apologize to 

anyone who experienced difficulties in 

hearing the discussions, did not feel that 

adequate time was provided, or felt 

there was poor coordination between 

the Service and local governments. In 

November, 2013, additional public 

hearings were held in Gunnison and 

Montrose, Colorado; and in Monticello, 

Utah to ensure that we provided 

adequate opportunity for public 

comment to occur through our hearing 

process. In addition, written comments 

were accepted during the reopened 

comment periods. These processes are 

discussed in Previous Federal Actions 

in this final rule. 

(129) Comment: Two commenters 

asserted that the Service’s decisionmaking process for listing is influenced 

by the International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 

Our Response: The IUCN does not 

influence our decision-making process. 

We provided information on IUCN’s 

ranking of the species for background 

only; these assessments are not factored 

into our analysis or listing 

determination in this rule. We make this 

clarification in this final rule (see 

Additional Special Status Information). 

(130) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that the RCP not be 

considered in the listing decision 

because of its questionable legality and 

methodology. 

Our Response: We believe that the 

RCP used sound methods which 

constituted the best available 

information at the time. The RCP 

specifically states that it is not a legal or 

regulatory document (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 1). Accordingly, we do not consider 

it a regulatory mechanism, but do 

consider it in Factor A as a Conservation 

Program and Effort. The plan was 

developed cooperatively by the BLM, 

CPW, NPS, NRCS, USFS, the Service, 

and UDWR. It was intended to 

supplement local conservation plans 

and provide additional guidance to aid 

in conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. New research and monitoring 

data has been collected since the plan 

was written; however, we still regard 

this as a valuable document. In many 

instances it provides the best available 

information regarding habitat 

requirements, distribution and 

abundance, threats, and current 

conservation strategies for the species. 

(131) Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that a range management 

school be created to address Gunnison 

sage-grouse and other issues. 

Our Response: In 2006, the Gunnison 

County Stockgrowers’ Association, 

supported by a Grazing Lands 

Conservation Initiative Grant, organized 

a training workshop, called Range 

Management School, for 37 participants 

including private ranchers, permittees 

of Federal grazing allotments, Federal 

land managers, and other interested 

parties. We support this type of 

educational program. 

(132) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that a classification of 

‘‘threatened’’ is a better approach than 

a classification of ‘‘endangered.’’ 

Our Response: Based upon the 

analysis of additional data and new 

information received during the 

comment period, we have concluded 

that ‘‘threatened’’ is the appropriate 

determination. Our analysis and a 

detailed explanation for this 

determination are presented in this final 

rule (see Determination). 

(133) Comment: One commenter 

stated that snowmobiling does not 

conflict with lek activities because 

snowmobiling season ends before lek 

activities begin and snowmobiling 

requires snow depths adequate to bury 

sagebrush. 

Our Response: Snowmobiling was 

evaluated as a recreational activity 

under Factor E in the proposed rule to 

list the species. We cited several sources 

that identified snowmobiles as one form 

of recreation that may be of concern. In 

this final rule we conclude that 

recreational activities in general are not 

a threat at a rangewide or population 

level, but could impact individuals at 

the local level (see Factor B). 

(134) Comment: Two commenters 

suggested that overutilization for 

scientific research may be a factor in 

Gunnison sage-grouse declines. 

Our Response: We describe mortality 

risks from scientific research in the 

proposed and final rules to list the 

species and conclude that the associated 

mortality rate is low (two percent) and 

is not a threat at the population or 

species level (see Factor B). 

(135) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that chemicals used in 

households and farming have affected 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat more than 

other factors. 

Our Response: We evaluate the effects 

of pesticides, contaminants associated 

with non-renewable energy 

development, and accidental spills 

associated with pipelines and 

transportation corridors in this final 

rule. We conclude that none of these 

posed a threat to the species (see Factor 

E, Pesticides and Herbicides). 

(136) Comment: One commenter 

stated that Gunnison sage-grouse are in 

an extinction vortex. 

Our Response: ‘‘Extinction vortex’’ is 

a modeling term that describes the 

process in a declining population where 

greater rates of decline occur as the 

population falls below a minimum 

viable number and approaches 

extinction. This final rule evaluates 

population trends across the range of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse. We 

determined that this species is 

threatened (i.e., likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range). However, we do not believe that 

the species is at this time in an 

‘‘extinction vortex,’’ which implies that 

extinction is inevitable. 

(137) Comment: One commenter 

stated that the number of off-highway 

vehicle (OHV) permits issued is not a 

good indication of the level of OHV use. 

Our Response: The proposed and final 

rules note that the number of annual 

OHV registrations in Colorado increased 

from approximately 12,000 in 1991 to 

approximately 131,000 in 2007 (see 

Factor E, Recreation). This information 

is provided simply to note that OHV 

activity has increased. Although other 

factors also should be considered in 

determining the level of use by OHVs, 

an increase of more than an order of 

magnitude in registrations from 1991 to 

2007 indicates that the level of use 

increased during that time period. We 

conclude that recreation does not pose 

a rangewide threat to the species, 

although it has the potential to cause 

individual or local impacts. 

(138) Comment: One commenter 

stated that aircraft-wildlife strikes pose 

a risk to aviation. 

Our Response: We are not aware of 

any studies or information 

demonstrating that Gunnison sagegrouse collisions with aircraft have 

occurred or are a concern. 

(139) Comment: One commenter 

stated that a recovery plan is needed. 

Our Response: Recovery Plans are 

typically drafted after a species is listed 

and provide guidance for recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and 

the ecosystems upon which they 

depend. Section 4(f)(1) of the Act 

requires the Service to develop and 

implement these plans unless a plan 

will not promote the conservation of a 

species. Recovery plans should include: 

Management actions to conserve the 

species; objective, measurable criteria 

for determining when a species can be 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69226 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

removed from the list; and an estimate 

of the time and cost required to achieve 

recovery. We anticipate commencing a 

recovery planning process in the near 

future. Until that time, we are including 

a conservation strategy (see 

Conservation Measures for Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse Recovery) in this rule that 

will provide guidance for conservation 

efforts in the interim. 

(140) Comment: Several commenters 

noted specific ongoing projects or 

programs that improve Gunnison sagegrouse habitat. 

Our Response: We considered the 

projects and programs noted by the 

commenters in making our listing 

determination and finalizing this rule. 

Under Factors A and D in the proposed 

and final rules to list the species, we 

describe many of the conservation 

measures including local, State and 

Federal laws and regulations, 

conservation easements, the Gunnison 

Basin CCA, and enrollment in the 

Colorado CCAA that have been 

undertaken to improve or protect 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

(141) Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the Service collaborate 

with the Colorado Farm Bureau (CFB) in 

Gunnison sage-grouse management. 

Our Response: We welcome input and 

participation from the CFB and other 

organizations. We received a comment 

letter from CFB that encouraged 

continued collaboration between the 

Service, private landowners, local and 

state governments, and others. We agree 

that working cooperatively with 

interested parties will aid in 

conservation and recovery of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

(142) Comment: One commenter 

stated that when landowners enroll 

lands in the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) they often stop 

maintaining ponds and wet meadows to 

the detriment of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: We are not aware of 

any information regarding the extent of 

ponds and wet meadows lost following 

enrollment in the CRP. We consider 

enrolled lands, particularly those 

enrolled under the CRP State Acres for 

Wildlife Enhancement initiative, to 

improve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

in most cases. The CRP is implemented 

by the Farm Service Agency and 

promotes the conversion of 

environmentally sensitive land to longterm vegetative cover. The objectives of 

the program include reduction of soil 

erosion, protection of water resources, 

and enhancement of wildlife habitat. 

Approximately 23,000 ha (57,000 ac) of 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat 

are currently enrolled in the CRP 

(Industrial Economics, Inc. 2013, p. 4– 

5). 

(143) Comment: One commenter 

stated that wind farms are compatible 

with CRP, and wildlife protection. 

Our Response: The compatibility of 

wind farms with CRP as they relate to 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and wildlife 

protection would vary for each site, 

depending on the protective measures 

in place for wildlife, the location and 

number of turbines, the type of 

vegetative cover, and other variables. 

(144) Comment: One commenter 

stated that no explanation was provided 

for why Gunnison sage-grouse are no 

longer found in Arizona and New 

Mexico. 

Our Response: We note in the 

proposed and final rules that a 

description of the species’ historical 

distribution was provided in the 2010 

12-month finding. In the 12-month 

finding, we state that much of what was 

once Gunnison sage-grouse habitat was 

lost prior to 1958 (75 FR 59808, 

September 28, 2010). This included 

habitat loss throughout Arizona and 

New Mexico, as well as portions of Utah 

and Colorado. We summarize this 

information in the Background and 

Factor A sections of this final rule. 

(145) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that there is no evidence of 

Gunnison sage-grouse movement from 

Gunnison Basin to other populations. 

Our Response: Both the Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and 

Crawford populations are approximately 

2 km (1.2 mi) from the Gunnison Basin 

population at their nearest points, 

which is well within movement 

distances documented for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Sage-grouse require a 

diversity of seasonal habitats and are 

wide-ranging; therefore, they are 

capable of making large seasonal 

movements (Connelly et al. 2000a). 

Preliminary data in the Gunnison Basin 

documented bird movements as great as 

56 km (35 mi) (Phillips 2013, p. 4). Most 

populations are currently geographically 

isolated, with low amounts of gene flow 

between populations. However, genetic 

analysis indicated that a recent migrant 

came to the Crawford population from 

the Gunnison Basin population; 

historically, populations were 

connected through more contiguous 

areas of sagebrush habitat (OylerMcCance et al. 2005). 

(146) Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we distinguish 

between smaller distribution power 

lines and larger transmission power 

lines when assessing impacts and 

planning mitigation. 

Our Response: This final rule states 

that depending on the infrastructure 

design, size, location, and other factors, 

powerlines can directly affect greater 

sage-grouse by posing a collision and 

electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, pp. 

145–146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974) 

and can have indirect effects by 

decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. 

2002, p. 10; Walker et al. 2007a, p. 

2,644), increasing predation (Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 13–12), fragmenting 

habitat (Braun 1998, p. 146), and 

facilitating the invasion of exotic annual 

plants (Knick et al. 2003, p 612; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25) (see 

Factor A, Powerlines). However, we 

have no information to precisely 

measure how powerlines and 

transmission lines vary in design or 

distribution across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and how those 

effects might vary across time and 

space. 

(147) Comment: One commenter 

asserted that the proposed rules 

dismissed information provided by 

CPW. 

Our Response: In the proposed and 

final rules, we consider all information 

provided by CPW, and reference that 

information as appropriate throughout 

the rules. 

(148) Comment: One commenter 

recommended citing Davis (2012) 

regarding nest success. 

Our Response: In this final rule (see 

Factor E, Effective Population Size and 

Population Viability Analyses), we 

include a thorough discussion and 

evaluation of Davis’s (2012) findings, 

including observed differences in nest 

success between populations. 

(149) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that we should not interfere in 

CPW’s management of Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Our Response: We recognize the 

proactive management of Gunnison 

sage-grouse by CPW and continue to 

work with this agency for the species’ 

conservation. However, our analysis in 

this final rule indicates that Gunnison 

sage-grouse meets the definition of a 

threatened species; therefore, we must 

list it under the Act. 

(150) Comment: One commenter 

noted that historical Gunnison sagegrouse habitat on BLM land in the Sims 

Mesa area has been severely damaged by 

sagebrush removal. 

Our Response: Sagebrush removal on 

Sims Mesa may have contributed to the 

one known lek there being currently 

inactive. Sage-grouse have an obligate 

relationship with sagebrush. The 

original distribution of sage-grouse 

closely followed that of sagebrush. Loss, 

fragmentation, and degradation of this 

habitat is a major threat and a primary 

reason for listing the species and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69227 

designating critical habitat. If alteration 

of sagebrush habitat continues, remnant 

populations may become extirpated. 

(151) Comment: One commenter 

noted that there is not adequate data 

available to determine whether recent 

declines of Gunnison sage-grouse 

observed by Davis (2012) in the 

Gunnison Basin are short-term 

population fluctuations or the beginning 

of a long-term decline. 

Our Response: We agree. This concern 

supports the importance of continued 

monitoring and conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. This 

study is discussed and evaluated in 

detail in Factor E of this final rule. We 

believe, however, that the threat from 

residential development in the 

Gunnison Basin will increase in the 

future. Habitat fragmentation and 

disturbance from new roads, 

powerlines, fences, and other 

infrastructure are also likely to increase 

(see Factor A). Additionally, climate 

change is likely to increase the threats 

from drought and West Nile Virus in the 

future (discussed further in Factors A, 

C, and E). Thus, these future threats 

must be considered along with the 

results of the Davis (2012) study. 

(152) Comment: One commenter 

asked if grazing will be considered 

‘‘take.’’ 

Our Response: Whether a particular 

activity will result in ‘‘take’’ is 

determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Grazing practices that could result in 

take can be addressed through ESA 

section 7 or section 10 processes as 

applicable, including appropriate 

review under the terms of the Gunnison 

Basin Candidate Conservation 

Agreement. 

(153) Comment: Some commenters 

noted that all of the affected county 

governments have taken the following 

actions: 

• Participation in a Memorandum of 

Understanding, 

• Signatories to the Conservation 

Agreement, 

• Formally committed to adopting a 

Habitat Prioritization Tool, which will 

better predict preferred habitat for the 

species, and 

• Formally committed to updating 

and adopting an amended Rangewide 

Conservation Plan. 

Our Response: We considered this 

information in this final rule (see Factor 

D, Local Laws and Regulations). 

(154) Comment: Some commenters 

asserted that many of the peer review 

comments do not support listing. 

Our Response: We requested 

comments from appropriate and 

independent individuals with scientific 

expertise based on their review of the 

proposed rules to list the Gunnison 

sage-grouse and to designate critical 

habitat for the species. We received 

numerous comments back from these 

individuals; some in agreement, some 

disagreements, and many suggestions 

for improving the proposed rules. 

Substantive comments are discussed 

above in the Peer Reviewer Comment 

section. We considered all of these 

comments and incorporated many of 

their suggestions into this final rule. 

(155) Comment: One commenter 

expressed concern that hang gliding and 

paragliding could be impacted by 

listing. 

Our Response: In this final rule, we 

conclude that recreational activities are 

not a threat at a rangewide or 

population level, but could impact the 

species at a local level (see Factor E, 

Recreation). Nevertheless, for those 

projects and activities with a Federal 

nexus, project and activity 

modifications may be requested by the 

Service through the section 7 

consultation process to limit impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse, as necessary. 

(156) Comment: One commenter 

noted that most of the mineral 

ownership is severed from surface 

ownership within the range of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Our Response: In this final rule we 

note that the BLM has regulatory 

authority for oil and gas leasing on 

Federal lands and on private lands with 

split-estate, or Federal mineral estate 

(see Factor D, Federal Laws and 

Regulations). 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Endangered Species 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 

424, set forth the procedures for adding 

species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, we may list a species based on any 

of the following five factors: (A) The 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes; (C) disease or 

predation; (D) the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) 

other natural or manmade factors 

affecting the species’ continued 

existence. Listing actions may be 

warranted based on any of the above 

threat factors, singly or in combination. 

Below, we carefully assess the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to Gunnison sagegrouse. We consider all such 

information in analyzing the five factors 

identified in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Endangered Species Act to determine 

whether Gunnison sage-grouse meets 

the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

In this section, we evaluate various 

factors influencing the decline of 

sagebrush and important sage-grouse 

habitats. The term habitat decline 

includes any quantitative or qualitative 

degradation of habitat by area, structure, 

function, or composition (Noss et al. 

1995, pp. 2, 17). In this rule, we 

collectively refer to habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation as 

‘habitat decline’. There are varying 

interpretations of the term habitat 

decline, and various methods for 

measuring or evaluating it. In this rule, 

we apply the following general concepts 

and definitions to our analysis. Habitat 

loss or destruction (such as sagebrush 

conversion) includes the permanent or 

long-term reduction of habitat and 

generally occurs at smaller scales. 

Habitat degradation includes the 

reduction of habitat quality or 

characteristics and generally occurs at 

smaller scales. Habitat fragmentation, or 

the breaking apart of contiguous habitat, 

occurs at larger or landscape scales, 

often as the result of cumulative loss 

and degradation of habitat over space 

and time. In this final rule, we provide 

information indicating each of these 

processes has occurred across Gunnison 

sage-grouse range, though those 

processes may vary over time and space. 

Consequently, effects at the individual, 

population, and species levels due to 

habitat decline are variable and not 

always certain. 

Habitat loss and fragmentation are 

recognized as primary causes of the 

decline in abundance and distribution 

of sage-grouse across western North 

America (Rogers 1964, pp. 13–24; Braun 

1998, entire; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 

371), and in Gunnison sage-grouse in 

Colorado, Utah, and across their former 

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

330; GSRSC 2005, p. 149; Wisdom et al. 

2011, pp. 465–469). Gunnison sagegrouse depend on sagebrush for their 

survival and persistence, and the 

historic 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). Habitat 

fragmentation resulting from human 

development patterns is especially 

detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse 

because of their dependence on large 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69228 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

expanses of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, 

p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–1; 

Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 72) and more 

contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers 

1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

452–453). In addition, female Gunnison 

and greater sage-grouse exhibit strong 

site fidelity to nesting locations 

(Connelly et al. 1988; Young 1994; Lyon 

2000, Connelly et al. 2004, Holloran and 

Anderson 2005, Thompson 2012). Sagegrouse often will continue to return to 

altered breeding habitats (leks, nesting 

areas, and early brood-rearing areas), 

despite any past failures in nesting or 

productivity (Rogers 1964, pp. 35–40; 

Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666; 

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

Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 3–4 to 3–6; 

Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. 747). 

Consequently, there may be lags in the 

response of sage-grouse to development 

or habitat changes, similar to those 

observed in other sagebrush obligate 

birds (Harju et al. 2010, entire; Wiens 

and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). 

The distribution of sage-grouse habitat 

is naturally disconnected due to the 

presence of unsuitable habitats such as 

forests, deserts, and canyons across the 

landscape (Rogers 1964, p. 19). 

However, the onset of Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s resulted in 

significant human alterations to 

sagebrush ecosystems throughout North 

America, primarily as a result of 

urbanization, agricultural conversion, 

and irrigation projects (West and Young 

2000, pp. 263–265; Miller et al. 2011, p. 

147). Areas in Colorado that supported 

basin big sagebrush were among the first 

sagebrush community types converted 

to agriculture because their soils and 

topography are well-suited for 

agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). 

Decreases in the abundance of sagegrouse paralleled the loss of range 

(Braun 1998, pp. 2–3), and a gradual but 

marked decrease in sage-grouse 

distribution and numbers in Colorado 

had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, 

pp. 20–22). Our listing decision is based 

on the current status of Gunnison sagegrouse and the current and future 

threats to the species and its habitat. 

However, the loss of historical range 

and decline in abundance, and the 

associated causes of those declines, 

have contributed to the species’ current 

precarious status. Further, historical 

information can be evaluated to help 

forecast how populations and the 

species may respond to current and 

future threats. 

Based on historical records, museum 

specimens, and potential sagebrush 

habitat distribution, the potential 

historic range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

was estimated to be 21,376 square miles, 

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

35, as adapted from Schroeder et al. 

2004, entire). This range included parts 

of central and southwestern Colorado, 

southeastern Utah, northwestern New 

Mexico, and northeastern Arizona 

(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368, 370). 

However, only a portion of this 

historical range would have been 

occupied at any one time. The species’ 

estimated current range is 1,822 square 

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

southwestern Colorado, and 

southeastern Utah (Figure 1) (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted from 

Schroeder et al. 2004, entire). Based on 

these figures, the species’ current range 

represents approximately 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 EuroAmerican settlement in the 1800s). As 

estimated in our final rule to designate 

critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, the species’ current potential 

range includes an estimated 1,621,008 

ac in southwestern Colorado and 

southeastern Utah, comprised of 

923,314 ac (57 percent) of occupied 

habitat and 697,694 ac (43 percent) of 

unoccupied habitat. Based on these 

figures, the current potential range of 

1,621,008 ac represents approximately 

12 percent of the potential historic 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 

since Euro-American settlement. We 

acknowledge that these estimates are 

uncertain and imprecise. Nevertheless, 

the best available information indicates 

a reduction of Gunnison sage-grouse 

distribution since Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s, with evidence 

of the loss of peripheral populations and 

a northward and eastward trend of 

extirpation (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 

369, 371, and references therein). This 

contraction in the birds’ range indicates 

the vulnerability of all the populations 

to extirpation. 

In southwestern Colorado, between 

1958 and 1993, an estimated 20 percent 

(155,673 ha (384,676 ac)) of sagebrush 

was lost, and 37 percent of sagebrush 

plots examined were fragmented (OylerMcCance et al. 2001, p. 326). Another 

study estimated that approximately 

342,000 ha (845,000 ac) of sagebrush, or 

13 percent of the pre-Euro-American 

settlement sagebrush extent, were lost in 

Colorado, which included both greater 

sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3–3). 

However, the authors noted that the 

estimate of historic sagebrush area used 

in their analyses was conservative, 

possibly resulting in an underestimate 

of historic sagebrush losses (Boyle and 

Reeder 2005, p. 3–4). Within the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse, the principal 

areas of sagebrush loss were in the 

Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, and 

areas near Dove Creek, Colorado. The 

authors point out, however, that the rate 

of loss in the Gunnison Basin was lower 

than other areas of sagebrush 

distribution in Colorado. At that time, 

the Gunnison Basin contained 

approximately 250,000 ha (617,000 ac) 

of sagebrush and areas of riparian aspen 

forest, mixed-conifer forest, and 

oakbrush (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3– 

3). Within the portion of the Gunnison 

Basin currently occupied by Gunnison 

sage-grouse, 170,000 ha (420,000 ac) is 

composed exclusively of sagebrush 

vegetation types, as derived from 

Southwest Regional Gap Analysis 

Project (SWReGAP) landcover data 

(multi-season satellite imagery acquired 

1999–2001) (USGS 2004, entire). 

Sagebrush habitats within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse are becoming 

increasingly fragmented as a result of 

various changes in land uses and the 

expansion in the density and 

distribution of invasive plant species 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, pp. 329– 

330; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 372). 

Based on spatial modeling, a variety of 

human developments including roads, 

energy development, residential 

development, and other factors known 

to cause habitat decline were correlated 

with historical loss of range and 

extirpation of Gunnison and greater 

sage-grouse (Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

465–468). This model indicated that no 

‘‘strongholds’’ (secure areas where the 

risk of extirpation appears low) of 

occupied range are evident for 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Wisdom et al., 

2011, p. 469). Landscapes containing 

large and contiguous sagebrush patches 

and sagebrush patches in close 

proximity had an increased likelihood 

of sage-grouse persistence (Wisdom et 

al. 2011, p. 462). 

In this final rule, we discuss Wisdom 

et al. (2011, entire) and its conclusions, 

but do not use the term ‘‘stronghold.’’ 

Nevertheless, consistent with Wisdom 

et al. (2011, entire) and numerous other 

studies noted above, we maintain that 

the persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse 

is dependent on large and contiguous 

sagebrush habitats, that human 

development and disturbance contribute 

to the decline of this needed habitat, 

and that such impacts negatively affect 

the survival and persistence of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69229 

The degree to which habitat 

fragmentation prevents a species’ 

movement across the landscape 

depends, in part, on that species’ ability 

to move large distances and thereby 

adjust to changes on the landscape. 

Sage-grouse are wide-ranging and 

capable of making large seasonal 

movements, because they require a 

diversity of seasonal habitats (Connelly 

et al. 2000a, pp. 968–969, and 

references therein). Movements of 

Gunnison sage-grouse as great as 56 km 

(35 mi) have been documented in the 

Gunnison Basin (Phillips 2013, p. 4). In 

contrast, the maximum recorded 

movement distance of Gunnison sagegrouse in the Monticello population is 

8.2 km (5.1 mi), associated with winter 

movement (Ward 2007, p. 15). Prather 

(2010, p. 70) noted that such behavior 

may be due to the presence of large 

areas of pin ̃ on-juniper (i.e., less suitable 

habitats) which bracket currently 

occupied habitat in the Monticello 

population area. 

Population dynamics of greater sagegrouse in northwestern Colorado 

functioned at much smaller scales than 

expected for a species capable of 

moving large distances (Thompson 

2012, p. 256). The majority of juvenile 

dispersal was intra-population 

movement (within one breeding 

population), with only one interpopulation movement (between separate 

breeding populations) observed during 

one study (Thompson 2012, p. 169). As 

a result, juvenile recruitment into home 

breeding ranges ranged between 98 and 

100 percent (Thompson 2012, p. 170). 

Based on observed bird dispersal in that 

study, gene flow and connectivity can 

likely be maintained for populations 

within 5 to 10 km (most dispersals were 

less than 10 km) and possibly as far as 

20 km (the maximum dispersal distance 

of one of the subpopulations studied) in 

greater sage-grouse (Thompson 2012, p. 

285–286). The populations of greater 

sage-grouse studied were within areas 

where birds are known for moving 

between populations. 

Because individual movement 

patterns likely vary by population and 

area, their susceptibility to habitat loss 

and degradation may also differ. We 

expect that where habitat is already 

more limited (quantity and quality) and 

isolated, such as in the six satellite 

populations, habitat loss and decline 

will have more serious consequences in 

terms of population fitness and survival. 

Where habitat is already severely 

limited or degraded, or where sagegrouse populations are small, any loss of 

habitat may impact those populations. 

In addition, habitat loss impacts are 

expected to be greater in important and/ 

or limiting seasonal habitats, such as 

areas used during moderate to severe 

winters, or in lekking, nesting, or broodrearing habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. 161). 

The loss of leks or the decline of 

nesting or brood-rearing habitats can 

have serious consequences for sagegrouse population viability by reducing 

reproductive success and recruitment 

(survival of young to breeding age). 

Limitations in the quality and quantity 

of nesting and early brood-rearing 

habitats, in particular, are especially 

important because Gunnison sagegrouse population dynamics are most 

sensitive during these life-history stages 

(GSRSC 2005, p. G–15). Juvenile 

recruitment is one of the most important 

demographic factors influencing or 

limiting sage-grouse population growth 

rates and viability (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 3–11, GSRSC 2005, p. 173). 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, which is 

currently a relatively stable population 

(Davis 2012). 

Brood-rearing habitat 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). Late brood-rearing habitats 

(also referred to as summer-fall habitats) 

may include riparian areas, wet 

meadows, and irrigated fields that 

provide an abundance of forbs and 

insects for hens and chicks (Schroeder 

et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly et al. 2000a, 

p. 980). In northwest Colorado, 

dispersal, migration, and settlement 

patterns of juvenile greater sagegrouse—factors important to population 

persistence—were more influenced by 

limitations associated with local 

traditional breeding (lek) and broodrearing 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 

brood-rearing 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 evident. These key habitats are 

particularly susceptible to drought (see 

Factor E, Drought) and predicted 

climate change effects (The Nature 

Conservancy 2011, p. 11) (see Climate 

Change in this Factor A analysis). 

As presented above, habitat decline, 

including loss, fragmentation, and 

degradation of quality, has known 

adverse effects on Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. Gunnison sage-grouse 

depend on sagebrush for their survival 

and persistence, and 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). Approximately 

88 to 93 percent of the species’ former 

range has been lost since the 1800s (see 

discussion above), and much of the 

remaining habitat is degraded or 

fragmented (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, 

p. 326; Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, pp. 

329–330; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 372; 

Wisdom et al., 2011, p. 469). Future 

habitat loss will have greater impacts in 

seasonally important habitats and in 

smaller populations where available 

habitat is already limited (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 161). As described later in this 

section, many of the factors that result 

in habitat decline may be amplified by 

the effects of climate change, thereby 

influencing long-term population 

trends. The following sections examine 

factors that can result in or contribute to 

habitat decline to evaluate whether 

they, individually and cumulatively, 

threaten Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Residential Development 

In our proposed rule to list Gunnison 

sage-grouse as endangered (78 FR 2486, 

January 11, 2013), we determined 

habitat loss and fragmentation from 

residential development to be a 

principal threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation. We received numerous 

comments and new information from 

the scientific community, government 

agencies, and other entities related to 

residential development in the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Many of the 

comments we received suggested that 

our initial analysis incorrectly applied 

scientific and other information related 

to residential development and its 

effects, likely overestimating its threat to 

the species, particularly in relation to 

the Gunnison Basin area. 

In light of these comments, in this 

final rule, we reevaluate the threat of 

residential development to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. First, we evaluate scientific 

information related to effects of 

residential and infrastructural 

development on sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitats in general, including 

studies specific to Gunnison sage-grouse 

where available. Second, we discuss 

human population growth and 

residential development trends and 

projections across the broader Rocky 

Mountain region. Finally, we assess the 

impact of current and future human 

population growth and residential 

development rangewide and within the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69230 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

individual Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. As in the proposed listing 

rule, much of our analysis here is 

focused on the current and potential 

future effects of residential development 

and habitat loss in the Gunnison Basin, 

since it contains the vast majority of 

occupied habitat and Gunnison sagegrouse. 

The level of habitat loss due to 

residential development varies widely 

across the seven populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Federal land 

ownership of occupied habitat in some 

populations reduces the potential 

impact of residential development, 

which largely occurs on private lands. 

Conversely, portions of occupied habitat 

in private ownership may predispose 

some sage-grouse populations to greater 

impacts due to higher levels of 

development (GSRSC 2005, p. 160). As 

described in the following sections, 

current and future human population 

growth rates and patterns also vary 

widely across the species’ range. 

Concentration of residential growth in 

or near municipal and other areas 

outside of occupied or suitable habitat 

will likely avoid or minimize impacts, 

while rural and exurban development in 

occupied habitat will likely increase 

impacts on the species. 

Other factors may also affect the 

impact of residential development on 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations or 

habitat. These factors include, but are 

not limited to, the extent and density of 

already developed land and existing 

infrastructure, changes in future 

patterns of residential growth, new or 

additional development of 

infrastructure (e.g., roads, powerlines, 

irrigation) associated with human 

population growth, the site-specific 

quality or quantity of suitable habitat on 

affected lands, resiliency or sensitivity 

of the affected sage-grouse population or 

group of birds, and indirect effects of 

development such as functional habitat 

loss due to weed invasion, noise 

disturbance, and other anthropogenic 

stressors. Functional habitat loss results 

from disturbance that changes a 

habitat’s successional state or reduces or 

removes one or more habitat functions 

or values; presents physical barriers that 

preclude use of otherwise suitable areas; 

or introduces activities that prevent 

animals from using suitable habitat due 

to behavioral avoidance. 

In evaluating the impact that 

residential development has on the 

species, we acknowledge that 

enrollment in the Candidate 

Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances (CCAA) for Gunnison sagegrouse, local regulatory mechanisms, 

Federal efforts such as the Gunnison 

Basin Candidate Conservation 

Agreement (CCA), and implementation 

of future conservation easements and 

similar conservation efforts will, upon 

effective implementation, likely reduce, 

but not necessarily preclude, impacts 

from residential development. However, 

as described in more detail in 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Conservation in this 

Factor A analysis and in Local Laws and 

Regulations in the Factor D analysis, 

currently available data and information 

indicates that these conservation efforts 

do not fully address this and other 

threats, or are too uncertain with respect 

to their implementation and 

effectiveness for us to forecast or 

evaluate how all of these efforts will 

individually or collectively influence 

future residential development in the 

species’ range, the resultant habitat 

decline, and related impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

We base our analysis of residential 

development primarily on the following 

available information: (1) Current and 

future human population growth rates 

in and around occupied habitat as an 

indicator of residential development; (2) 

total available private land area and 

conservation easement protection 

(prohibited or restricted residential 

development) in the context of total 

occupied habitat; and (3) the current 

and potential loss of occupied and 

unoccupied habitats as a result of 

residential development, and its direct 

and indirect effects on Gunnison sagegrouse individuals and populations. 

Broadly, we consider private lands in 

occupied habitat without conservation 

easement as being at higher risk of 

residential development, relative to 

those lands currently under 

conservation easement (see Other 

Regulatory Mechanisms: Conservation 

Easements in the Factor D analysis). 

Applying the best available information, 

these factors depict the intensity and 

immediacy of impacts due to residential 

development, and the exposure and 

anticipated response of Gunnison sagegrouse to that impact. 

Effects of Residential Development 

Residential development is likely 

contributing to habitat decline in parts 

of the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. It 

was estimated that 3 to 5 percent of all 

sage-grouse historical habitat in 

Colorado has been negatively affected 

by town and urban development (Braun 

1998, p. 7). Habitat fragmentation 

resulting from human development 

patterns is especially detrimental to 

Gunnison sage-grouse because of their 

dependence on large areas of sagebrush 

(Patterson 1952, p. 48; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 4–1; Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 

72) and more contiguous sagebrush 

habitats (Rogers 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et 

al. 2011, pp. 452–453). Greater sagegrouse range retraction was linked to 

patterns of remaining sagebrush habitat 

and loss due to factors including human 

population growth and the peripherality 

of populations (Aldridge et al. 2008). 

Infrastructure such as roads and power 

lines associated with residential 

development (urban and exurban) 

further contribute to habitat decline and 

other impacts such as increased risk of 

predation. Those specific effects are 

discussed elsewhere in this rule, but we 

recognize the cumulative effects of 

development and related infrastructure 

increase the level of impact on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Aldridge developed a landscape-scale 

spatial model predicting Gunnison sagegrouse nesting probability based on 

nesting data from the western portion of 

the Gunnison Basin (Aldridge et al. 

2012, entire). The study extrapolated the 

model to the entire Gunnison Basin to 

predict the likelihood of Gunnison sagegrouse nesting throughout the area 

(Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 403). Results of 

the model indicated that Gunnison sagegrouse select nest sites in landscapes 

with a low density of residential 

development (<1 percent in a 1.5 km 

[0.9 mi] radii) (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 

400). Nest site selection by Gunnison 

sage-grouse decreased near residential 

developments, out to approximately 2.5 

km (1.6 mi) from any given residential 

development (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 

400). Since early brood-rearing habitat is 

often in close proximity to nest sites 

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

to nesting habitat likely also affect 

nearby brood-rearing habitat (however, 

individual females with broods may 

move large distances (Connelly 1982, as 

cited in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971)). 

Similar to the above findings (and 

those referenced in Aldridge et al. 

2008), based on spatial modeling of 

anthropogenic factors and nest and 

brood habitat selection, Aldridge (2005, 

entire) found that nesting greater-sage 

grouse and broods also tended to avoid 

urban development areas and other 

human developments such as roads or 

cropland, potentially due to predator 

avoidance behavior. As discussed 

elsewhere in this rule, there are 

numerous other studies indicating that 

the expansion of roads and other human 

development in occupied habitat can 

negatively affect sage-grouse (see, e.g., 

Roads below.) 

The RCP (GSRSC 2005, pp. 160–161) 

hypothesized that residential density in 

excess of one housing unit per 1.3 km2

(0.5 mi2) could cause declines in 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69231 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

However, because the analyses that 

formed the basis for this hypothesis 

were preliminary and did not take into 

account potential lags in the response of 

Gunnison sage-grouse to development 

(Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666), 

the threshold at which impacts are 

expected could be higher or lower 

(GSRSC 2005, p. F–3). The resulting 

impacts are expected to occur in nearly 

all seasonal habitats, including 

moderate to severe winter use areas, 

nesting and brood-rearing areas, and 

leks (GSRSC 2005, p. 161). 

Based on preliminary analysis of 

radio telemetry, a CPW researcher 

reported that Gunnison sage-grouse do 

not totally avoid residences, and that 

some farmyards and areas with low 

housing density are used by individual 

birds (Phillips 2013, p. 8). Further 

information about this study was 

provided during the public comment 

period by CPW, including preliminary 

results of the distances for successful 

and unsuccessful nests to the nearest 

road in Gunnison and Saguache 

Counties (CPW 2013b, pp. 8–9). CPW 

has not provided us with these data, 

however, or a map of the reported 

locations. We are also uncertain as to 

what percentage of roads in the study 

may have been closed to protect nesting 

Gunnison sage-grouse, which may 

influence nest survival. Further, this 

preliminary analysis of CPW’s telemetry 

data has not been peer reviewed. While 

this information may suggest that 

individual Gunnison sage-grouse within 

the Gunnison Basin vary in their 

response to development, the 

preliminary nature of the study doesn’t 

allow us to draw any definite 

conclusions. 

Residential development can cause 

habitat decline both by the direct loss of 

occupied habitat and by indirect effects 

(e.g., off-site or functional habitat loss, 

habitat degradation, loss of unoccupied 

habitat). We consider both in the 

analysis that follows, though we assess 

direct loss from a quantitative 

perspective and indirect effects more 

qualitatively. 

Indirect Effects of Residential 

Development 

As stated above, we know that 

indirect effects of development such as 

functional habitat loss due to weed 

invasion, noise disturbance, and other 

anthropogenic stressors occur, and that 

these indirect effects act cumulatively 

with the direct loss of occupied and 

unoccupied habitats to fragment native 

sagebrush habitats and increase threats, 

for example, through an increase in the 

number and types of predators (see 

Factor C, Predation). The impact of 

residential development is also 

increased by the additional disturbance 

footprint and the area of species’ 

avoidance of other associated 

infrastructure such as roads, powerlines, 

and fences. Because we have no specific 

information about the level of these 

impacts, we have evaluated them 

qualitatively, but we focus the 

remainder of our analysis on the direct 

effects of residential development. 

Human Population Growth in the Rocky 

Mountains 

Human population growth in the rural 

Rocky Mountains is driven by the 

availability of natural amenities, 

recreational opportunities, aesthetically 

desirable settings and views, and 

perceived remoteness (Riebsame et al. 

1996, p. 396, 402; Theobald et al. 1996, 

p. 408; Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. 

192–197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6; 

Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1899–1901). The 

increase in residential and commercial 

development associated with expanding 

human populations is different from 

historical land use patterns in the rural 

Rocky Mountains (Theobald 2001, p. 

548). The allocation of land for 

resource-based activities such as 

agriculture and livestock production is 

decreasing as the relative economic 

importance of these activities 

diminishes (Theobald et al. 1996, p. 

413; Sammons 1998, p. 32; Gosnell and 

Travis 2005, pp. 191–192). Currently, 

agribusiness occupations constitute 

approximately 3 percent of the total job 

base in Gunnison County (Colorado 

Department of Local Affairs (CDOLA) 

2009b, p. 4). Recent conversion of farm 

and ranch lands to housing 

development has been significant in 

Colorado (Odell and Knight 2001, p. 

1144). Many large private ranches in the 

Rocky Mountains, including the 

Gunnison Basin, are being subdivided 

into both high-density subdivisions and 

larger, scattered ranchettes with lots 

typically greater than 14 ha (35 ac), 

which encompass a large, isolated house 

(Riebsame et al. 1996, p. 399; Theobald 

et al. 1996, p. 408). 

The resulting pattern of residential 

development in the rural Rocky 

Mountains is less associated with 

existing town sites or existing 

subdivisions, and is increasingly 

exurban in nature (Theobald et al. 1996, 

pp. 408, 415; Theobald 2001, p. 546). 

Exurban development is described as 

low-density growth outside of urban 

and suburban areas (Clark et al. 2009, p. 

178; Theobald 2004, p. 140) with less 

than one housing unit per 1 ha (2.5 ac) 

(Theobald 2003, p. 1627; Theobald 

2004, p. 139). Also, the pattern is one 

of increased residential lot size and the 

diffuse scattering of residential lots in 

previously rural areas with a premium 

placed on adjacency to federal lands 

and isolated open spaces (Riebsame et 

al. 1996, p. 396, 398; Theobald et al. 

1996, pp. 413, 417; Theobald 2001, p. 

546; Brown et al. 2005, p. 1858). 

Residential subdivision associated with 

exurban development causes landscape 

fragmentation (Gosnell and Travis 2005, 

p. 196) primarily through the 

accumulation of roads, buildings, 

(Theobald et al.1996, p. 410; Mitchell et 

al. 2002, p. 3) and other infrastructure 

such as power lines (GSRSC 2005, p. 

146). 

Human Population Growth Across the 

Range of Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

The GSRSC (2005, p. 146) identified 

current and potential issues affecting 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations, 

based on conservation status 

information, local working group plans, 

and similar documents. Residential 

development, and associated habitat 

loss or degradation, urban development, 

roads, utility corridors, and fences were 

all identified as current or potential 

issues in each of the seven populations. 

Human population growth is 

occurring throughout much of the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. The human 

population in all Colorado counties 

within the range of Gunnison sagegrouse has increased by approximately 

57.8 percent in the last several decades, 

since 1985 (Table 2). During the same 

period, human population growth in 

Utah counties in Gunnison sage-grouse 

range increased by about 24.5 percent 

(Table 3), less than that of Colorado 

counties. Residential development in 

the Gunnison sage-grouse range is 

expected to increase to meet the 

demand of growing human populations. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69232 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2—HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH IN COLORADO COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 1985 TO 2012 

[Colorado Department of Local Affairs (CDOLA) 2012, entire] 

County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a 1985 Human 

population 

2012 Human 

population 

Human 

population 

growth from 

1985 to 2012 

(%) 

Gunnison ........................................ Gunnison Basin ............................................................... 10,390 15,475 48.9 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

Ouray ............................................. Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ............................... 2,130 4,530 112.7 

San Miguel—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only 

San Miguel ..................................... Monticello-Dove Creek .................................................... 3,189 7,580 137.7 

San Miguel 

Hinsdale ......................................... Gunnison Basin—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only 472 810 71.6 

Saguache ....................................... Gunnison Basin ............................................................... 4,400 6,304 43.3 

Poncha Pass 

Mesa .............................................. Pin ̃on Mesa ..................................................................... 88,0121 147,855 68.0 

Montrose ........................................ Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ............................... 24,389 40,732 67.0 

San Miguel 

Montezuma .................................... Monticello-Dove Creek—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only.19,283 25,437 31.9 

Delta ............................................... Crawford .......................................................................... 23,466 30,436 29.7 

Dolores ........................................... Monticello-Dove Creek .................................................... 1,548 1,994 28.8 

Chaffee ........................................... Poncha Pass ................................................................... 12,349 18,151 47.0 

Total ........................................ .......................................................................................... 189,637 299,304 57.8 

aBased on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise. 

TABLE 3—HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH IN UTAH COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 1985 TO 2011 

[Demographic and Economic Analysis (DEA) 2011, entire] 

County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a 1985 Human 

population 

2011 Human 

population 

Human 

population 

growth from 

1985 to 2011 

(%) 

San Juan ........................................ Dove Creek-Monticello .................................................... 12,300 14,954 21.6 

Grand ............................................. Pin ̃on Mesa—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only ...... 7,200 9,322 29.5 

Total ........................................ .......................................................................................... 19,500 24,276 24.5 

aBased on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise. 

These trends are expected to continue 

into the future (GSRSC 2005, p. 150– 

153). The year 2050 projected human 

population for the entire Gunnison 

River Basin (a watershed area spanning 

multiple counties), which encompasses 

the majority of Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied habitat across all population 

areas, is expected to be 2.3 times (233 

percent) greater than the 2005 

population, with Mesa and Montrose 

Counties being the most populous in 

that area (Colorado Water Conservation 

Board (CWCB) 2009, pp. 15, 53). Across 

the six satellite populations, the human 

population in Colorado is forecasted to 

grow by about 60 percent, with most of 

this growth (and total number of 

persons) occurring in Mesa, Montrose, 

and Delta Counties (Table 4). Similar to 

the past, future human population 

growth in Utah counties in Gunnison 

sage-grouse range is expected to be low, 

approximately 14 percent by the year 

2040, lower than Colorado counties. In 

some counties, the population growth is 

projected to occur mainly in urban 

areas. For example, in Grand County, 

Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado, 

significant growth is expected within 

the cities of Moab and Grand Junction, 

respectively. Also, we recognize that in 

some counties, what appears to be 

significant growth from the baseline 

may actually be minimal in terms of 

total persons added to the population 

(for example, see Hinsdale County in 

Table 4). In response to public 

comments regarding human population 

growth figures for Gunnison County 

provided in our proposed listing rule 

(78 FR 2486, January 11, 2013), we 

discuss future human population 

growth for Gunnison County in detail in 

the following section. 

TABLE 4—HUMAN POPULATION FORECAST IN COLORADO COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2013 TO 2040 

[CDOLA 2011, entire] 

County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a

2013 (current) 

human 

population 

2040 human 

population 

forecast 

Human 

population 

growth from 

2013 to 2040 

(%) 

Gunnison ........................................ Gunnison Basin ............................................................... 15,982 22,107 38.3 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69233 

TABLE 4—HUMAN POPULATION FORECAST IN COLORADO COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2013 TO

2040—Continued 

[CDOLA 2011, entire] 

County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a

2013 (current) 

human 

population 

2040 human 

population 

forecast 

Human 

population 

growth from 

2013 to 2040 

(%) 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa.

Ouray ............................................. Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ............................... 4,662 6,108 31.0 

San Miguel—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only.

San Miguel ..................................... San Miguel ...................................................................... 8,148 16,426 101.6 

Monticello-Dove Creek.

Hinsdale ......................................... Gunnison Basin—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only 853 1,378 61.6 

Saguache ....................................... Gunnison Basin ............................................................... 6,478 9,133 41.0 

Poncha Pass.

Mesa .............................................. Pin ̃on Mesa ..................................................................... 150,123 226,263 50.7 

Montrose ........................................ Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ............................... 41,751 75,048 79.8 

San Miguel.

Montezuma .................................... Monticello-Dove Creek-Overlap with unoccupied habitat 

only.

26,481 42,947 62.2 

Delta ............................................... Crawford .......................................................................... 31,741 59,142 86.3 

Dolores ........................................... Monticello-Dove Creek .................................................... 2,097 3,313 57.9 

Chaffee ........................................... Poncha Pass ................................................................... 18,726 30,282 61.7 

Rangewide Total ..................... .......................................................................................... 307,042 492,147 60.3 

aBased on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise. 

TABLE 5—HUMAN POPULATION FORECAST IN UTAH COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2013 TO 2040 

[DEA 2012, entire]. 

County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a 2010 human 

population 

2040 human 

population 

forecast 

Human 

population 

growth from 

2013 to 2040 

(%) 

San Juan ........................................ Dove Creek-Monticello .................................................... 14,746 15,191 3.0 

Grand ............................................. Pin ̃on Mesa—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only ...... 9,225 12,147 31.7 

Rangewide Total ..................... .......................................................................................... 23,971 27,338 14.0 

aBased on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise. 

In addition to past and projected 

human population growth, the impact of 

residential development on Gunnison 

sage-grouse depends on total private 

land area in occupied habitat available 

for development. Substantial Federal 

land ownership of occupied habitat in 

the Crawford, Gunnison Basin, Poncha 

Pass, and portions of the San Miguel 

Basin populations helps reduce the 

threat of residential development in 

these areas. Conversely, large portions 

of occupied habitat in the Dove CreekMonticello, Pin ̃ on Mesa, Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa, and some portions 

of the San Miguel populations are in 

private ownership, making those areas 

more vulnerable to residential 

development and associated impacts 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 160). Within all 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations, the 

area of private land under conservation 

easement (which generally prohibits 

subdivision and restricts other 

residential or agricultural development 

to defined areas) will help ameliorate 

impacts from human population growth 

and residential development that might 

otherwise occur (see Factor D 

discussion, Other Regulatory 

Mechanisms: Conservation Easements). 

Below, Table 6 synthesizes future 

human population growth rates in 

Gunnison sage-grouse population areas, 

total private land area, and conservation 

easement protection in occupied 

habitats. As noted above, we focused 

our analysis on the potential for direct 

habitat loss in occupied habitats, where 

negative impacts are more likely to 

occur. We qualitatively ranked past and 

forecasted human population growth for 

area counties in Colorado (based on 

Tables 2 and 4) and Utah (based on 

Tables 3 and 5), considering both 

percent growth and total number of 

persons. Below, we apply information 

from Table 6 to determine the impact of 

residential development to individual 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations and 

to the species rangewide. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69234 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH RATES AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIED

HABITAT

Gunnison sagegrouse population 

Human population 

growth rates a

Total occupied 

habitat 

(acres) 

Private land in 

occupied habitat 

Private land in occupied 

habitat under conservation 

easement b

Private land in occupied 

habitat not under 

conservation easement 

Percentage of 

total occupied 

habitat at 

higher risk of 

residential 

development c

(%) 

Past: 

1985 to 

2012 

Forecast: 

2013 to 

2040 

Acres % Acres 

Percentage of 

private land in 

occupied 

habitat 

(%) 

Acres 

Percentage of 

private land in 

occupied 

habitat 

(%) 

San Miguel Basin ...... M M 101,750 49,492 49 6,961 14.1 42,531 85.9 41.8 

Monticello-Dove 

Creek ..................... L L 112,543 100,773 90 5,482 5.4 95,291 84.6 84.7 

Pin ̃on Mesa ............... H H 44,678 31,313 70 15,317 48.9 15,996 51.1 35.8 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ... H H 37,161 28,218 76 3,484 12.3 24,734 87.7 66.6 

Crawford .................... L M 35,015 8,481 24 2,005 23.6 6,476 76.4 18.5 

Poncha Pass ............. L L 27,747 7,893 28 0 0.0 7,893 100.0 28.4 

Gunnison Basin ......... L L 592,168 178,855 30 40,769 22.8 138,086 77.2 23.3 

Rangewide Total ................ ................ 951,062 405,025 43 74,018 18.3 331,007 81.7 34.8 

aBased on a qualitative assessment of past and forecast human population growth for area counties in Colorado (Tables 2 and 4) and Utah (Tables 3 and 5), considering percent growth and total number of persons: H—High; M—Moderate; L—Low. b Lohr and Gray (2013, entire). 

c Calculated by dividing acres of ‘‘private land in occupied habitat not under conservation easement’’ by ‘‘total occupied habitat.’’ 

Based on the factors presented in 

Table 6 above, residential development 

is likely to have the greatest impact on 

the San Miguel and Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. In the San 

Miguel Basin population, moderate 

human population growth has occurred 

and is projected through the year 2040; 

and private land comprises about 49 

percent of total occupied habitat, of 

which 14 percent is under conservation 

easement. This means that 

approximately 42 percent of total 

occupied habitat in the San Miguel 

population area is at higher risk of 

residential development (Table 6). The 

rate of residential development in the 

San Miguel Basin population area 

increased between 2005 and 2008 but 

slowed in 2009 (CDOW 2009b, p. 135). 

However, a 429-ha (1,057-ac) parcel 

north of Miramonte Reservoir is 

currently being developed. The CPW 

reports that potential impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse resulting from 

this development may be reduced by 

placing a portion of the property into a 

conservation easement and the 

relocation of a proposed major road to 

avoid occupied habitat (CDOW 2009b, 

p. 136). A downward trend in the San 

Miguel population over the last decade 

or more (Figure 3) indicates it may not 

have the resilience (see Small 

Population Size and Structure) to 

sustain substantial habitat losses. 

Therefore, residential development is a 

current and future threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse in the San Miguel Basin 

population. 

Likewise, in the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa area, considerable 

human population growth has occurred 

and is forecast through the year 2040; 

and private land comprises about 76 

percent of total occupied habitat, of 

which 12 percent is under conservation 

easement. This means that 

approximately 67 percent of total 

occupied habitat in the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population area is 

at higher risk of residential development 

(Table 6). Scattered residential 

development has recently occurred 

along the periphery of occupied habitat 

in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa population (CDOW 2009b, p. 45). 

Already limited habitat (Table 6) and 

low population numbers (Figure 3) 

indicate the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa population may not have the 

resilience (see Small Population Size 

and Structure) to sustain substantial 

habitat losses. Therefore, residential 

development is a current and future 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse in the 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population. 

Although past and future human 

population growth in the Poncha Pass 

population is estimated to be low, and 

the proportion of land at higher risk of 

residential development is low (about 

28 percent) (see Table 6), other 

information indicates that residential 

development is nevertheless a threat to 

the Poncha Pass population. Residential 

subdivision continues to be 

concentrated in the northern part of the 

Poncha Pass population area where 

Gunnison sage-grouse occur most, and 

CPW considers this to be the highest 

priority threat to this population 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 124). As noted earlier, 

where habitat is already severely 

limited, or where sage-grouse 

populations are small, any loss of 

habitat may impact those populations 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 161). Due to the pattern 

of residential development, already 

limited sagebrush habitat in the area 

(about 20,000 acres), and critically low 

population numbers (zero birds counted 

in 2013; Figure 3), residential 

development is a current and future 

threat to the Poncha Pass population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

For the remaining four Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations, we find that 

current residential development may 

impact individual birds or areas of 

habitat, but is a threat of low magnitude 

at the population level at the present 

time. In these areas, past or projected 

human population growth rates are very 

low, indicating that residential 

development will be limited 

(Monticello-Dove Creek); or private land 

available for residential development 

(considering Federal land ownership 

and conservation easement protection) 

is limited (Pin ̃ on Mesa and Crawford). 

For these three populations, we also 

believe that the threat of residential 

development will remain low in the 

future. With respect to the Gunnison 

Basin population, however, as described 

in more detail below, over half of the 

23.3 percent of total occupied habitat 

that is at higher risk of residential 

development (see Table 6) is high 

priority habitat, because it includes 

seasonally important habitat for the 

species. The potential loss or 

degradation of even relatively smaller 

portions of habitat due to future 

residential development is a concern, 

especially if important seasonal habitats 

are affected, so we believe that threats 

related to residential development will 

be higher in the future in the Gunnison 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69235 

Basin (see Reevaluation of Residential 

Development in the Gunnison Basin). 

The analysis above is focused on the 

threat of residential development in 

occupied habitats for Gunnison sagegrouse. However, it is reasonable to 

assume that residential development 

will also occur in important but 

currently unoccupied habitats. These 

habitats may now or in the future 

provide dispersal corridors for birds 

between occupied habitat, 

subpopulations, or populations; or 

provide areas for range migration or 

expansion. The threat of habitat loss or 

degradation due to residential 

development in the San Miguel and 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

populations will likely reduce habitat 

connectivity between satellite 

populations and potential connectivity 

between the Gunnison Basin population 

and satellite populations to the west. 

The GSRSC (2005, p. 167) identified 

habitat areas in the San Miguel 

population that provide potential 

linkages with the Dove CreekMonticello population to the west, 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population to the north, and 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population to the east. Potential 

linkages in the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa population were also 

identified that may provide connectivity 

with the San Miguel population to the 

west, Crawford population to the 

northeast, and Gunnison Basin 

population to the east. Genetic evidence 

indicates maintaining or enhancing 

habitat connectivity between 

populations is important for Gunnison 

sage-grouse survival into the future (See 

detailed discussion in Factor E analysis, 

Small Population Size and Structure). 

Reevaluation of Residential 

Development in the Gunnison Basin 

Population Area 

In our proposed rule to list Gunnison 

sage-grouse as endangered, we 

concluded that residential development 

was a principal threat to the species as 

a whole. That analysis was focused on 

the potential impacts of residential 

development in the Gunnison Basin 

population area, since the vast majority 

of occupied habitat and birds occur 

there. As noted above, based on 

numerous public comments and new 

information we received on the 

proposed rule, we have reevaluated the 

threat of residential development to the 

species, both in the individual 

populations and rangewide. In this 

section, we describe in greater detail the 

basis for our conclusions regarding the 

effects of residential development, both 

at the present time and in the 

foreseeable future, on individual birds 

or areas of habitat in the Gunnison 

Basin population area. 

Current Impacts of Residential 

Development 

Approximately 239,640 ha (592,168 

ac) of occupied habitat occur in the 

Gunnison Basin. Of this, approximately 

161,336 ha (398,669 ac) (67 percent) are 

on Federal lands; 5,906 ha (14,595 ac) 

(2 percent) are State land; and 72,380 ha 

(178,855 ac) (30 percent) are private 

land (Table 1). In this rule, our 

evaluation of residential development in 

the Gunnison Basin is based largely on 

human demographic information for 

Gunnison County, where nearly threequarters (approximately 71 percent) of 

the Gunnison Basin population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse occurs (the 

remainder occurs in Saguache County). 

Based on the available information, we 

expect that the rate of future residential 

development in the Saguache County 

portion of the Gunnison Basin will be 

similar to that of Gunnison County. 

Approximately 30 percent of Gunnison 

sage-grouse occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin occurs on private lands. 

When evaluating Gunnison County 

overall (including both Gunnison sagegrouse habitat and non-habitat areas), 

our analysis found that the cumulative 

number of human developments 

(including housing, infrastructure, and 

improvements to existing development) 

increased considerably since the early 

1970s. The number of new 

developments averaged approximately 

70 per year from the late 1800s to 1969, 

increasing to approximately 450 per 

year from 1970 to 2008 (USFWS 2010a, 

pp. 1–5). Furthermore, there has been an 

increasing trend toward development 

away from major roadways (primary and 

secondary paved roads) into areas of 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

that had previously undergone very 

limited development (USFWS 2010b, p. 

7). Between 1889 and 1968, 

approximately 51 human developments 

were located more than 1.6 km (1 mi) 

from a major road in currently occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Between 

1969 and 2008, this number increased to 

approximately 476 developments 

(USFWS 2010b, p. 7). 

However, the majority of residential 

development in Gunnison County is 

outside of Gunnison-sage grouse 

occupied habitat. About 26 percent of 

housing units in Gunnison County 

occur within Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied habitat (Gunnison County 

2013a, Appendix G, p. 9). Although 

significant development has occurred in 

the past, residential growth in Gunnison 

County has been influenced heavily by 

development in the East River Valley 

near Crested Butte, outside of occupied 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 69–70). 

Furthermore, the majority of existing 

development in the lower Gunnison 

Basin is concentrated near the City of 

Gunnison, outside of occupied habitat 

or in more marginalized habitat 

(Gunnison County 2013c, p. 5). 

Gunnison County building permit data 

indicate that since 1980, over 70 percent 

of all county building permits have been 

located within subdivisions that are 

already served by water and sewer 

services (urban service areas). If 

building permits for the City of 

Gunnison are included, over 80 percent 

of all new development since 1980 has 

occurred in urban service areas 

(Gunnison County 2013a, p. 68). Urban 

service areas (utilities, trash, etc.) in 

Gunnison County may include small 

areas of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 

but are generally less suitable than more 

rural areas; therefore, human 

development and activities in such 

areas are likely to have less impact to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Available data nonetheless indicates 

human developments in occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 

Gunnison County occur and have 

increased over time. We conducted a 

GIS analysis of parcel ownership data to 

evaluate the spatial and temporal 

pattern of past human development 

(including infrastructure) within 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

in the Gunnison Basin population area. 

Our analyses were limited to the portion 

of occupied habitat in Gunnison County 

because parcel data was available only 

for Gunnison County and not Saguache 

County. Approximately 18 percent of 

the land area within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in Gunnison 

County has a residential density greater 

than one housing unit per 1.3 km2 (0.5 

mi2) (USFWS 2010b, p. 8). The GSRSC 

(2005, pp. 160–161) hypothesized that 

residential density in excess of one 

housing unit per 1.3 km2 (0.5 mi2) could 

cause declines in Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, though there are 

limitations with this assumption (see 

discussion above). Based on this 

estimate, current human residential 

densities in the Gunnison Basin 

population area are such that they may 

be having an impact on Gunnison sagegrouse in at least 18 percent of the 

occupied area. 

In our proposed rule to list Gunnison 

sage-grouse as endangered, we also 

applied a 1.5 km (.93 mi) ‘‘zone of 

influence’’ to residential development 

in Gunnison County (based on Aldridge 

et al. 2012, p. 400), in an effort to 

evaluate how the current level of 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69236 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

residential development may be 

impacting habitat and limiting the 

Gunnison Basin population of sagegrouse (for more details, see 78 FR 2486, 

January 11, 2013). That analysis led us 

to conclude that within occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 

Gunnison County, 49 percent of the 

land area within the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse had at least one housing 

unit within a radius of 1.5 km (0.9 mi). 

We found that this level of residential 

development strongly decreased the 

likelihood of Gunnison sage-grouse 

using these areas as nesting habitat. 

Based on this analysis, we determined 

that residential development, 

particularly in the Gunnison Basin, was 

currently a principal threat to the 

species. This conclusion was critical to 

our proposal to list the species as 

endangered. 

Since the listing proposal, we have 

received significant comments and new 

information regarding this conclusion, 

and particularly our application of the 

Aldridge et al. 2012 study, to find that 

human development is currently 

negatively affecting the species’ 

utilization of 49 percent of occupied 

habitat in Gunnison County. As noted 

by various commentators, this 

conclusion is at odds with the current 

status of the Gunnison Basin 

population, which, as described above, 

is and has been relatively stable for the 

last 19 years, based on lek count data. 

If residential development was currently 

negatively impacting such a significant 

percentage of occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin population, we would 

expect to see some evidence of this in 

these population trends. This is so even 

recognizing that, as a consequence of 

their site fidelity to seasonal habitats 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489), 

measurable population effects may lag 

behind negative changes in habitat 

(Harju et al. 2010, entire; Wiens and 

Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). As a result, we 

believe that our use of Aldridge et. al 

2012, as described above, significantly 

overestimated the impact that current 

levels of residential development in 

Gunnison County are having on the 

species. 

Based on this reevaluation, we 

conclude that current development in 

the Gunnison Basin population area is 

a threat of low magnitude to the 

persistence of this Gunnison sage-grouse 

population. Despite past residential 

development in the Gunnison Basin, the 

Gunnison Basin population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse has remained relatively 

stable over the past 19 years, based on 

lek count data and population estimates 

(Figure 2). The Gunnison Basin 

population is currently large and 

relatively stable and appears to be 

resilient (see further discussion under 

Small Population Size and Structure 

section). Therefore, this population has 

been able to sustain the negative effects 

of development at current levels. 

Future Impacts of Residential 

Development 

Residential development in occupied 

habitat in the Gunnison Basin will 

increase in the future, which means the 

impacts from such development will 

also increase. Based on new information 

received since the proposed rule, 

however, we believe that the rate of 

increase may be less than what we 

determined in the proposed rule. 

Projections for human population 

growth in Gunnison County range from 

about 0.75 percent to 2.15 percent 

annually, depending on the source 

(Table 7). The current (2013) estimated 

human population of Gunnison County 

is 15,982 (CDOLA 2011, entire). By 

2050, the human population in 

Gunnison County is projected to be 

20,877 to 37,828 people (Table 7). In our 

proposed rule to list Gunnison sagegrouse as endangered (78 FR 2486, 

January 11, 2013), we applied the 

Colorado Water Conservation Board’s 

(CWCB) middle-growth scenario of 1.7 

percent annual growth for Gunnison 

County (CWCB 2009, p. 53). We now 

recognize this figure may overestimate 

actual growth in the area due to that 

study’s broader geographic focus 

(Colorado watersheds) and purpose (to 

forecast water use and demands). The 

Colorado State Demographer (CDOLA 

2011, entire) estimated an average 

annual growth rate of 1.2 percent for 

Gunnison County, with approximately 

22,107 people by the year 2040, or 

approximately 38 percent greater than 

the 2013 population. Coincidentally, 

these projections are near the average of 

the range of projected growth rates from 

the various sources (Table 7), and 

represent a reliable estimate of expected 

future growth in the Gunnison Basin 

area. 

TABLE 7—HUMAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GUNNISON COUNTY

Source Average annual 

growth rate Population projection Source/ citation 

Colorado Water Conservation Board ... 1.06%—low scenario ............................

1.70%—middle scenario .......................

2.15%—high scenario ..........................

By the year 2050: .................................

23,314—low scenario 

31,086—middle scenario 

37,828—high scenario 

CWCB 2009, p. 53. 

Colorado State Demographer ............... 1.2% ...................................................... By the year 2040: .................................

22,107 

CDOLA 2011, entire. 

Gunnison County .................................. 1% ......................................................... By the year 2050: .................................

20,877 

Gunnison County 

2013a, p. 69. 

Gunnison City Council .......................... 0.75% .................................................... n/a ......................................................... City of Gunnison 

2013, p. 4. 

Future population growth in the 

Saguache County portion of the 

Gunnison Basin is projected to be 1.5 

percent per year, with an estimated 

population of 9,133 by the year 2040, or 

approximately 41 percent greater than 

the 2013 population (Table 4 above). 

All population projections from Table 

4 and Table 7 above indicate the density 

and distribution of human residences in 

the Gunnison Basin will increase in the 

future. The precise rate of human 

population growth in Gunnison or 

Saguache Counties, however, is not the 

determinative factor in assessing 

whether the Gunnison Basin population 

of Gunnison sage-grouse will persist 

into the future. As discussed below, 

future residential development in 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

is constrained by the relatively limited 

area of developable private lands. In 

addition, if future residential 

development follows past patterns, 

much of this future development in 

Gunnison County will occur outside of 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and 

within existing urban or otherwise 

developed areas. Nonetheless, even 

under this development pattern, 

approximately 26 percent of future 

residential development in Gunnison 

County would occur in occupied 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69237 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Gunnison 

County 2013a, Appendix G, p. 9). 

Of the 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) of 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin, 

approximately 72,380 ha (178,855 ac) 

(30 percent) are on private lands (Table 

6). Approximately 16,499 ha (40,769 ac) 

(22.8 percent) of these private lands, or 

6.9 percent of occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin population area, are 

currently under conservation easement 

where development is prohibited or 

restricted to protect conservation values, 

including values for Gunnison sagegrouse on some properties (Gunnison 

County 2013b, p. 21; Lohr and Gray 

2013, p. 54). (Refer to Factor D analysis, 

Other Regulatory Mechanisms: 

Conservation Easements for a detailed 

discussion.) Approximately 55,881 ha 

(138,086ac) (77.2 percent) of private 

lands are not currently under 

conservation easement and, thus, are at 

higher risk of residential development. 

This constitutes 23.3 percent of the 

entire occupied range in the Gunnison 

Basin. Therefore, about 23.3 percent of 

the 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) of total 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

is at higher risk of residential 

development (relative to lands not 

protected under conservation easement). 

Over half of this at risk occupied 

habitat currently consists of high 

priority habitat for the species. Based on 

the habitat recommendations in the 

RCP, the Gunnison Basin Sage-Grouse 

Strategic Committee developed a 

Habitat Prioritization Tool (Gunnison 

County 2013a, Appendix G; see detailed 

description under Local Laws and 

Regulations, Gunnison County), which 

identifies sage-grouse habitat and then 

discounts the value of the habitat based 

on distance to structures, roads, and 

power lines. The Habitat Prioritization 

Tool determined that, of private lands in 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

not under conservation easement, over 

half are Tier 1 habitat, or high value 

habitat (e.g., lekking, nesting, broodrearing, or wintering habitat); the 

remaining habitat is classified as Tier 2, 

or lower value habitat (Cochran 2013, 

pers. comm.) that is closer to structures, 

roads, and power lines. This tool does 

not quantify or map unoccupied 

habitats. Based on this figure, of the 

55,881 ha (138,086 ac) or 23.3 percent 

of total occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin at higher risk of 

residential development (as discussed 

below), 28,033 ha (69,270 ac) of those 

are Tier 1, or priority habitat. 

The GSRSC (2005, p. 161) cautioned 

that, in the Gunnison Basin population, 

any habitat loss from residential 

development should be avoided or 

mitigated because of this population’s 

high conservation importance. As noted 

earlier, the GSRSC (2005, p.161) 

suggested that the greatest impacts from 

permanent habitat loss are expected in 

seasonal habitats most important to 

Gunnison sage-grouse, such as areas 

used during moderate to severe winters 

or in lekking, nesting, or brood-rearing 

habitats. These areas are quantified 

within the Tier 1 habitats of the Habitat 

Prioritization Tool described above, and 

constitute approximately 69,000 acres. 

Forty-five percent of the leks in the 

Gunnison Basin population area occur 

on private lands (see discussion above 

in the Current Distribution and 

Population Estimates and Trends 

section), and any impacts within 4 miles 

of these leks could affect nesting and 

brood-rearing activities. 

Additional residential development in 

those high value habitats could result in 

increased impacts on Gunnison sagegrouse in the Gunnison Basin. Lesser 

impacts would be expected in Tier 2 

habitats, and from indirect effects of 

development in unoccupied habitats. 

These impacts, particularly to the 

seasonally important habitats, are a 

concern, and we expect impacts, and 

the level of threat posed by residential 

development, to increase in the future, 

although at a somewhat lower rate than 

what we described in the proposed 

listing rule. 

Although exurban development will 

likely increase as in other parts of the 

rural west, if past residential growth 

patterns in Gunnison County continue, 

we can expect the majority of residential 

development to occur outside of 

occupied habitat and near 

municipalities and existing 

infrastructure. Nevertheless, under these 

past residential growth patterns, we 

would still expect approximately 26 

percent of residential growth in the 

future to occur in occupied habitat. 

While we recognize that current 

conservation efforts, including 

conservation easements, enforcement of 

current county land use regulations, and 

CCAA implementation are likely to help 

reduce (but not necessarily preclude) 

the effects of past and future residential 

development on Gunnison sage-grouse 

and its habitat in the Gunnison Basin, 

we find that such efforts will not fully 

address this and other threats (see 

Factor A, Conservation Programs and 

Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation, 

and Factor D, Regulatory Mechanisms). 

In addition, future residential 

development of private lands will likely 

demand new or additional 

infrastructure on adjacent properties 

such as Federally administered lands, 

which may cause additional impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (see 

Cumulative Effects From Factors A 

through E). Although we cannot forecast 

what those impacts might look like, we 

anticipate that such impacts on Federal 

lands will be addressed, to some degree, 

through Federal programs and policies 

such as the Gunnison Basin CCA (see 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Conservation in this 

Factor A analysis). 

In summary, the threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse as a result of current 

residential development is less than we 

previously thought as discussed above. 

While individual birds may be affected, 

current residential development is a 

threat of low magnitude to Gunnison 

Basin birds at the population level. 

Approximately 23.3 percent of the 

239,640 ha (592,168 ac) of total 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

is at higher risk of development (i.e., are 

not protected by conservation easement) 

in the future, relative to lands where 

development is precluded, prohibited, 

or restricted (under State or Federal 

ownership or conservation easement). 

Approximately 50 percent of these 

developable lands are in priority 

habitats, and their potential loss or 

degradation in the future would be a 

concern for the Gunnison Basin 

population. In addition, indirect and 

cumulative effects of infrastructure 

associated with residential development 

will increase the impacts of future 

residential development. Based on these 

reasons, we find that residential 

development is currently a threat of low 

magnitude to the Gunnison Basin 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse, but 

that it is an increasing threat in the 

future. 

Summary of Residential Development 

Residential development is likely 

contributing to habitat loss and 

degradation throughout the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Habitat 

fragmentation resulting from human 

development patterns is especially 

detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse 

because of their dependence on large 

areas of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 

48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–1; 

Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 72) and more 

contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers 

1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 

452–453). Infrastructure such as roads 

and power lines associated with 

residential development (urban and 

exurban) likely further contribute to 

habitat loss and other impacts such as 

increased risk of predation, particularly 

in the satellite populations. Residential 

development, and associated habitat 

loss or degradation, urban development, 

roads, utility corridors, and fences have 

all been identified as current or 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69238 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

potential issues in each of the seven 

populations (GSRSC 2005, p. 146). 

Increasing rural and exurban 

development in sagebrush habitats will 

continue impacting Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Human population growth is 

occurring throughout much of the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. The human 

population in all Colorado counties 

within the range of Gunnison sagegrouse has increased by approximately 

57.8 percent in the last several decades, 

since 1985 (Table 2). During the same 

period, human population growth in 

Utah counties in Gunnison sage-grouse 

range increased by about 24.5 percent 

(Table 3), much less than that of 

Colorado counties. Population increases 

are expected to continue into the future 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 150–153). Across the 

six satellite populations, the human 

population in Colorado is forecasted to 

grow by about 60 percent, with most of 

this growth (and total number of 

persons) occurring in Mesa, Montrose, 

and Delta Counties (Table 4). 

Residential development is expected to 

increase to meet the demand of these 

growing human populations. Projected 

human population growth rates in the 

Gunnison Basin population are 

considered low relative to other 

populations. However, residential 

development in the Gunnison Basin, 

including development in occupied 

habitat, is expected to continue into the 

future and potentially impact the 

species and its habitat. 

Our analysis was focused on the 

direct loss of occupied habitat due to 

residential development, in which 

negative impacts on the species are 

more quantifiable. Indirect effects (e.g., 

off-site or functional habitat loss, loss of 

unoccupied habitat) of habitat decline 

due to residential development are also 

expected, however, and are evaluated 

qualitatively in the above analysis. 

Residential growth rates and patterns 

vary widely across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on these 

considerations, our framework for 

assessing the threat of residential 

development was based primarily on 

human population growth rates (current 

and projected), the availability of 

developable private lands, the 

ameliorating effects of conservation 

efforts, and other information (see Table 

6 and discussions above). Our 

evaluation found that residential 

development is a substantial threat to 

the San Miguel, Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa, and Poncha Pass 

populations of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

both now and in the future. Based on 

the best available information, current 

residential development in the 

remaining Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations may impact individual 

birds or areas of habitat, but is currently 

a threat of low magnitude at the 

population level. Residential 

development will continue into the 

future in these areas and, as discussed 

above, such development in areas of 

important seasonal habitats would be a 

concern in these populations. 

Rangewide, approximately 34.8 

percent of occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat is at higher risk of 

residential development (Table 6), 

relative to lands not under conservation 

easement or Federal or State ownership. 

As described above, human population 

growth is occurring throughout much of 

the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

although the rate and pattern of 

residential development varies widely 

by sage-grouse population. These trends 

are expected to continue into the future, 

resulting in further residential 

development, associated infrastructure, 

and habitat loss in parts of the species’ 

range. 

The threat of habitat loss or 

degradation due to residential 

development in the San Miguel and 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

populations will likely reduce habitat 

connectivity between satellite 

populations and, potential connectivity 

between the Gunnison Basin population 

and satellite populations to the west. 

The GSRSC (2005, p. 167) identified 

habitat areas in the San Miguel 

population that provide potential 

linkages with the Dove CreekMonticello population to the west, 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population to the north, and 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population to the east. Potential 

linkages in the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa population were also 

identified that may provide connectivity 

with the San Miguel population to the 

west, Crawford population to the 

northeast, and Gunnison Basin 

population to the east. Genetic evidence 

indicates maintaining or enhancing 

habitat connectivity between 

populations is important for Gunnison 

sage-grouse survival into the future (See 

discussion in Factor E analysis, Small 

Population Size and Structure). Based 

on the above information, we find 

residential development to be a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, both 

now and into the future. 

Roads 

Impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse from 

roads may include direct habitat loss, 

direct mortality, barriers to migration 

corridors or seasonal habitats, 

facilitation of predation and spread of 

invasive vegetative species, and other 

indirect influences such as noise 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, pp. 207– 

231). Greater sage-grouse mortality 

resulting from collisions with vehicles 

does occur, but mortalities are typically 

not monitored or recorded (Patterson 

1952, p. 81). Therefore, it is difficult to 

determine the influence of road-related 

mortalities on sage-grouse populations. 

We have no information on the 

frequency or number of mortalities of 

Gunnison sage-grouse due to roads or 

vehicles, but because of similarities in 

their habitat and habitat use, we expect 

effects to be similar to those observed in 

greater sage-grouse (described below). 

Roads have been shown to fragment 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, with road 

avoidance by birds presumably to limit 

exposure to human activity and 

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

330). The probability of Gunnison sagegrouse habitat occupancy (presence 

based on pellet surveys or sage-grouse 

observation) was positively correlated 

with distance from roads and habitat 

patch size (Oyler-McCance et al. 1999, 

p. 29). 

The presence of roads increases 

human access and resulting disturbance 

effects in remote areas (Forman and 

Alexander 1998, p. 221; Forman 2000, 

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

7–25). In addition, roads can provide 

corridors for predators to move into 

previously unoccupied areas. Some 

mammalian species known to prey on 

sage-grouse, such as red fox (Vulpes 

vulpes), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and 

striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), 

have greatly increased their distribution 

by dispersing along roads (Forman and 

Alexander 1998, p. 212; Forman 2000, 

p. 33; Frey and Conover 2006, pp. 1114– 

1115). Corvids (Family Corvidae: Crows, 

ravens, magpies, etc.) also use linear 

features such as primary and secondary 

roads as travel routes (Bui 2009, p. 31), 

expanding their movements into 

previously unused regions (Knight and 

Kawashima 1993, p. 268; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 12–3). Corvids are significant 

sage-grouse nest predators and were 

responsible for more than 50 percent of 

nest predations in Nevada (Coates 2007, 

pp. 26–30). See Factor C below for 

further discussion of predation. 

The expansion of road networks also 

contributes to exotic plant invasions via 

introduced road fill, vehicle transport, 

and road maintenance activities 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; 

Forman 2000, p. 32; Gelbard and Belnap 

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

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

species are not limited to roadsides, but 

also encroach into surrounding habitats 

(Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; 

Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and Belnap 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69239 

2003, p. 427). Upgrading unpaved fourwheel-drive roads to paved roads 

resulted in increased cover of invasive 

plant species within the interior of 

adjacent plant communities (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, p. 426). This effect 

was associated with road construction 

and maintenance activities and vehicle 

traffic, and not with differences in site 

characteristics. The incursion of 

invasive and exotic plants into native 

sagebrush systems can negatively affect 

Gunnison sage-grouse through habitat 

losses and conversions (see Invasive 

Plants). 

Gunnison sage-grouse may avoid road 

areas because of noise, visual 

disturbance, pollutants, and predators 

moving along a road, which further 

reduces the amount of available habitat. 

An unpublished study by Western State 

Colorado University and CPW in the 

Gunnison Basin found that 

anthropogenic noise was significantly 

higher at leks closer to roads and human 

activity centers than leks farther from 

those sources (Piquette et al. 2013, pp. 

7–8). Leks with higher noise levels were 

associated with lower Gunnison sagegrouse male counts and attendance 

(Piquette et al. 2013, pp. 10–11). The 

landscape-scale spatial model 

predicting Gunnison sage-grouse nest 

site selection showed strong avoidance 

of areas with high road densities of 

roads classed 1 through 4 (primary 

paved highways through primitive roads 

with 2-wheel drive sedan clearance) 

within 6.4 km (4 mi) of nest sites 

(Aldridge et al. 2012 p. 397). Nest sites 

also decreased with increased proximity 

to primary and secondary paved 

highways (roads classes 1 and 2) 

(Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 401). Male 

greater sage-grouse lek attendance was 

shown to decline within 3 km (1.9 mi) 

of a deep seam natural gas well haul 

road where traffic volume exceeded one 

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

Surface coal mining activity and 

associated vehicle traffic on haul roads 

in the North Park of Colorado was 

correlated with a 94 percent reduction 

in the number of displaying greater 

sage-grouse males over a 5-year period 

on leks situated within 2 km (1.24 mi) 

of roads (Remington and Braun 1991). 

Peak male greater sage-grouse 

attendance at leks experimentally 

treated with noise from natural gas 

drilling and roads decreased 29 percent 

and 73 percent, respectively, relative to 

paired control (no treatment) areas 

(Blickley et al. 2012, p. 467). Male sagegrouse depend on acoustical signals to 

attract females to leks (Gibson and 

Bradbury 1985, p. 82; Gratson 1993, p. 

692). If noise from roads interferes with 

mating displays, and thereby female 

attendance, younger males will not be 

drawn to the lek and eventually leks 

will become inactive (Amstrup and 

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

229–230). 

In a study on the Pinedale Anticline 

in Wyoming, greater sage-grouse hens 

that bred on leks within 3 km (1.9 mi) 

of roads associated with oil and gas 

development traveled twice as far to 

nest as did hens that bred on leks 

greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) from roads. 

Nest initiation rates for hens bred on 

leks close to roads also were lower (65 

versus 89 percent), affecting population 

recruitment (33 versus 44 percent) 

(Lyon 2000, p. 33; Lyon and Anderson 

2003, pp. 489–490). Roads may be the 

primary impact of oil and gas 

development to sage-grouse, due to their 

persistence and continued use even 

after drilling and production have 

ceased (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 

490). Lek abandonment patterns 

suggested that daily vehicular traffic 

along road networks for oil wells can 

impact greater sage-grouse breeding 

activities (Braun et al. 2002, p. 5). 

Similar data are not available for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, so we do not 

know how the species responds to roads 

and traffic associated with energy 

development, though we expect effects 

would be similar to those observed in 

greater sage-grouse. 

One study showed that road density 

was not an important factor affecting 

greater sage-grouse persistence or 

rangewide patterns in sage-grouse 

extirpation (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 

992). However, the authors did not 

consider the intensity of human use of 

roads in their modeling efforts. They 

also indicated that their analyses may 

have been influenced by inaccuracies in 

spatial road data sets, particularly for 

secondary roads (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 

992). Spatial modeling of historic range 

where greater and Gunnison sage-grouse 

have been extirpated had a 25 percent 

higher density of roads than occupied 

range (Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 467). 

Wisdom et al.’s (2011, entire) greater 

and Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide 

analysis supports the findings of 

numerous local studies showing that 

roads can have both direct and indirect 

impacts on sage-grouse distribution and 

individual fitness (reproduction and 

survival) (e.g., Lyon and Anderson 2003 

p. 490, Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 

520). 

Recreational activities including offhighway vehicles (OHV), all-terrain 

vehicles, motorcycles, mountain bikes, 

and other mechanized methods of travel 

have also been recognized as a potential 

direct and indirect threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse and their habitat (BLM 

2009a, p. 36). In Colorado, the number 

of annual off-highway vehicle (OHV) 

registrations has increased dramatically 

from 12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 in 2007 

(BLM 2009a, p. 37). Four wheel drive, 

OHV, motorcycle, specialty vehicle, and 

mountain bike use is expected to 

increase in the future based on 

increased human population in 

Colorado and within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous offroad routes and access points to habitat 

used by Gunnison sage-grouse 

combined with increasing capabilities 

for mechanized travel and increased 

human population further contribute to 

habitat decline. 

Roads in the Gunnison Basin 

Population Area 

Currently, 1,349 km (838 mi) of roads 

accessible to 2-wheel-drive passenger 

cars occur in occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin on 

all land ownerships. Four-wheel-drive 

vehicle roads, as well as motorcycle, 

mountain bike, horse, and hiking trails 

are heavily distributed throughout the 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM 

2009a, pp. 27, 55, 86), which further 

increases the overall density of roads 

and their direct and indirect effects on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. User-created 

roads and trails have increased since 

2004 (BLM 2009a, p. 33), although we 

do not know the scope of this increase. 

On BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin, 

approximately 2,050 km (1,274 mi) of 

roads are currently within 6.4 km (4 mi) 

of Gunnison sage-grouse leks (BLM 

2010a, p. 147). This distance is thought 

to be important, because eighty-seven 

percent of all Gunnison sage-grouse 

nests were located less than 6.4 km 

(4 mi) from the lek of capture (Apa 

2004, p. 21). However, the BLM 

proposed to reduce the roads on its 

Gunnison Basin lands from 2,050 km 

(1,274 mi) to 1,157 km (719 mi) (BLM 

2010a, p. 147), including 

implementation of other conservation 

measures from the Gunnison Basin 

Candidate Conservation Agreement 

(CCA) (BLM 2013b, entire) (see 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Conservation below). 

The NPS completed a Motorized 

Vehicle Access Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for the Curecanti National 

Recreation Area (NPS 2010, 78 FR 

72028). As of January 2014, roads open 

to the public within Gunnison sagegrouse habitat (occupied and 

unoccupied) were reduced from 91.1 km 

(56.6 mi) to 39.6 km (24.6 mi) 

(Stahlnecker 2014, pers. com) (also 

discussed below). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69240 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is 

implementing their 2010 Travel 

Management Plan to benefit Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Approximately 66 km (41 

mi) of road have recently been 

decommissioned on USFS lands in the 

Gunnison Basin. An additional 40–56 

km (25–35 mi) of roads were proposed 

for decommissioning by the USFS in 

2013. The BLM, USFS, CPW, and 

Gunnison County currently close 36 

roads at 47 closure points to all 

motorized traffic from March 15 to May 

15 to minimize impacts to Gunnison 

sage-grouse during the breeding season. 

Six USFS closures extend to June 15 to 

protect nesting Gunnison sage-grouse. 

These closures limit motorized access to 

all known leks and adjacent habitats on 

public lands in the Gunnison Basin 

(Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 78, 127). 

The USFS implements winter and 

spring travel closures for motorized and 

mechanized activities in the Flat Top 

Mountain and Almont Triangle areas, 

which includes a total of more than 

11,000 ha (27,000 ac). While road 

closures may be violated in a small 

number of situations, we expect these 

seasonal closures are having a beneficial 

effect on Gunnison sage-grouse in the 

majority of the Gunnison Basin area 

through avoidance or minimization of 

impacts during sensitive periods. 

Using GIS and a spatial dataset of 

roads in the Gunnison Basin, we 

evaluated the potential effects of roads 

to Gunnison sage-grouse and their 

habitat. To account for secondary effects 

from invasive weed spread from roads 

(see discussion below in Invasive 

Plants), we applied a 0.7-km (0.4-mi) 

‘‘zone of influence’’ (Bradley and 

Mustard 2006, p. 1146) to all roads in 

the Gunnison Basin. These analyses 

indicate that approximately 85 percent 

of occupied habitat in the Gunnison 

Basin has an increased likelihood of 

current or future road-related invasive 

weed invasion, although the extent and 

severity of weed invasion would vary by 

road and area. It is likely that all 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

may be negatively affected in some way 

by the direct or indirect impacts of 

roads (see the discussion below). In 

addition, available information 

indicates that noise from roads and 

other human activity centers such as the 

airport may be negatively impacting 

Gunnison sage-grouse reproduction in 

the Gunnison Basin by reducing male 

sage-grouse attendance at nearby leks 

(Piquette et al. 2013, entire). 

The CPW (2013b, pp. 8–9) calculated 

the distance from roads (highways and 

county roads) for 185 separate 

successful and unsuccessful sage-grouse 

nests in the Gunnison Basin population, 

based on telemetry and nesting data 

collected from 2005 to 2010. Roads 

included highways and county roads in 

Gunnison and Saguache counties. The 

study did not evaluate ‘‘primitive’’ 

roads as the Aldridge et al. 2012 study 

did, making this analysis more 

conservative. A GIS analysis of the 

distance frequencies of the 185 nests did 

not indicate an avoidance of roads by 

sage-grouse, in contrast to the findings 

of other authors cited above (see 

discussion above). Rather, CPW believes 

the data showed a correlation between 

a decline in the number of nests and 

increasing distance from roads. 

Approximately 45 percent of studied 

nests were within 300 m (984 ft) of a 

road, and 70 percent were within 500 m 

(1,640 ft). Nest frequency declined 

around distances greater than 500 m 

(1,640 ft) from roads. However, road 

density was not described and the 

distance to nests may be a reflection of 

road density rather than site selection. 

We are also uncertain as to what 

percentage of these roads may have been 

closed to protect nesting Gunnison sagegrouse, which may influence nest 

survival. The CPW acknowledged, 

moreover, that their analysis was not 

peer reviewed, and did not account for 

factors such as age (yearling vs. adult), 

re-nesting (however, only 3.2 percent of 

females studied re-nested), or time (i.e., 

the same female observed across years) 

(CPW 2013b, pp. 8–9). CPW also 

recognized that its report of nesting 

success in relation to roads only 

addressed one aspect of potential threats 

to Gunnison sage-grouse from roads, 

and did not address additional threats 

from roads such as impacts on 

suitability of brood-rearing and seasonal 

habitat components, changes in lekking 

behavior, noise impacts, depredation 

risks and chick and adult mortality 

(CPW 2013b, p.9). While the CPW study 

may indicate that Gunnison sage-grouse 

in the Gunnison Basin are not totally 

avoiding roads, the best available 

scientific information on the effects of 

roads on sage-grouse and their habitats 

nevertheless indicates that roads are 

likely having a negative impact on 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison 

Basin population, though the extent and 

magnitude of those impacts are 

unknown. 

Roads in All Other Population Areas 

Approximately 140 km (87 mi), 243 

km (151 mi), and 217 km (135 mi) of 

roads (all road classes) occur on BLM 

lands within the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa, Crawford, and 

San Miguel Basin population areas, 

respectively, all of which are managed 

by the BLM (BLM 2009a, p. 71). We do 

not have information on the total length 

of roads within the Monticello-Dove 

Creek, Pin ̃ on Mesa, or Poncha Pass 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

However, several maps provided by the 

BLM show that roads are widespread 

and common throughout these 

population areas (BLM 2009a, pp. 27, 

55, 86). 

In the Crawford population area, 

Montrose County seasonally closes C77 

Road from March 15 through May 15 to 

protect Gunnison sage-grouse during the 

breeding season (Gunnison County 

2013, App. 1.G.40). Likewise, Saguache 

County seasonally closes three roads in 

the Poncha Pass population, and one 

road in the Gunnison Basin population 

area (Gunnison County 2013, App. 

1.I.49). San Miguel County vacated, 

reclaimed, and relocated a county road 

in the San Miguel Basin to protect a lek 

in the Miramonte area (Gunnison 

County 2013, App. 1.K.67). San Miguel 

County also restricts road traffic speed 

year-round to 10 miles per hour or less 

on another road in the Miramonte area 

(Gunnison County 2013, App. 1.K.67.b). 

An Ouray County resolution (Resolution 

Number 2013–022, entire), adopted on 

May 28, 2013, provides that seasonal 

restrictions (March 15 until May 15) be 

implemented for roads (not belonging to 

adjacent property owners or their 

guests), and appropriate terms and 

conditions be applied during this same 

time period at construction sites within 

0.6 miles of a lek to minimize and avoid 

impacts on breeding and brood-rearing 

habitat. This affects portions of the San 

Miguel and Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa populations. We expect 

these seasonal closures and restrictions 

are benefitting Gunnison sage-grouse in 

important portions of these populations 

through avoidance and minimization of 

impacts during sensitive periods. 

However, we believe that roads are 

having negative impacts at some level 

on all Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. 

Summary of Roads 

As described above in the Residential 

Development section, the human 

population is increasing throughout the 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOLA 

2009a, pp. 2–3; CWCB 2009, p. 15), and 

data indicates this trend will continue. 

Gunnison sage-grouse are dependent on 

large landscapes to meet their life 

history needs (GSRSC 2005, pp. 26–30) 

and contiguous sagebrush habitat 

(Rogers 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, 

pp. 452–453). The collective influences 

of fragmentation and disturbance from 

roads reduce the amount of effective 

habitat to the extent that they are 

avoided by sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69241 

2012, p. 402; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, 

p. 520; Knick et al. 2011, pp. 212–219 

and references therein; CPW 2013, pp. 

8–9). Given the current and future 

human demographic and economic 

trends discussed above under the 

Residential Development Section, we 

conclude that increased road use and 

increased road construction associated 

with residential development will 

continue to increase. Seasonal closures 

are likely providing benefits to 

Gunnison sage-grouse in portions of its 

range and during sensitive periods. 

Nevertheless, habitat decline associated 

with roads, as described above, is a 

current and future threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse rangewide. 

Powerlines 

Depending on the infrastructure 

design, size, location, and site-specific 

factors, powerlines can directly affect 

greater sage-grouse by posing a collision 

and electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, 

pp. 145–146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

974) and can have indirect effects by 

decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. 

2002, p. 10, Walker et al. 2007a, p. 

2,644), increasing predation (Connelly 

et al. 2004, p. 13–12), fragmenting 

habitat (Braun 1998, p. 146), and 

facilitating the invasion of exotic annual 

plants (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612; 

Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25). In 10 

years of tracking and studying over 

1,000 radio-collared sage-grouse in 

Colorado, CPW has documented only 

three powerline strike-related 

mortalities (two confirmed cases, and 

one suspected case) of Gunnison sagegrouse; and one powerline strike-related 

mortality of greater sage-grouse (CPW 

2013b, p. 11; Phillips and Griffin 2013, 

pers. comm.). In contrast, powerline 

collisions in southeastern Idaho 

accounted for 33 percent of juvenile 

mortality of greater sage-grouse in lowelevation areas (Beck et al. 2006, p. 

1,075). Based on spatial modeling, 

proximity to powerlines is positively 

correlated with Gunnison and greater 

sage-grouse extirpation and loss of range 

(Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 467–468). Due 

to the potential spread of invasive 

species and predators as a result of 

powerline construction and 

maintenance, the most substantial 

impact of powerlines on Gunnison sagegrouse likely comes from indirect 

effects, rather than from direct 

mortality. The effects of powerlines to 

Gunnison sage-grouse are expected to be 

similar to those observed in greater sagegrouse due to similar life histories and 

behavior. 

In areas where vegetation is low and 

the terrain relatively flat, power poles 

provide an attractive hunting, roosting, 

and nesting perch for many species of 

raptors and corvids, known predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Steenhof et al. 

1993, p. 27; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 

974; Manville 2002, p. 7; Vander Haegen 

et al. 2002, p. 503) (see Factor C, 

Predation). Power poles increase a 

raptor’s range of vision, allow for greater 

speed during attacks on prey, and serve 

as territorial markers (Steenhof et al. 

1993, p. 275; Manville 2002, p. 7), 

thereby increasing the likelihood of 

predation where sage-grouse occur. 

Raptors may actively seek out power 

poles where natural perches are limited. 

For example, within 1 year of 

construction of a 596-km (370-mi) 

transmission line in southern Idaho and 

Oregon, raptors and common ravens 

began nesting on the supporting poles 

(Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 275). Within 10 

years of construction, 133 pairs of 

raptors and ravens were nesting along 

this stretch (Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 

275). Raven counts increased by 

approximately 200 percent along the 

Falcon-Gondor transmission line 

corridor in Nevada within 5 years of 

construction (Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2). 

Howe et al. (2014) found (1) the average 

distance to a transmission line from 

selected raven nest sites was 

approximately 2.5 times closer than 

from random sites, and (2) areas 

comprised of nonnative vegetation next 

to sagebrush were more likely to be used 

by ravens (p.42), suggesting that ravens 

selected nest sites (1) closer to 

transmission lines, and (2) in close 

proximity to land cover edges and areas 

where land cover edges adjoined one 

another. A post hoc analysis revealed 

that ravens were most likely to nest near 

edges of adjoining big sagebrush and 

land cover types that were associated 

with direct human disturbance or fire 

(Howe et al., p. 43). It is reasonable to 

assume an increase in the abundance of 

corvids within occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitats can lead to increased 

predation (see Factor C, Predation, for 

further discussion). 

As with corvids, eagles can also 

increase following power line 

installation. Golden eagle (Aquila 

chryrsaetos) predation on sage-grouse 

on leks increased from 26 to 73 percent 

of the total predation after completion of 

a transmission line within 200 meters 

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

1985, p. 10). The lek was eventually 

abandoned, and Ellis (1985, p. 10) 

concluded that the presence of the 

powerline resulted in changes in sagegrouse dispersal patterns and caused 

fragmentation of the habitat. Golden 

eagles are found throughout the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse (USGS 2010, p. 

1), and golden eagles were found to be 

the dominant species recorded perching 

on power poles in Utah in Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat (Prather and 

Messmer 2009, p. 12). An increase in 

the abundance of golden eagles 

associated with power lines within 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitats 

would be expected to increase predation 

rates (see Factor C, Predation, for further 

discussion). 

Greater sage-grouse leks within 0.4 

km (0.25 mi) of new powerlines 

constructed for coalbed methane 

development in the Powder River Basin 

of Wyoming had significantly lower 

recruitment compared to leks further 

from these lines, presumably resulting 

from increased raptor predation (Braun 

et al. 2002, p. 10). Connelly et al. (2004, 

p. 7–26) assumed a 5- to 6.9-km (3.1- to 

4.3-mi) radius buffer around the 

perches, based on the average foraging 

distance of these corvids and raptors, 

and estimated that the area potentially 

influenced by additional perches 

provided by powerlines was 672,644 to 

837,390 km2 (259,641 to 323,317 mi2), 

or 32 to 40 percent of their assessment 

area. The impact on a given area would 

depend on local densities of corvids and 

raptors (see discussion in Factor C, 

Predation). 

Powerlines may negatively impact 

sage-grouse habitats even if raptors are 

not present. The use of otherwise 

suitable habitat by sage-grouse near 

powerlines increased as distance from 

the powerline increased for up to 600 m 

(660 yd) (Braun 1998, p. 8), indicating 

sage-grouse avoidance of powerlines. 

Based on those unpublished data, Braun 

(1998, p. 8) reported that the presence 

of powerlines may limit Gunnison and 

greater sage-grouse use within 1 km (0.6 

mi) in otherwise suitable habitat. 

Greater sage-grouse tended to avoid 

using brood-rearing habitats within 4.7 

km (2.9 mi) of wind energy transmission 

lines in Wyoming (LeBeau 2012, p. 27). 

Electromagnetic fields emitted by 

power and transmission lines can alter 

the behavior, physiology, endocrine 

systems and immune function in birds, 

with negative consequences on 

reproduction and development (Fernie 

and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). Birds are 

diverse in their sensitivities to 

electromagnetic field exposures, with 

domestic chickens being very sensitive. 

Many raptor species are less affected 

(Fernie and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). 

Based on spatial modeling, sage-grouse 

extirpation appears to be correlated to 

the presence of powerlines (Wisdom et 

al. 2011, p. 467). However, no studies 

have been conducted specifically on the 

effects of electromagnetic fields on sageVerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2

rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

grouse. Therefore, we do not know how 

electromagnetic fields may impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

In addition, linear corridors through 

sagebrush habitats can facilitate the 

spread of invasive species, such as 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003, pp. 424–426; Knick et 

al. 2003, p. 620; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

1–2). However, we were unable to find 

any information regarding the amount of 

invasive species incursion associated 

with powerlines within Gunnison sagegrouse habitat. 

Powerlines in the Gunnison Basin 

Population Area 

On approximately 121,000 ha 

(300,000 ac) of BLM land in the 

Gunnison Basin, 36 rights-of-way for 

power facilities, power lines, and 

transmission lines have resulted in the 

direct loss of 350 ha (858 ac) of 

occupied habitat (Borthwick 2005a, 

pers. comm.; Borthwick 2005b, pers. 

comm.). In the Curecanti National 

Recreation Area, Gunnison County 

Electric Association has a right of way 

for 63 km (39 mi) of overhead power 

lines, and Western Area Power 

Administration (WAPA) has a 31-km (19 

mi) right of way for transmission lines. 

As discussed above, the impacts of 

these lines likely extend beyond their 

actual footprint. Based on the average 

foraging distance of corvids and raptors, 

Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7–26) assumed 

a 5- to 6.9-km (3.1- to 4.3-mi) radius 

buffer around the perches, and 

estimated that the area potentially 

influenced by additional perches 

provided by powerlines was 672,644 to 

837,390 km 2 (259,641 to 323,317 mi 2), 

or 32 to 40 percent of their assessment 

area. We performed a similar GIS 

analysis of large transmission line 

location in relation to overall habitat 

area and Gunnison sage-grouse lek 

locations in the Gunnison Basin 

population area to obtain an estimate of 

the potential effects in the Basin. These 

analyses indicate that 68 percent of the 

Gunnison Basin population area is 

within 6.9 km (4.3 mi) of an electrical 

transmission line and is potentially 

influenced by avian predators using the 

additional perches provided by 

transmission lines. This area within 6.9 

km (4.3 mi) of an electrical transmission 

line contains 65 of 109 active leks (60 

percent) in the Gunnison Basin 

population. While we recognize that 

powerlines will not entirely preclude 

the use of adjacent habitats by Gunnison 

sage-grouse, these results suggest that 

increased predation risks associated 

with transmission lines could affect a 

substantial portion of the Gunnison 

Basin population. Four sage-grouse 

collisions with taller utility lines were 

documented during a demographic 

study (Davis 2012, entire) in the 

Gunnison Basin, but none of those birds 

were killed as a result (Phillips 2013, p. 

4). There have been no documented 

strike-related mortalities of Gunnison 

sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin 

(Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.). 

Conservation measures from the 

Gunnison Basin CCA (BLM 2013b, 

entire) are expected to reduce impacts 

from some future power line projects 

and activities on Federal lands in the 

Gunnison Basin (see Conservation 

Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat 

Conservation). 

Powerlines in All Other Population 

Areas 

A transmission line runs through the 

Dry Creek Basin group in the San 

Miguel Basin population, and the 

Beaver Mesa group has two 

transmission lines. None of the 

transmission lines in the San Miguel 

Basin have raptor proofing, nor do most 

distribution lines (Ferguson 2005, pers. 

comm.), so their use by raptors and 

corvids as perch sites for hunting and 

use for nest sites is not discouraged. In 

the winter of 2012, one Gunnison sagegrouse individual in the San Miguel 

population died due to a powerline 

strike (Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. 

comm.). One major electric transmission 

line runs east-west in the northern 

portion of the current range of the 

Monticello population (San Juan County 

Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group 

2005, p. 17). There have been no 

documented strike-related mortalities of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Dove Creek 

or Pin ̃ on Mesa population areas 

(Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.), 

and because of their limited extent in 

occupied habitat, powerlines do not 

appear to be a threat to the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population. One transmission line 

parallels Highway 92 in the Crawford 

population and distribution lines run 

from there to homes on the periphery of 

the current range (Ferguson 2005, pers. 

comm.). Several transmission and utility 

lines intersect occupied habitat in the 

Poncha Pass area and may be negatively 

impacting an already small population 

and limited available habitat. A bird 

translocated from the Gunnison Basin to 

the Poncha Pass area in 2013 was found 

dead under the large transmission line 

on the west side of Highway 285; 

necropsy results indicated collision was 

a likely cause of death (Phillips and 

Griffin 2013, pers. comm.; Nehring 

2013b, pers. comm.). During the same 

year, one radio collar was found under 

a powerline, but no bird was observed 

(i.e., an unconfirmed mortality) (Phillips 

and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.) 

Summary of Powerlines 

Human populations are projected to 

increase to varying degrees in and near 

most Gunnison sage-grouse populations 

(see Residential Development 

discussion above). As a result, we 

expect an associated increase in 

distribution powerlines to meet this 

demand. Powerlines are likely 

negatively affecting Gunnison sagegrouse as they contribute to habitat 

decline and facilitation of predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Given the current 

demographic and economic trends 

described in the Residential 

Development Section above, we 

conclude that existing powerlines and 

anticipated distribution of powerlines 

associated with residential and other 

development will continue to increase. 

Direct and indirect impacts resulting 

from powerlines are a current and future 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

persistence rangewide. 

Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate 

Herbivory 

At least 87 percent of occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on Federal 

lands is currently grazed by domestic 

livestock (USFWS 2010c, entire). We 

lack information on the proportion of 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on private 

lands that is currently grazed, but it is 

reasonable to expect that the proportion 

of grazed area is similar to that on 

Federal lands because livestock grazing 

is the most widespread type of land use 

across the sagebrush biome (Connelly et 

al. 2004), and almost all sagebrush areas 

are managed for livestock grazing (Knick 

et al. 2003). Livestock grazing can have 

negative or positive impacts on sagegrouse, depending on the timing and 

intensity of grazing and the habitat type 

or attribute of interest (Crawford et al. 

2004, p. 2). Excessive grazing by 

domestic livestock during the late 1800s 

and early 1900s, along with severe 

drought, significantly impacted 

sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, 

p. 616). Overgrazing by livestock was 

cited as one of several contributing 

factors in the early loss and 

deterioration of sagebrush range in the 

region (Rogers 1964, p. 13). Historical 

accounts indicate that overgrazing of 

sagebrush range in Colorado began 

around 1875. Overgrazing was 

apparently at its worst in the early 

1900’s and continued until the BLM was 

organized in 1934 (Rogers 1964, p. 13). 

Around 1910, a gradual but marked 

decline in sage-grouse numbers and 

distribution in Colorado had begun 

(Rogers 1964, pp. 20–22). Though there 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69243 

is no evidence of direct correlation, this 

information suggests that historical 

livestock grazing practices and 

overgrazing were a contributing factor in 

the early loss and degradation of 

sagebrush habitats and initial declines 

in sage-grouse numbers and 

distribution. Although current livestock 

stocking rates in the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse are lower than historical 

levels (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3), longterm effects from historical overgrazing, 

including changes in plant communities 

and soils, persist today (Knick et al. 

2003, p. 116). 

In addition, widespread use of water 

developments in connection with 

livestock grazing across the West has 

since increased livestock access to 

sagebrush habitats, and so even reduced 

numbers of livestock still pose impacts 

(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–33, 7–35, 7– 

92). However, in some cases, small scale 

water development may benefit the 

species. For instance, in the recent past, 

landowners in San Juan County, Utah, 

in the range of the Monticello 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse did 

not have automatic control valves on 

water developments for livestock 

watering. This resulted in overflow 

creating seasonal wet meadow and 

mesic habitats often used by Gunnison 

sage-grouse and broods. The recent use 

of more advanced watering devices and 

shutoff valves has resulted in the loss of 

many of these created wet meadow 

sites, potentially contributing to sagegrouse declines in the area (Prather 

2010, p. 27). Water developments are 

also a potential source of West Nile 

virus, a serious risk factor to sage-grouse 

populations. Unless they are designed 

and managed specifically to benefit 

Gunnison sage-grouse, we conclude that 

the negative effects of water 

development outweigh the positives 

(see Factor C discussion, Disease). 

Although livestock grazing and 

associated land treatments have likely 

altered plant composition, increased 

topsoil loss, and increased spread of 

exotic plants, the impacts on Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations are not clear. 

Few studies have directly addressed the 

effect of livestock grazing on sage-grouse 

(Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998–1000; 

Wamboldt et al. 2002, p. 7; Crawford et 

al. 2004, p. 11), and little direct 

experimental evidence links grazing 

practices to Gunnison sage-grouse 

population levels (Braun 1987, pp. 136– 

137, Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7–9). 

Rowland (2004, pp. 17–18) conducted a 

literature review and found no 

experimental research that demonstrates 

grazing alone is responsible for 

reduction in sage-grouse numbers. 

Despite the obvious impacts of 

grazing on plant communities within 

the range of the species, the GSRSC 

(2005, p. 114) could not find a direct 

correlation between historical grazing 

and reduced Gunnison sage-grouse 

numbers. Impacts from livestock grazing 

on individual birds and site-specific 

habitat conditions may have impacts at 

the population level as well, given the 

widespread nature of grazing. However, 

no studies have documented the 

impacts (positive or negative) of grazing 

at the population level. 

Sage-grouse need significant grass and 

shrub cover for protection from 

predators, particularly during nesting 

season, and females will preferentially 

choose nesting sites based on these 

qualities (Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). 

However, specific recommendations on 

vegetation characteristics and habitat 

requirements for sage-grouse vary. Nest 

success in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

was positively correlated with greater 

grass and forb heights; and shrub 

density and cover (Young 1994, p. 38). 

In contrast, nest site vegetation 

characteristics did not have a strong 

influence on nest success between the 

Gunnison Basin and San Miguel 

populations, where temporal factors had 

the greatest influence (Davis 2012, pp. 1, 

10). It is thought that, in Colorado, 

sagebrush canopy cover conceals nests 

more than grass (GSRSC 2005, p. 73). In 

Oregon, grass height at greater sagegrouse nests was taller at successful 

nests than at unsuccessful nests 

(specific grass species that tend to be 

taller than others were also positively 

associated with successful nests) (Gregg 

1991, p. 2). Gregg et al. (1994, p. 165) 

speculated that a reduction of grass 

heights due to livestock grazing in sagegrouse nesting and brood-rearing areas 

would negatively affect nesting success 

whenever cover is reduced below the 18 

cm (7 in.) needed for predator 

avoidance. Maintaining average grass 

height greater than 18 cm (7 in.) was 

recommended by Connelly et al. 2000a, 

p. 977). However, guideline standards 

from Connelly et al. (2000a, entire) are 

derived primarily from research and 

publications from the Great Basin and 

northwest, where bunch grasses 

predominate (GSRSC 2005, p. 73). 

The RCP (GSRSC 2005, p. H–6) 

provided structural habitat guidelines 

for Gunnison sage-grouse and 

recommends a grass height of 10 to 15 

cm (3.9–5.9 in.) in breeding habitats. 

Lupis (2005, entire) found that despite 

reduced grass and forb cover, all (100 

percent) Gunnison sage-grouse nests 

monitored in the Monticello population 

were successful. However, sample size 

for the study was limited to three nests, 

and predator control at the time may 

have contributed to relatively high 

nesting success (Lupis 2005, entire); 

inference from this study is therefore 

limited. Based on measurements of 

cattle foraging rates on bunchgrasses 

both between and under sagebrush 

canopies, the probability of foraging on 

under-canopy bunchgrasses depends on 

sagebrush size and shape. Consequently, 

the effects of grazing on nesting habitats 

might be site-specific (France et al. 

2008, pp. 392–393). Effects of grazing on 

nesting habitats are dependent on the 

timing as well as duration and intensity 

of grazing. Grazing on grasses and forbs 

during nesting and early brood rearing 

seasons could impact food sources for 

young broods, as well as alter the 

desired herbaceous plant community. 

Grazing on grasses and forbs in late-fall 

or winter could reduce residual 

vegetation important for hiding cover 

for nesting hens the following spring. In 

addition, grazing on shrubs, especially 

sagebrush, during winter months may 

cause impacts to both hiding/thermal 

cover as well as the primary food 

resource for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Livestock grazing can also impact fire 

return intervals, which in turn can affect 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat quality. 

Fire ecology in the sagebrush steppe 

ecosystem has changed dramatically 

with European settlement. In high 

elevation sagebrush habitat, fire return 

intervals have increased from 12–24 

years to more than 50 years, resulting in 

the dominance of woody vegetation 

(typically juniper and/or pin ̃ on pine) 

and the decline of important shrubs and 

herbaceous understories. At lower 

elevations, fire return intervals have 

decreased dramatically from 50–100 

years to less than 10 years due to 

invasion by annual grasses resulting in 

the loss of native perennial shrubs, 

forbs, and grasses (Crawford et al. 2004, 

p. 8). By changing vegetative structure 

and composition, livestock grazing can 

contribute to either condition (an 

increase in woody vegetation or 

invasive annual grasses) (Beck and 

Mitchell 2000, pp. 995–996, and 

references therein), increasing the risk 

of larger, more severe, or more frequent 

wildfires (also see Pin ̃ on-Juniper 

Encroachment and Invasive Plants 

sections in this rule). On the other hand, 

livestock grazing may reduce 

herbaceous fuel accumulation and 

continuity and, consequently, the risk of 

wildfires in sagebrush habitats (Davies 

et al. 2010, p. 662). 

We know that livestock grazing 

influences fire ecology in sage-grouse 

habitat. However, due to the spatial 

complexity of fire in sagebrush 

ecosystems (Crawford et al. 2004, p.7), 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and the numerous factors determining 

the effects of grazing on sagebrush 

habitats (as described above), the effects 

of grazing on sage-grouse by altering fire 

ecology likely vary widely across time 

and space. Grazing by livestock, 

especially if done in a manner not 

consistent with local ecological 

conditions, including soil types, 

precipitation zones, vegetation 

composition and drought conditions, 

can reduce the suitability of breeding 

and brood-rearing habitat, negatively 

affecting sage-grouse populations (Braun 

1987, p. 137; Dobkin 1995, p. 18; 

Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 231; Beck 

and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998–1000; 

USFWS 2013e, p. 45). Livestock and 

wild ungulate numbers must be 

managed at levels that allow native 

sagebrush vegetative communities to 

minimally achieve Proper Functioning 

Conditions for riparian areas or 

Rangeland Health Standards for uplands 

(USFWS 2013e, p. 45). Domestic 

livestock grazing reduces water 

infiltration rates and the cover of 

herbaceous plants and litter, compacts 

the soil, and increases soil erosion 

(Braun 1998, p. 147; Dobkin et al. 1998, 

p. 213). These impacts change the 

proportion of shrub, grass, and forb 

components in the affected area, and 

facilitate invasion of exotic plant 

species that do not provide suitable 

habitat for sage-grouse (Mack and 

Thompson 1982, p. 761; Miller and 

Eddleman 2000, p. 19; Knick et al. 2011, 

pp. 228–232). 

Cattle feed mostly on grasses, but will 

make seasonal use of forbs and shrub 

species like sagebrush (Vallentine 1990, 

p. 226), the primary source of nutrition 

for sage-grouse. Within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, sheep use of 

sagebrush habitats occurs primarily 

during the winter and spring months, 

depending on elevation. Sheep feed 

primarily on sagebrush and other 

shrubs. A sage-grouse hen’s nutritional 

condition affects nest initiation rate, 

clutch size, and subsequent 

reproductive success (Barnett and 

Crawford 1994, p. 117; Coggins 1998, p. 

30). Grazing management practices that 

are inconsistent with local ecological 

conditions in mesic sites result in a 

reduction of forbs and grasses available 

to sage-grouse chicks, thereby affecting 

chick survival (Aldridge and Brigham 

2003, p. 30). Chick survival is one of the 

most important factors in maintaining 

Gunnison sage-grouse population 

viability (GSRSC 2005, p. 173). We 

conclude that livestock utilization of 

forage resources has the potential to 

negatively impact Gunnison sagegrouse, though the magnitude of those 

effects depends on location, grazing 

practices, and site-specific factors. 

Livestock can trample sage-grouse 

nests and nesting habitat. Although the 

effect of trampling at a population level 

is unknown, outright nest destruction 

has been documented, and the presence 

of livestock can cause sage-grouse to 

abandon their nests (Rasmussen and 

Griner 1938, p. 863; Patterson 1952, p. 

111; Call and Maser 1985, p. 17; 

Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309; 

Beck and Mitchell 2000, p. 994; Coates 

2007, p. 28). Sage-grouse have been 

documented to abandon nests following 

partial nest predation by cows (Coates 

2007, p. 28). In general, all recorded 

encounters between livestock and 

grouse nests resulted in hens flushing 

from nests, which could expose the eggs 

to predation. Visual predators like 

ravens likely use hen movements to 

locate sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007, p. 

33). Livestock also may trample 

sagebrush seedlings, thereby removing a 

source of future sage-grouse food and 

cover (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–31, 

and references therein). Trampling of 

soil by livestock can reduce or eliminate 

biological soil crusts making these areas 

susceptible to cheatgrass invasion (Mack 

1981, pp. 148–149; Young and Allen 

1997, p. 531). 

Livestock grazing may also have 

positive effects on sage-grouse under 

some habitat conditions. Sage-grouse 

use grazed meadows significantly more 

during late summer than ungrazed 

meadows because grazing had 

stimulated the regrowth of forbs (Evans 

1986, p. 67). Greater sage-grouse sought 

out and used openings in meadows 

created by cattle grazing in northern 

Nevada (Klebenow 1981, p. 121). Also, 

both sheep and goats have been used to 

control invasive weeds (Mosley 1996 in 

Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–49; Merritt 

et al. 2001, p. 4; Olsen and Wallander 

2001, p. 30) and woody plant 

encroachment (Riggs and Urness 1989, 

p. 358) in sage-grouse habitat. Anecdotal 

reports and opinion papers (Brunner 

2006, p. 16; Gunnison County 2013a, p. 

95) have suggested that cattle manure 

attracts and supports insect populations 

upon which sage-grouse depend for 

survival, and that sage-grouse ‘‘follow’’ 

cattle through pastures. However, there 

is no empirical evidence to support this 

theory. Further, there are no data to 

substantiate the idea that in areas not 

actively grazed by livestock, sage-grouse 

are limited in some way (Connelly et al. 

2007, p. 37). 

Sagebrush plant communities are not 

adapted to domestic grazing 

disturbance. Grazing changed the 

functioning of systems into less 

resilient, and in some cases, altered 

communities (Knick et al. 2011, pp. 

229–232). The ability to restore or 

rehabilitate areas depends on the 

condition of the area relative to the 

ability of a site to support a specific 

plant community (Knick et al. 2011, pp. 

229–232). For example, if an area has a 

balanced mix of shrubs and native 

understory vegetation, a change in 

grazing management can restore the 

habitat to its potential historical species 

composition (Pyke 2011, pp. 536–538). 

Wambolt and Payne (1986, p. 318) 

found that resting areas from grazing 

had a better perennial grass response 

than other treatments. Active restoration 

is likely required where native 

understory vegetation is much reduced 

(Pyke 2011, pp. 536–540). But, if an area 

has soil loss or invasive species, 

returning the site to the native historical 

plant community may be impossible 

(Daubenmire 1970, p. 82; Knick et al. 

2011, pp. 230–231; Pyke 2011, p. 539). 

Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 990) did not 

find any relationship between sagegrouse persistence and livestock 

densities. However, the authors noted 

that livestock numbers do not 

necessarily correlate with range 

condition. They concluded that the 

intensity, duration, and distribution of 

livestock grazing are more influential on 

rangeland condition than the density of 

livestock (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990). 

Currently, little direct evidence links 

grazing practices to population levels of 

Gunnison or greater sage-grouse. 

Although grazing has not been 

examined at large spatial scales, as 

discussed above, we do know that 

grazing that is incompatible with local 

ecological conditions and that does not 

allow native sagebrush vegetative 

communities to minimally achieve 

Proper Functioning Conditions for 

riparian areas or Rangeland Health 

Standards for uplands can have negative 

impacts to individuals, nests, breeding 

productivity, and sagebrush and, 

consequently, to sage-grouse at local 

scales (USFWS 2013e, p. 44). However, 

how these impacts operate at large 

spatial scales and thus on population 

levels is currently unknown. 

Livestock Grazing Allotments and 

Habitat Monitoring 

Our analysis of grazing is focused on 

BLM lands because nearly all of the 

information available to us regarding 

current grazing management within the 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse was 

provided by the BLM. Similar 

information was provided by the USFS, 

but was more limited since the USFS 

has less occupied habitat in grazing 

allotments and has a different habitat 

monitoring approach than BLM (see 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69245 

discussion below). A summary of 

domestic livestock grazing management 

on BLM and USFS lands in occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is 

provided in Table 8. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT AND ALLOTMENT DATA ON BLM a AND USFS b

LANDS IN OCCUPIED HABITAT FOR EACH OF THE GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE (GUSG) POPULATIONS

[From BLM (2013b, p. 3–1) and USFWS (2010c), compilation of data provided by BLM and USFS] 

USFS BLM 

Population Number of active 

USFS allotments 

Number of 

active BLM 

allotments 

Active BLM allotments with 

GUSG c objectives 

BLM allotments assessed 

under LHAd

Assessed BLM allotments 

meeting LHA objective 

(standard 4) 

Gunnison ............... 34 .......................... 62 62 100% 62 100% 20 32% 

San Miguel Basin .. no data ................. 12 11 92% 10 83% g 4 40% 

Dove Creek ........... n/a e ...................... 3 0 0% 3 100% h Unknown ....................

Monticello .............. n/a e ...................... 6 6 100% 5 83% 4 80% 

Pin ̃on Mesa ........... no data ................. 15 8 53% 4 27% 4 100% 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa.n/a e ...................... 6 1 17% 6 100% i 1 17% 

Crawford f .............. n/a e ...................... 8 8 100% 8 100% j 7 88% 

Poncha Pass ......... no data ................. 8 8 100% 8 100% 8 100% 

Total ............... 34 .......................... 124 83 67% 101 81% 48 48% 

aBureau of Land Management. 

b United States Forest Service. 

cGunnison sage-grouse. 

d Land Health Assessments. 

e No United States Forest land in occupied habitat in this population area. 

f Includes allotments on National Park Service lands but managed by the Bureau of Land Management. 

gBLM did not evaluate land health specific to GUSG Habitat Objectives in 8 of the 12 active allotments in the San Miguel Basin population 

area. hBLM did not evaluate land health specific to GUSG Habitat Objectives in any of the 3 active allotments in the Dove Creek population area. 

iBLM did not evaluate land health specific to GUSG Habitat Objectives in 5 of the 6 active allotments in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa population area; however, general land health standards were met on BLM lands in this area. 

jBLM found that 6 allotments (75 percent) were ‘‘meeting with problems’’ for GUSG Habitat Objectives. Generally these allotments were found 

to be low for some aspect of vegetation characteristics for breeding habitat recommended in GSRSC (2005 H–6). 

Some of the available information on 

domestic livestock grazing and its 

relationship to habitat conditions on 

Federal lands is in the form of BLM’s 

Land Health Assessment (LHA) data. 

The purpose of LHAs is to determine 

the status of resource conditions within 

a specified geographic area at a specific 

time. The LHA process incorporates 

land health standards that define 

minimum resource conditions that must 

be achieved and maintained. Further 

discussion on the LHA process is 

provided in the following section. 

The USFS does not apply the LHA 

process, but monitors allotment trends 

through a combination of procedures 

including seasonal inspections, 

permanent photo points, and inventory 

and mapping of plant community 

conditions and changes over time (USFS 

2010). The majority of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied habitat in USFS grazing 

allotments is located in the Gunnison 

Basin population area (Table 8 of Factor 

A (Livestock Grazing Allotments and 

Habitat Monitoring)), and grazing 

information from USFS as it relates to 

Gunnison sage-grouse is therefore 

limited to this area (USFWS 2010c, p2). 

Although grazing also occurs on lands 

owned or managed by other entities, we 

have more limited information on the 

extent of grazing, management, and 

habitat conditions in those areas. 

However, substantial portions of sagegrouse habitat on private land in the 

Gunnison Basin, Crawford, San Miguel, 

and Pin ̃ on Mesa population areas are 

enrolled in the CCAA (see Conservation 

Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat 

Conservation below in this Factor A 

section). Based on the RCP conservation 

objective of securing and maintaining 90 

percent of seasonally important habitat 

(severe winter, nesting, and late broodrearing habitats) for the Gunnison sagegrouse in each population area (GSRSC 

2005, pp. 223–224), the CCAA identifies 

targets for private land protection for 

each population area, including private 

lands not already considered as 

protected under a conservation 

easement (USFWS 2006, pp. 11–12). 

Roughly 91 percent of the Gunnison 

Basin population area target, 95 percent 

of the Crawford population area target, 

46 percent of the San Miguel population 

area target, and 217 percent of the Pin ̃on 

Mesa population area target on private 

lands are enrolled in the CCAA (Table 

10). Except for properties recently 

enrolled in the program, all enrolled 

private lands have been monitored by 

CPW using standardized vegetation 

transects and rangeland health 

assessments and, despite recent drought 

conditions and ongoing land uses, no 

significant deviations from baseline 

habitat conditions were observed (CPW 

2014a, p. 1). All enrolled properties 

continue to be in compliance with the 

terms of their Certificate of Inclusion 

(CI) (CPW 2014a, p. 1). This information 

suggests that the current level of 

livestock grazing and operations on 

those lands is compatible with 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat needs. 

Although Federal land and livestock 

grazing may be more regulated than 

private lands grazing, we cannot make 

any generalizations about how habitat 

conditions in those areas might compare 

with private lands where livestock 

grazing occurs. Grazing allotments 

containing both Federal and private 

lands are, in some cases, managed to 

meet land health standards through 

coordination and cooperation with 

grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, p. 1–2). 

Furthermore, many livestock operations 

within the range of Gunnison sagegrouse are employing innovative grazing 

strategies and conservation actions 

(BLM 2012a, pp. 1–2; Gunnison County 

Stockgrowers 2009, entire) in 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

collaboration with the BLM and Forest 

Service. 

BLM Land Health Assessment 

Standards 

LHA standards are based on the 

recognized characteristics of healthy 

ecosystems and include considerations 

of upland soils, riparian systems, plant 

and animal communities, habitat 

conditions and populations of special 

status species, and water quality (BLM 

1997, pp. 6–7). Each LHA standard, 

such as the condition and health of 

soils, riparian areas, or plant 

communities, has varying degrees of 

applicability to basic Gunnison sagegrouse habitat needs. The LHA standard 

most applicable to Gunnison sagegrouse is LHA Standard 4, which is 

specific to special status species (BLM 

1997, p. 7). Special status species 

include Federally threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and candidate 

species; recently delisted (5 years or 

less) species; and BLM sensitive species. 

BLM sensitive species are those that 

require special management 

consideration to promote their 

conservation and reduce the likelihood 

and need for future listing under the 

Act; they are designated by the BLM 

State Director(s) (BLM 2008). Gunnison 

sage-grouse was designated as a BLM 

sensitive species in 2000, when it was 

recognized as a separate species from 

greater sage-grouse (BLM 2009a, p. 7). 

Therefore, Gunnison sage-grouse is 

managed by the BLM as a special status 

species. 

In addition to requiring stable and 

increasing populations and suitable 

habitat for special status species, the 

specific indicators for LHA Standard 4 

include the presence of: minimal 

noxious weeds, sustainably reproducing 

native plant and animal communities, 

mixed age classes sufficient to sustain 

recruitment and mortality fluctuations, 

habitat connectivity, photosynthetic 

activity throughout the growing season, 

diverse and resilient plant and animal 

communities in balance with habitat 

potential, plant litter accumulation, and 

several plant communities in a variety 

of successional stages and patterns 

(BLM 1997, p. 7). BLM deems an 

allotment that meets LHA Standard 4 to 

meet or exceed a minimum resource 

condition for those species considered 

for that area. 

If livestock grazing is found to be a 

causal factor for not meeting LHA 

standards, including LHA Standard 4, 

BLM implements changes to grazing 

management to address those issues and 

to move toward achieving desired 

resource conditions. Examples of 

adjustments include reduction of 

stocking rates or utilization, changes in 

seasons of use, reductions in duration of 

use, implementation of resting or 

deferred rotation grazing systems, or 

change in livestock class. Under BLM 

Instruction Memoranda WO–IM–2010– 

071, CO–IM–2010–028 and CO–IM– 

2013–033 (see further discussion in 

Factor D on Instruction Memoranda), 

BLM must consider Gunnison sagegrouse habitat needs and objectives 

when analyzing grazing management 

and permit renewals (BLM 2013a, 

Attachment 1–10). 

We recognize that LHAs are largely 

qualitative and other factors such as 

impacts from invasive species, drought, 

OHV use, or the lingering effects of 

historical overgrazing, may influence 

the outcome of LHA determinations. 

Furthermore, BLM’s application of LHA 

standards, methodologies used, and data 

interpretation varies widely by Field 

Office and State (Veblen et al. 2011, p. 

3; BLM 2013c, p. 1–3), and the 

potentially subjective nature of the 

methodology is evident in the 

information on each populations 

presented below. Therefore, the 

relationship between LHA 

determinations and the effects of 

domestic livestock grazing on Gunnison 

sage-grouse is very imprecise. We also 

recognize that if an allotment does not 

fully meet LHA Standard 4, it does not 

mean the habitat is degraded or 

unsuitable for Gunnison sage-grouse; 

and a ‘‘not meeting’’ ranking is not 

always attributable to livestock grazing 

(BLM 2013c, p. 1–2). For instance, some 

vacant allotments (not grazed by 

livestock) are not currently meeting 

LHA Standard 4 (BLM 2013c, p. 1–3), 

meaning current grazing practices are 

not a causal factor for that ranking. A 

‘‘not meeting’’ determination could also 

be based primarily on the declining 

status of a special status species’ 

population, including species other than 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Finally, LHAs 

are typically only conducted every 10 

years, triggered by changes in 

management such as grazing permit 

renewal and similar actions and, 

therefore, do not directly indicate 

rangeland trend (BLM 2013c, p. 1–3). 

However, the fact that some grazing 

allotments or areas within grazing 

allotments are not meeting LHA 

objectives indicates that habitat 

conditions may be degraded for 

Gunnison sage-grouse in parts of its 

range, and that domestic livestock 

grazing may be contributing to these 

conditions in some instances. A more 

thorough examination of each allotment 

not meeting LHA Standard 4 would be 

required to determine to what extent 

livestock grazing is a causal factor. 

Livestock Grazing in the Gunnison Basin 

Population Area 

The BLM manages approximately 51 

percent of the area currently occupied 

by Gunnison sage-grouse in the 

Gunnison Basin. Nearly all (98 percent) 

of this area is actively grazed USFWS 

2010c, p. 1). The USFS manages 

livestock grazing on approximately 14 

percent of the occupied portion of the 

Gunnison Basin population area. 

Therefore, this information on livestock 

grazing is pertinent to approximately 65 

percent of occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin. 

In 2013, of 62 active BLM grazing 

allotments in the Gunnison Basin 

population, all had incorporated 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives 

as described above and completed 

LHAs. LHA Standard 4 was met in 32 

percent of these allotments in 2013 

(Table 8 of Factor A (Livestock Grazing 

Allotments and Habitat Monitoring); 

BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). In 2012, on actively 

grazed BLM lands in the Gunnison 

Basin, approximately 8 percent was 

‘‘meeting’’, 17 percent was ‘‘moving 

towards’’, and 63 percent was ‘‘not 

meeting’’ Standard 4; while 11 percent 

was of ‘‘unknown’’ status (BLM 2012a, 

pp. 2–3). 

Although 2013 data shows that 68 

percent of allotments may not be 

meeting LHA Standard 4, the data show 

that 32 percent of allotments were 

meeting this standard, which is an 

improvement over the 8 percent 

indicated by the 2012 data. Nonetheless, 

recognizing the limitations of LHA 

methodology and data as discussed 

above, the information above suggests 

that there may be reduced habitat 

conditions on BLM land in the 

Gunnison Basin. The cause of these 

conditions may or may not be directly 

related to grazing management practices 

that were inconsistent with local 

ecological conditions, either in the past 

or at present, but the overall trend is for 

improving conditions with respect to 

LHA Standard 4. The BLM has also 

implemented a CCA for Gunnison Basin 

(BLM 2013b, entire), which has specific 

measures for livestock grazing within all 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

to help improve Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat quality (BLM 2013b, Attachment 

5–4) (see Conservation Programs and 

Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation 

later in this Factor A analysis). 

In 2007 and 2008, the BLM Gunnison 

Field Office conducted Gunnison sagegrouse habitat assessments in two major 

occupied habitat locations in the 

Gunnison Basin population, quantifying 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69247 

vegetation structural characteristics and 

plant species diversity. Data were 

collected and compared to Gunnison 

sage-grouse Structural Habitat 

Guidelines in the 2005 Rangewide 

Conservation Plan (RCP) (GSRSC, 2005, 

Appendix H) during optimal growing 

conditions in these two major occupied 

areas. Of 97 transects, guidelines were 

met in 45 percent for sagebrush cover; 

30 percent for grass cover; 25 percent for 

forb cover; 75 percent for sagebrush 

height; 81 percent for grass height; and 

39 percent for forb height (BLM 2009a, 

pp. 31–32). This information suggests 

that habitat conditions in those areas 

generally fell short of standards for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, particularly in 

relation to grass cover, forb cover, and 

forb height. However, it is not known 

whether those conditions were 

attributable to livestock grazing or other 

factors such as big game forage use or 

weather patterns. 

Livestock grazing has also negatively 

impacted several Gunnison sage-grouse 

treatments (projects aimed at improving 

habitat condition) in the Gunnison 

Basin (BLM 2009a, p. 34). Although 

these areas are generally rested from 

domestic livestock grazing for 2 years 

after treatment, several have been 

heavily used by cattle shortly after the 

treatment and the effectiveness of the 

treatments decreased (BLM 2009a, p. 

34), which reduced the potential 

benefits of the treatments. 

As noted earlier, the USFS does not 

use the LHA process, but monitors 

allotment trends through a combination 

of procedures including seasonal 

inspections, permanent photo points, 

and inventory and mapping of plant 

community conditions and changes over 

time (USFS 2010, entire). Three (9 

percent) of the 34 USFS allotments in 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat 

in the Gunnison Basin population area 

have incorporated habitat objectives in 

their grazing plans. However, we have 

no specific data that evaluate allotment 

conditions as they relate to these 

objectives. Overall, the USFS reports 

that its grazing allotments in the 

Gunnison Basin population area appear 

to be improving in forb and grass cover 

but are declining in sagebrush cover 

(USFS 2010, entire). 

All of this information indicates that 

grazing management may be a factor in 

degraded habitat conditions for 

Gunnison sage-grouse in parts of the 

Gunnison Basin. Given that there are far 

more acres of occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

that are actively grazed than in other 

populations, and over 50 percent of land 

(295,000 ac) in the Gunnison Basin is 

under BLM management, most of which 

is actively grazed, overall exposure to 

Federal grazing management is higher in 

the Gunnison Basin than elsewhere. 

This raises concerns about the long-term 

habitat impacts of grazing management 

on BLM land, and supports the need for 

BLM to continue to monitor and 

improve LHA trends and grazing 

allotment management. 

BLM reviews and renews grazing 

permits at 10 year intervals. Since at 

least 2010 BLM has modified grazing 

permit terms and conditions in areas 

determined to be ‘‘not meeting’’ LHA 

standards through the permit renewal 

process. Examples of new permit terms 

or conditions required by the BLM 

include implementation of rotational 

grazing systems, deferment or 

elimination of grazing in certain 

pastures, reduced grazing duration, 

changes in season of use, reduced 

stocking rates, fencing livestock out of 

riparian areas, or incorporating specific 

habitat objectives for Gunnison sagegrouse or other special status species 

(BLM 2012a, pp. 1–2). It is anticipated 

that these changes will minimize further 

impacts to habitat and, if continued in 

the future through Instruction 

Memoranda or Resource Management 

Plan Amendments (see Factor D 

discussion), improve degraded habitats 

for Gunnison sage-grouse in the 

Gunnison Basin. Likewise, conservation 

measures from the CCA (BLM 2013b, 

entire) should continue to reduce 

impacts from livestock grazing and 

operations on Federal lands in the 

Gunnison Basin (see Conservation 

Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat 

Conservation later in this Factor A 

analysis for more details). 

Some data indicate habitat conditions 

within a part of occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin may be favorable to 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Williams and 

Hild 2011, entire). Detailed vegetation 

monitoring was conducted on six study 

sites, across the Gunnison Basin during 

2010 and 2011 in order to determine 

baseline habitat conditions for a 

potential future study of the effects of 

manipulating livestock grazing on 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Williams 

and Hild 2011, entire). Transects were 

conducted on private, BLM, USFS, and 

CPW land. Despite lower than average 

precipitation in 2010, and wide 

variability of habitat conditions across 

the study area, most vegetation 

measurements were within the 

structural habitat guidelines for 

Gunnison sage-grouse from the 2005 

Rangewide Conservation Plan (GSRSCb

2005, pp. H–6–H–8). However, 

measuring livestock grazing effects was 

not an objective of the study (Phillips 

2013, p. 4). The extent of past or current 

livestock grazing in these areas was not 

described, nor did the study compare 

un-grazed to grazed areas. Further, 

transect locations were prioritized and 

selected in important breeding areas 

used by radio-collared Gunnison sagegrouse, potentially biasing study results. 

Therefore, the relationship between 

livestock grazing and habitat conditions 

is unknown under this study, and there 

is limited ability to infer conditions in 

other portions of the Gunnison Basin 

not prioritized for sampling. 

Livestock Grazing in All Other 

Population Areas 

The BLM manages approximately 36 

percent of the area currently occupied 

by Gunnison sage-grouse in the San 

Miguel Basin, and approximately 79 

percent of this area is actively grazed. 

Grazing also occurs on lands owned or 

managed by other entities within the 

San Miguel Basin, but we have no 

information on the extent of grazing in 

these areas. Within the occupied range 

in the San Miguel population, no active 

BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat objectives 

incorporated into the allotment 

management plans or Records of 

Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 

2010c, p. 9). In 2013, 10 (83 percent) of 

12 active allotments in the San Miguel 

population area had LHAs completed in 

the last 15 years; however, BLM only 

evaluated land health specific to 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives 

in four (33 percent) of these 12 

allotments. Of the four allotments 

evaluated, all were found to be meeting 

LHA Standard 4. LHA data are not 

available for conditions in the 

remaining 8 allotments where Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat objectives were not 

considered (Table 8 of Factor A 

(Livestock Grazing Allotments and 

Habitat Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 3– 

1). Therefore, for the four allotments in 

the San Miguel population area for 

which we have information, it appears 

that grazing is managed in a manner 

consistent with land health standards 

and habitat requirements for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

More than 81 percent of the area 

occupied by the Dove Creek group is 

privately owned. The BLM manages 11 

percent of the occupied habitat, and 41 

percent of this area is actively grazed. 

Within the occupied range in the Dove 

Creek group of the Monticello-Dove 

Creek population, there are three active 

BLM grazing allotments, and none of 

these have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

objectives incorporated into the 

allotment management plans or Records 

of Decision for permit renewals (Table 

8 of Factor A (Livestock Grazing 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Allotments and Habitat Monitoring); 

USFWS 2010c, p. 3; BLM 2013c, p. 3– 

1). In 2013, all three active allotments in 

occupied habitat had completed LHAs. 

However, because Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives were not considered 

in these assessments, habitat conditions 

for Gunnison sage-grouse are unknown 

(BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). Gunnison sagegrouse are not specifically considered in 

grazing management plans or permits in 

this area. Due to the lack of data specific 

to Gunnison sage-grouse, it is unknown 

how livestock grazing may be 

influencing the species or its habitat in 

the Dove Creek population area. 

More than 95 percent of the area 

occupied by the Monticello population 

is privately owned. The BLM manages 

4 percent of the occupied habitat, and 

83 percent of this area is grazed. Within 

the occupied range in the Monticello 

population, all 6 active BLM grazing 

allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives incorporated into the 

allotment management plans or Records 

of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 

2010c, p. 6). In 2009 (the most recent 

information received from BLM on this 

topic), 88 percent of the area of 

occupied habitat in active allotments 

had a recently completed LHA. 

Approximately 60 percent of the area in 

occupied habitat in active allotments 

was found by the BLM to meet LHA 

Standard 4. Given the small amount of 

land managed by the BLM in this area, 

most of which is meeting Standard 4, 

this information suggests that grazing on 

the majority of the small percentage of 

lands managed by the BLM in the 

Monticello population area is likely 

managed in a manner consistent with 

land health standards and habitat 

requirements for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

The majority of occupied habitat in 

the Monticello population is in private 

ownership and is actively grazed by 

cattle. Sheep historically grazed this 

area as well (Messmer 2013, p. 16). A 

significant portion of the agricultural 

lands in Monticello population are 

enrolled in the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP), and much of these lands 

are used by Gunnison sage-grouse 

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

2007, p. 15). CRP land has provided a 

considerable amount of brood-rearing 

habitat in the Monticello group because 

of its forb component. Grazing of CRP 

land in Utah occurred in 2002 under 

emergency Farm Bill provisions due to 

drought and removed at least some of 

the grass and forb habitat component, 

thus likely negatively affecting 

Gunnison sage-grouse chick survival 

(see NRCS and Private Land 

Conservation Efforts). Radio-collared 

males and non-brood-rearing females 

exhibited temporary avoidance of 

grazed fields during and after grazing 

(Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960), 

although one hen with a brood 

continued to use a grazed CRP field and 

successfully fledged her brood. 

The BLM manages 28 percent of 

occupied habitat in the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population area, and approximately 97 

percent of this area is grazed. Over 50 

percent of occupied habitat in this 

population area is privately owned, and 

while grazing certainly occurs on these 

lands, we have no information on its 

extent. Within the occupied range in the 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population, 8 of 15 (53 

percent) active BLM grazing allotments 

have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

objectives incorporated into the 

allotment management plans or Records 

of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 

2010c, p. 5). In 2013, four of these 

allotments (27 percent) had completed 

LHAs. Of the four allotments in which 

LHAs were completed, all (100 percent) 

were found to be meeting LHA Standard 

4 (Table 8 of Factor A (Livestock 

Grazing Allotments and Habitat 

Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). 

Therefore, for the small portion of the 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population area for which 

we have information, it appears that 

grazing is managed in a manner 

consistent with Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat requirements. 

Over 76 percent of the area occupied 

by the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa population is privately owned. 

The BLM manages only 13 percent of 

the occupied habitat, of which 83 

percent is grazed. Within the occupied 

range in the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa population, 1 of 6 active 

BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat objectives 

incorporated into the allotment 

management plans or Records of 

Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 

2010c, p. 7). In 2013, of six active 

allotments, all had completed LHAs; 

however, BLM only evaluated land 

health specific to Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives in one (17 percent) of 

these six allotments. That single 

allotment was found to be meeting LHA 

Standard 4. However, general land 

health standards (not specific to 

Gunnison sage-grouse) were met on 

BLM lands in this area, although such 

conditions may or may not meet the 

needs of Gunnison sage-grouse. LHA 

data specific to Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives are not available for 

the remaining five allotments (Table 8 of 

Factor A (Livestock Grazing Allotments 

and Habitat Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 

3–1). However, for the small portion of 

the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population area for which we have 

information, it appears that grazing is 

being managed in a manner consistent 

with land health standards and habitat 

requirements for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Lands administered by the BLM and 

NPS comprise over 75 percent of 

occupied habitat in the Crawford 

population, and 96 percent of this area 

is actively grazed. Grazing allotments on 

NPS lands in this area are administered 

by the BLM. In 2013, of eight active 

allotments in the Crawford population, 

all had incorporated Gunnison sagegrouse habitat objectives and completed 

LHAs. Seven (88 percent) of these eight 

allotments were found to be meeting 

LHA Standard 4, however 6 of those 

allotments were defined as ‘‘meeting 

with problems’’ (generally these 

allotments were found to be low for 

some aspect of vegetation characteristics 

for breeding habitat recommended in 

GSRSC) (Table 8 of Factor A (Livestock 

Grazing Allotments and Habitat 

Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). Based 

on this information, it appears that 

grazing may be managed in a manner 

consistent with Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation in the majority of the 

Crawford population area. 

The BLM manages nearly half of 

occupied habitat in the Poncha Pass 

population area, and approximately 98 

percent of this area is actively grazed. 

Within the occupied range in the 

Poncha Pass population, all eight active 

BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat objectives 

incorporated into the allotment 

management plans or Records of 

Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 

2010c, p. 4). In 2013, all active 

allotments in occupied habitat had 

completed LHAs, and all were meeting 

LHA objectives. Based on this 

information it appears that grazing is 

managed in a manner consistent with 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation on 

BLM land in the Poncha Pass 

population area. 

Wild Ungulate Herbivory in All 

Population Areas 

Overgrazing by deer and elk may 

cause local degradation of habitats by 

removal of forage and residual hiding 

and nesting cover. Hobbs et al. (1996, 

pp. 210–213) documented a decline in 

available perennial grasses as elk 

densities increased. Such grazing could 

negatively impact nesting cover for sagegrouse. The winter range of deer and elk 

overlaps the year-round range of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Excessive but 

localized deer and elk grazing has been 

documented in the Gunnison Basin 

(BLM 2005a, pp. 17–18; Jones 2005, 

pers. comm.). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69249 

Grazing by deer and elk occurs in all 

Gunnison sage-grouse population areas. 

Although we have no information 

indicating that competition for 

resources is limiting Gunnison sagegrouse in the Gunnison Basin, BLM 

observed that certain mountain shrubs 

were being browsed heavily by wild 

ungulates (BLM 2009a, p. 34). 

Subsequent results of monitoring in 

mountain shrub communities indicated 

that drought and big game were having 

large impacts on the survivability and 

size of mountain mahogany 

(Cercocarpus utahensis), bitterbrush 

(Purshia tridentata), and serviceberry 

(Amelanchier alnifolia) in the Gunnison 

Basin (Japuntich et al. 2010, pp. 7–9). 

The authors speculated that observed 

reductions in shrub size and vigor will 

reduce drifting snow accumulation 

resulting in decreased moisture 

availability to grasses and forbs during 

the spring melt. Reduced grass and forb 

growth could negatively impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse nesting and early 

brood-rearing habitat. It is also thought 

that elk numbers and their seasonal 

occurrence in the Crawford population 

may be contributing to habitat impacts 

and direct disturbance of Gunnison 

sage-grouse (BLM 2013c, p. 4–9). 

Summary of Domestic Grazing and Wild 

Ungulate Herbivory 

Livestock management and domestic 

grazing have the potential to degrade 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Grazing 

incompatible with local ecological 

conditions, as described above, can 

adversely impact nesting and broodrearing habitat by decreasing vegetation 

available for concealment from 

predators. Grazing incompatible with 

local ecological conditions also has been 

shown to compact soils, decrease 

herbaceous abundance, increase 

erosion, and increase the probability of 

invasion of exotic plant species (GSRSC 

2005, p. 173). 

The impacts of livestock operations 

on Gunnison sage-grouse depend upon 

stocking levels and season of use. We 

recognize that not all livestock grazing 

results in habitat degradation, and many 

livestock operations within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse are employing 

innovative grazing strategies and 

conservation actions (BLM 2012a, pp. 

1–2; Gunnison County Stockgrowers 

2009, entire) in collaboration with the 

BLM and Forest Service. As discussed 

above, habitat conditions are likely 

favorable to Gunnison sage-grouse in 

part of the Gunnison Basin (Williams 

and Hild 2011, entire), although the 

relationship of livestock grazing to 

habitat conditions in those areas is 

unknown. 

As described above, the relationship 

between LHA determinations and the 

effects of domestic livestock grazing on 

Gunnison sage-grouse is imprecise, and 

the application of LHA methods varies 

widely across the species’ range. The 

best available information suggests that 

LHA objectives important to Gunnison 

sage-grouse are not being met across 

parts of the species’ range and that 

livestock grazing is likely contributing 

to those conditions in some instances. 

Reduced habitat quality in those areas, 

as reflected in LHA data, is likely 

negatively impacting Gunnison sagegrouse in some of the populations, 

including the Gunnison Basin. In 

summary, for BLM allotments, 67 

percent have Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives, and 39 percent are 

meeting LHA Standard 4 (Table 8 of 

Factor A (Livestock Grazing Allotments 

and Habitat Monitoring)). 

Numerous public comments on our 

proposed rule to list Gunnison sagegrouse as endangered (78 FR 2486, 

January 11, 2013) suggested that because 

the Gunnison Basin population is large 

and stable (but see additional discussion 

regarding this assumption in Factor E 

(Small Population Size and Structure)), 

current livestock grazing practices are 

not having adverse effects on this 

population. While we agree that, 

relative to the satellite populations, the 

Gunnison Basin population is large and 

lek count data indicate it is currently 

stable, there are no data to demonstrate 

whether livestock grazing is limiting the 

population. The best available data 

suggests that livestock grazing that is 

done in a manner inconsistent with 

local ecological conditions is likely 

negatively impacting localized areas of 

habitat and individual birds in the 

Gunnison Basin and in other 

populations. 

We know that grazing incompatible 

with local ecological conditions can 

have negative impacts to sagebrush and 

consequently to Gunnison sage-grouse 

at local scales. Impacts to sagebrush 

plant communities as a result of grazing 

are occurring on a large portion of the 

range of the species. As described in 

more detail below, conservation 

measures from the Gunnison Basin CCA 

(BLM 2013b, entire) should continue to 

reduce impacts from livestock grazing 

and operations on Federal lands in the 

Gunnison Basin. Likewise, conservation 

measures from the CCAA Program have 

minimized impacts from livestock 

grazing and operations on private lands 

across the range of Gunnison sagegrouse (see Conservation Programs and 

Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation 

later in this Factor A discussion). We 

expect livestock grazing to continue 

throughout the range of Gunnison sagegrouse for as long as it is economically 

viable. Since the winter range of deer 

and elk overlaps the year-round range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse and there is 

documentation of isolated localized 

excessive grazing by deer and elk as 

discussed above, effects of domestic 

livestock grazing are likely intensified 

by browsing of woody species by wild 

ungulates in portions of the Gunnison 

Basin and the Crawford area, and 

potentially other populations. Habitat 

degradation that can result from grazing 

in a manner incompatible with local 

ecological conditions, particularly with 

the interacting factors of invasive weed 

expansion and climate change, is a 

current and future threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse persistence. 

Fences 

Effects of fencing on sage-grouse 

include direct mortality through 

collisions, creation of raptor and corvid 

perch sites, the potential creation of 

predator corridors along fences 

(particularly if a road is maintained next 

to the fence), incursion of exotic species 

along the fencing corridor, and habitat 

decline (Call and Maser 1985, p. 22; 

Braun 1998, p. 145; Connelly et al. 

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

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

2004, p. 1–2). However, fences can also 

benefit Gunnison sage-grouse by 

facilitating the management of livestock 

forage use and distribution to achieve 

desired habitat objectives (GSRSC 2005, 

pp. 211–213). 

Sage-grouse frequently fly low and 

fast across sagebrush flats, and fences 

can create a collision hazard resulting in 

direct mortality (Call and Maser 1985, p. 

22; Christiansen 2009, pp. 1–2). Not all 

fences present the same mortality risk to 

sage-grouse. Mortality risk appears to be 

dependent on a combination of factors 

including design of fencing, landscape 

topography, and spatial relationship 

with seasonal habitats (Christiansen 

2009, pp. 1–2). This variability in fence 

mortality rate and the lack of systematic 

fence monitoring make it difficult to 

determine the magnitude of direct strike 

mortality impacts to sage-grouse 

populations; however, in some cases the 

level of mortality is likely significant to 

localized areas within populations. 

Greater sage-grouse fence collisions 

during the breeding season in Idaho 

were found to be relatively common and 

widespread, with collisions being 

influenced by the technical attributes of 

the fences, fence length and density, 

topography, and distance to nearest 

active sage-grouse lek (Stevens 2011, pp. 

102–107; Stevens et al. 2012a; p. 300; 

Stevens et al. 2012b, p. 1377). Stevens 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

et al. (2012a; p. 299) found 41 of 60 

recorded collisions (73 percent) in 

spring of 2010 were less than 500m from 

a lek and only 1 collision > 500m from 

a lek, indicating that fences near leks 

containing certain topographic 

properties may pose an increased risk to 

sage-grouse. 

Although we expect the impacts of 

fences to Gunnison sage-grouse are 

similar to those observed in greater sagegrouse, studies on fence strike-related 

mortality in Gunnison sage-grouse are 

more limited. In 10 years of tracking and 

studying over 1,000 radio-collared sagegrouse in Colorado, CPW has 

documented only two strike-related 

mortalities in Gunnison sage-grouse due 

to fences (one confirmed case in Poncha 

Pass attributed to bird release methods; 

and one unconfirmed case in the 

Gunnison Basin); and only two strikerelated mortalities in greater sage-grouse 

due to fences (CPW 2013b, p. 11; 

Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.). 

This information suggests that, in 

Colorado, direct mortality of sage-grouse 

due to fence strikes is minimal, 

although without a more thorough 

study, the anecdotal information may be 

misleading. 

Although the effects of direct strike 

mortality on populations are not fully 

analyzed, fences are generally 

widespread across the landscape. At 

least 1,540 km (960 mi) of fence are on 

BLM lands within the Gunnison Basin 

(Borthwick 2005b, pers. comm.; BLM 

2005a, 2005e) and an unquantified 

amount of fence is located on land 

owned or managed by other 

landowners. Many miles of historic 

fence occurs on NPS lands, some of 

which may be affecting Gunnison sagegrouse. As of 2013, the NPS has 

removed 1.6 km (1 mi) of unnecessary 

fencing, and will continue inventorying 

efforts for additional removal where 

fencing is not needed. The NPS is also 

constructing 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of fence to 

prevent cattle grazing on a retired 

portion of an allotment. The fence is 

built to CPW suggested wildlife-friendly 

specifications with raptor perch 

deterrents and marked fence wires. 

Fences are present within all other 

Gunnison sage-grouse population areas 

as well, but we have no quantitative 

information on the amount or types of 

fencing in these areas. 

Fence posts create perching places for 

raptors and corvids, which may increase 

the ability of these birds to prey on sagegrouse (Braun 1998, p. 145; OylerMcCance et al. 2001, p. 330; Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 13–12). This impact is 

potentially significant for sage-grouse 

reproduction because corvids were 

responsible for more than 50 percent of 

greater sage-grouse nest predations in 

Nevada (Coates 2007, pp. 26–30). 

Greater sage-grouse avoidance of habitat 

adjacent to fences, presumably to 

minimize the risk of predation, 

effectively results in habitat 

fragmentation even if the actual habitat 

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

Because of similarities in behavior and 

habitat use, the response of Gunnison 

sage-grouse should be similar to that 

observed in greater sage-grouse. 

Summary of Fences 

Fences contribute to habitat decline 

and increase the potential for loss of 

individual grouse through collisions or 

enhanced predation. Fences can also 

benefit Gunnison sage-grouse by 

facilitating better management of 

livestock grazing forage use and 

distribution in sagebrush habitats. 

Despite some fence removal, we expect 

that the majority of existing fences will 

remain on the landscape indefinitely. In 

the smaller Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, fencing cumulatively 

affects the ability of the species to 

persist. We also recognize that fences 

are located throughout all Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations and are, 

therefore, contributing to the decline of 

remaining habitat and are a potential 

source of mortality within all 

populations. For these reasons, fences 

are likely a contributing factor to the 

decline of Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, both directly and 

indirectly, and are therefore a current 

and future threat to the species. 

Invasive Plants 

For the purposes of this rule, we 

define invasive plants as those that are 

not native to an ecosystem and that have 

a negative impact on Gunnison sagegrouse habitat. Invasive plants alter 

native plant community structure and 

composition, productivity, nutrient 

cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek 1990, 

p. 7) and may cause declines in native 

plant populations through competitive 

exclusion and niche displacement, 

among other mechanisms (Mooney and 

Cleland 2001, p. 5446). Invasive plants 

reduce and can eliminate vegetation that 

sage-grouse use for food and cover, and 

generally do not provide quality sagegrouse habitat. Sage-grouse depend on a 

variety of native forbs and the insects 

associated with them for chick survival, 

and on sagebrush, which is used 

exclusively throughout the winter for 

food and cover. In eastern Nevada, leks 

with post-fire invasive grasses showed 

reduced lek recruitment and reduced 

annual survival of male greater sagegrouse as compared to leks surrounded 

by native sagebrush habitats, despite 

favorable rainfall and climatic 

conditions (Blomberg et al. 2012). 

Reduced adult survival, reproduction, 

and recruitment at the local levels may, 

in turn, negatively impact sage-grouse 

populations. 

Along with replacing or removing 

vegetation essential to sage-grouse, 

invasive plants negatively impact 

existing sage-grouse habitat. They can 

create long-term changes in ecosystem 

processes, such as fire-cycles (see 

discussion below under Fire in this 

Factor A analysis) and other disturbance 

regimes that persist even after an 

invasive plant is removed (Zouhar et al. 

2008, p. 33). A variety of nonnative 

annuals and perennials are invasive to 

sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al. 

2004, pp. 7–107 and 7–108; Zouhar et 

al. 2008, p 144). Cheatgrass is 

considered most invasive in Wyoming 

big sagebrush communities (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 5–9). Other invasive plants 

found within the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse that are reported to take 

over large areas include: spotted 

knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), 

Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), 

oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), 

yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), and 

field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 

(BLM 2009a, p. 28, 36; Gunnison 

Watershed Weed Commission (GWWC) 

2009, pp. 4–6). 

Although not yet reported to affect 

large expanses in the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the following weeds are 

also known to occur in the species’ 

range and have successfully invaded 

large expanses of native wildlife 

habitats in other parts of western North 

America: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea 

diffusa), whitetop (Cardaria draba), 

jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), 

and yellow starthistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis). Other invasive plant species 

present within the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse that are problematic yet less 

likely to overtake large areas include: 

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk 

thistle (Carduus nutans), bull thistle 

(Cirsium vulgare), houndstongue 

(Cynoglossum officinale), black henbane 

(Hyoscyamus niger), common tansy 

(Tanacetum vulgare), and absinth 

wormwood (A. biennis) (BLM 2009a, p. 

28, 36; GWWC 2009, pp. 4–6). 

Cheatgrass impacts sagebrush 

ecosystems by potentially shortening 

fire intervals from several decades, to as 

low as 3 to 5 years (depending on 

sagebrush plant community type and 

site productivity), perpetuating its own 

persistence and intensifying the role of 

fire (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Another 

study found that cheatgrass presence 

can shorten fire intervals to less than 10 

years resulting in the elimination of 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69251 

shrub cover and reducing the 

availability and quality of forb cover 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–5). Elevated 

carbon dioxide levels associated with 

climate change may increase the 

competitive advantage (via increased 

growth and reproduction rates) of exotic 

annual grasses, such as cheatgrass, in 

higher elevation areas, such as in 

Gunnison sage-grouse range, where its 

current distribution is limited (Miller et 

al. 2011, pp. 181–183). Decreased 

summer precipitation reduces the 

competitive advantage of summer 

perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush 

cover, and subsequently increases the 

likelihood of cheatgrass invasion 

(Bradley 2009, pp. 202–204; Prevey et 

al. 2009, p. 11). Future decreased 

summer precipitation could increase the 

susceptibility of sagebrush areas in Utah 

and Colorado to cheatgrass invasion 

(Bradley 2009, p. 204). 

A variety of restoration and 

rehabilitation techniques are used to 

treat invasive plants, but they can be 

costly and are mostly unproven and 

experimental at a large scale. No broadscale cheatgrass eradication method has 

yet been developed. Habitat treatments 

that either disturb the soil surface or 

deposit a layer of litter increase 

cheatgrass establishment in the 

Gunnison Basin when a cheatgrass seed 

source is present (Sokolow 2005, p. 51). 

Rehabilitation and restoration 

techniques for sagebrush habitats are 

mostly unproven and experimental, 

raising further concerns about soil 

disturbance and removal of any 

remaining sage-brush habitats. (Pyke 

2011, p. 543). Therefore, researchers 

recommend using habitat treatment 

tools, such as brush mowers, with 

caution and suggest that treated sites 

should be monitored for increases in 

cheatgrass emergence (Sokolow 2005, p. 

49). 

Invasive Plants in the Gunnison Basin 

Population Area 

Quantifying the total amount of 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat impacted 

by invasive plants is difficult due to 

differing sampling methodologies, 

incomplete sampling, inconsistencies in 

species sampled, and varying 

interpretations of what constitutes an 

infestation (Miller et al., 2011, pp. 155– 

156). Cheatgrass has invaded areas in 

the Gunnison sage-grouse range, 

supplanting sagebrush habitat in some 

areas (BLM 2009a, p. 60). However, we 

do not have a reliable estimate of the 

amount of area occupied by cheatgrass 

in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

While not ubiquitous, cheatgrass is 

found at numerous locations throughout 

the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009a, p. 60) 

and has been identified as an impact to 

sage-grouse habitat in that population 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 78). 

Cheatgrass infestation within a 

particular area can range from a small 

number of individuals scattered 

sparsely throughout a site, to complete 

or near-complete understory domination 

of a site. Cheatgrass has increased 

throughout the Gunnison Basin in the 

last decade and is becoming 

increasingly detrimental to sagebrush 

community types (BLM 2009a, p. 7). 

Currently in the Gunnison Basin, 

cheatgrass attains site dominance most 

often along roadways; however, other 

highly disturbed areas have similar 

cheatgrass densities. In the Gunnison 

Basin, cheatgrass is currently present in 

almost every grazing allotment in 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat; 

and other invasive plant species, such 

as Canada thistle, black henbane, 

spotted knapweed, Russian knapweed, 

kochia (Kochia scoparia), bull thistle, 

musk thistle, oxeye daisy, yellow 

toadflax and field bindweed, are found 

in riparian areas and roadsides (BLM 

2009a, p. 7). 

Weed control efforts in the Gunnison 

Basin vary by area and agency or 

organization. NPS weed control efforts 

have been successful at reducing weeds 

(undesirable plant species, typically 

including exotic or introduced species) 

in targeted areas. Gunnison County, the 

Gunnison Basin Weed Commission, and 

other partners aggressively treat and 

control weeds on all lands in the 

Gunnison Basin. From 2006 to 2012, a 

total of 517 ha (1,280 ac) of land was 

treated for weeds in and near occupied 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Gunnison County 2013a, p. 105), 

however it is unclear what portion of 

habitat this represents. Gunnison 

County also recently adopted best 

management practices for weeds 

identified in the Gunnison Basin CCA 

(Gunnison County 2013a, p. 78). Other 

measures related to weed control by 

Gunnison County include reclamation 

standards and inspections (Gunnison 

County 2013a, p. 106), educational 

programs and consultations (Gunnison 

County 2013a, p. 107). While beneficial 

and necessary, such control efforts are 

likely inadequate to address the threat 

of invasive plants, particularly in the 

face of climate change and drought 

which are likely to intensify the 

proliferation of these species in the 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Although disturbed areas most often 

contain the highest cheatgrass densities, 

cheatgrass can readily spread into less 

disturbed and even undisturbed habitat. 

A strong indicator for future cheatgrass 

invasion is the proximity to current 

locations (Bradley and Mustard 2006, p. 

1146) as well as summer, annual, and 

spring precipitation, and winter 

temperature (Bradley 2009, p. 196). 

Although we lack the information to 

make a detailed determination on the 

actual extent or rate of increase, given 

its invasive nature, it appears that 

cheatgrass and its negative influence on 

Gunnison sage-grouse will increase in 

the Gunnison Basin in the future due to 

future human disturbances, potential 

exacerbation from climate change 

interactions, and the lack of success to 

date with control efforts at broad scales. 

Based on experience from other areas in 

sagebrush ecosystems concerning the 

rapid spread of cheatgrass and the 

shortened fire return intervals that can 

result, the spread of cheatgrass within 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and the 

negative effects to Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations will likely increase over 

time. 

Invasive Plants in All Other Population 

Areas 

Cheatgrass is present throughout 

much of the San Miguel Basin 

population area (BLM 2005c, p. 6), but 

is most abundant in the Dry Creek Basin 

area (CDOW 2005, p. 101), which 

comprises 62 percent of the San Miguel 

Basin population. It is also present in 

the five Gunnison sage-grouse 

subpopulations east of Dry Creek Basin, 

although at much lower densities that 

do not currently pose a serious threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOW 2005, p. 

101). 

Invasive species are present at low 

levels in the Monticello group (San Juan 

County GSGWG 2005, p. 20). However, 

there is no evidence that they are 

affecting the population. 

Cheatgrass dominates 10–15 percent 

of the sagebrush understory in the 

current range of the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population (Lambeth 2005, pers. 

comm.). It occurs in the lower elevation 

areas below Pin ̃ on Mesa that were 

formerly Gunnison sage-grouse range. 

Cheatgrass invaded two small 

prescribed burn areas in or near 

occupied habitat conducted in 1989 and 

1998 (BLM 2005d, p. 6), and continues 

to be a concern with new grounddisturbing projects. Within the Pin ̃ on 

Mesa population, 520 ha (1,284 ac) of 

BLM lands are currently mapped with 

cheatgrass as the dominant species 

(BLM 2009a, p. 3). This is not a 

comprehensive inventory of cheatgrass 

occurrence, as it only includes areas 

where cheatgrass dominates the plant 

community and does not include areas 

where the species is present at lower 

densities. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Invasive plants, especially cheatgrass, 

occur primarily along roads, other 

disturbed areas, and isolated areas of 

untreated vegetation in the Crawford 

population area. According to BLM 

(2005c, p.6), in the Crawford population 

area, the threat of cheatgrass may be 

greater than all other nonnative species 

combined and could be a major limiting 

factor when and if disturbance is used 

to improve habitat conditions, unless 

mitigated. 

Cheatgrass distribution has not been 

comprehensively mapped for the 

Monticello-Dove Creek population area; 

however, cheatgrass is beginning to be 

assessed on a site-specific and projectlevel basis. No significant invasive plant 

occurrences are currently known in the 

Poncha Pass population area. 

Summary of Invasive Plants 

Invasive plants negatively impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse primarily by 

reducing or eliminating native 

vegetation that sage-grouse require for 

food and cover, resulting in habitat 

decline. Although invasive plants, 

especially cheatgrass, have affected 

some Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, the 

impacts do not currently appear to be 

threatening individual populations or 

the species rangewide. However, 

invasive plants continue to expand their 

range, facilitated by ground 

disturbances such as fire, grazing, and 

human infrastructure. Climate change 

will likely alter the range of individual 

invasive species, accelerating the 

decline of sagebrush communities. Even 

with treatments, given the history of 

invasive plants on the landscape, and 

our continued inability to control such 

species, invasive plants will persist and 

will likely continue to spread 

throughout the range of the species 

indefinitely. Although currently not a 

major threat to the persistence of 

Gunnison sage-grouse at the species 

level, we anticipate invasive species to 

become an increasing threat to the 

species in the future, particularly when 

considered in conjunction with future 

climate projections and potential 

changes in sagebrush plant community 

composition and dynamics. 

Fire 

Mountain big sagebrush, the most 

important and widespread sagebrush 

species for Gunnison sage-grouse, is 

killed by fire and can require decades to 

recover. In nesting and wintering sites, 

fire causes direct loss of habitat due to 

reduced cover and forage (Call and 

Maser 1985, p. 17), with effects likely 

lasting 75 years or longer until 

sagebrush recovers (Baker 2011, p. 16). 

While there may be limited instances 

where burned habitat is beneficial (via 

prescribed fire or wildfire), these gains 

are lost if alternative sagebrush habitat 

is not readily available (Woodward 

2006, p. 65). Another study (Baker 2013, 

p. 8) suggested that prescribed burning 

in sagebrush habitat may be detrimental, 

given the already limited range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse (see above 

sections, Current Distribution and 

Population Estimates, and Factor A 

introduction). Findings from that study 

indicated that historical fire regimes in 

Gunnison sage-grouse range resulted in 

large areas of contiguous sagebrush 

across the landscape when Gunnison 

sage-grouse were more widespread and 

abundant. Fire treatments to thin or 

reduce sagebrush, with its potential 

negative effects, would not be as 

beneficial to the species as efforts made 

to expand areas of contiguous sagebrush 

(Baker 2013, pp. 1, 8). Likewise, using 

fire to remove all trees in sagebrush 

habitats is likely not appropriate, based 

on the historical presence of pin ̃ onjuniper in these communities. Pin ̃ onjuniper abundance likely fluctuated 

over time in response to fire, at times 

occupying approximately 20 percent of 

the sagebrush landscape (Baker 2013, p. 

8). Thus, on the whole, we conclude 

that fire negatively affects Gunnison 

sage-grouse and its habitat. 

The nature of historical fire patterns 

in sagebrush communities, particularly 

in Wyoming big sagebrush, is not well 

understood, and a high degree of 

variability likely occurred (Miller and 

Eddleman 2001, p. 16; Zouhar et al. 

2008, p. 154; Baker 2011, p. 195). In 

general, mean fire return intervals in 

low-lying, xeric (dry) big sagebrush 

communities range from over 100 to 350 

years, with return intervals from 50 to 

over 200 years in more mesic (wet) 

areas, at higher elevations, during wetter 

climatic periods, and in locations 

associated with grasslands (Baker 2006, 

p. 181; Mensing et al. 2006, p. 75; Baker 

2011, pp. 194–195; Miller et al. 2011, p. 

166). 

Herbaceous understory vegetation 

plays a critical role throughout the 

breeding season as a source of forage 

and cover for Gunnison sage-grouse 

females and chicks. The response of 

herbaceous understory vegetation to fire 

varies with differences in species 

composition, pre-burn site condition, 

fire intensity, and pre- and post-fire 

patterns of precipitation. Any beneficial 

flush of perennial grasses and forbs 

following fire in sagebrush communities 

is often minimal and lost after only a 

few years, with little difference in 

herbaceous vegetation between burned 

and unburned sites, but reduced 

sagebrush in burned sites (Cook et al. 

1994, p. 298; Fischer et al. 1996a, p. 

196; Crawford 1999, p. 7; Wrobleski 

1999, p. 31; Nelle et al. 2000, p. 588; 

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

al. 2001, p. 250). 

In addition to altering plant 

community structure through shrub 

removal and potential weed invasion, 

fires can influence invertebrate food 

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

Studies in greater sage-grouse habitats 

indicate fire indeed influences the 

abundance of important insect species 

(Fischer et al. 1996a, p. 196; Nelle et al. 

2000, p. 589; Pyle and Crawford 1996, 

p. 322). However, the response (positive 

or negative) and duration of those 

effects, and subsequent recovery of 

insect populations, varied widely 

between studies and areas. Therefore, 

although the best available information 

indicates that fire may influence sagegrouse survival by altering the 

availability of insect prey, the 

magnitude of those effects is uncertain. 

The invasion of the exotic annual 

grass cheatgrass increases fire frequency 

within the sagebrush ecosystem (Zouhar 

et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. 2011, p. 

170). As described in the previous 

section (Invasive Species), cheatgrass 

readily invades sagebrush communities, 

especially disturbed sites, and changes 

historical fire patterns by providing an 

abundant and easily ignitable fuel 

source that facilitates fire spread. While 

sagebrush is killed by fire and is slow 

to reestablish, cheatgrass recovers 

within 1 to 2 years of a fire event 

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

annual recovery leads to a readily 

burnable fuel source and ultimately a 

reoccurring fire cycle that prevents 

sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et 

al. 2009, p. 1324). The extensive 

distribution and highly invasive nature 

of cheatgrass poses increased risk of fire 

and permanent loss of sagebrush 

habitat, as areas disturbed by fire are 

highly susceptible to further invasion 

and ultimately habitat conversion to an 

altered community state. For example, 

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

of fire increases from approximately 46 

to 100 percent when ground cover of 

cheatgrass increases from 12 to 45 

percent or more. However, BLM (2013b, 

p. 1–7) noted that changes in fire 

frequency due to cheatgrass invasion, 

such as those observed in the Great 

Basin region of the western United 

States, have not been observed on BLM 

lands in Gunnison sage-grouse range. 

As discussed above, there are 

numerous potential negative effects of 

fire to sagebrush habitat and, 

presumably, Gunnison sage-grouse. A 

clear positive response of Gunnison or 

greater sage-grouse to fire has not been 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69253 

demonstrated (Braun 1998, p. 9). The 

few studies that have suggested fire may 

be beneficial for greater sage-grouse 

were primarily conducted in mesic 

areas used for brood-rearing (Klebenow 

1970, p. 399; Pyle and Crawford 1996, 

p. 323; Gates 1983, in Connelly et al. 

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

al. 2000a, p. 972). In this type of habitat, 

small fires may maintain a suitable 

habitat mosaic by reducing shrub 

encroachment and encouraging 

understory, herbaceous growth. 

However, without available nearby 

sagebrush cover, the utility of these sites 

is questionable. This is especially true 

within the six small Gunnison sagegrouse populations, where fire could 

further degrade the remaining habitat. 

More recent research indicated that, due 

to the fragmented nature of remaining 

sagebrush habitat across the species’ 

range, prescribed fire may be 

inappropriate if the goal is to improve 

sagebrush conditions and overall habitat 

quality for the species (Baker 2013, 

p. 8). 

Fire in the Gunnison Basin Population 

Area 

Six prescribed burns have occurred 

on BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin 

since 1984, totaling approximately 409 

ha (1,010 ac) (BLM 2009a, p. 35). The 

fires created large sagebrush-free areas 

that were further degraded by poor postburn livestock management (BLM 

2005a, p. 13). As a result, these areas are 

less suitable as Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. Approximately 8,470 ha (20,930 

ac) of prescribed burns occurred on 

Forest Service lands in the Gunnison 

Basin since 1983 (USFS 2009, p. 1). A 

small wildfire on BLM lands near 

Hartman Rocks burned 8 ha (20 ac) in 

2007 (BLM 2009a, p. 35). The NPS 

completed a prescribed burn on the 

north rim of the Black Canyon of the 

National Park in mixed montane shrub 

and mountain big sagebrush 

communities to remove invading 

juniper trees. Very few mountain big 

sagebrush were killed as a result of the 

burn. The total area of occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin burned in recent 

decades is approximately 8,887 ha 

(21,960 ac), which constitutes 1.5 

percent of the occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat area. Cumulatively, this 

1.5 percent area equates to a relatively 

small amount of habitat burned over a 

period of nearly three decades. This 

information suggests that there has not 

been a demonstrated change in fire 

cycle in the Gunnison Basin population 

area to date. The Nature Conservancy et 

al. (2011, p. 12) predicts that, due to 

climate change, wildfire frequency and 

severity will increase in the Gunnison 

Basin (see Climate Change section in 

this Factor A analysis). However, CPW 

recently completed a literature review 

regarding fire in high elevation 

Intermountain sage-brush basins, such 

as the Gunnison Basin, and concluded 

that the probability of catastrophic fire 

in these areas in the future is low, due 

to historic fire return intervals, the low 

number of lightning strikes in the 

Gunnison Basin, and a low relative risk 

of cheatgrass invasion after fires (CPW 

2014g, Attachment 2). 

Fire in All Other Population Areas 

Two prescribed burns conducted in 

1986 (105 ha (260 ac)) and 1992 (140 ha 

(350 ac)) on BLM land in the San Miguel 

Basin on the north side of Dry Creek 

Basin had localized negative impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The burns were 

conducted for big game forage 

improvement, but the sagebrush died 

and was largely replaced with weeds 

(BLM 2005b, pp. 7–8). The Burn Canyon 

wildfire in the Dry Creek Basin and 

Hamilton Mesa areas burned 890 ha 

(2,200 ac) in 2000. Three wildfires have 

occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat since 2004 on lands managed by 

the BLM in the Crawford, Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and San 

Miguel Basin population areas. There 

have been no fires since 2004 on lands 

managed by the BLM within the 

Monticello-Dove Creek population. 

Because these fires were mostly small in 

size, we do not believe they resulted in 

substantial impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse at the species level. 

Several wildfires near or within the 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population area have 

occurred in the past 20 years. One fire 

burned a small amount of occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 1995, 

and several fires burned in potential 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Individual burned areas in this 

population ranged from 3.6 ha (9 ac) to 

2,160 ha (5,338 ac). A wildfire in 2009 

burned 1,053 ha (2,602 ac), 

predominantly within vacant or 

unknown Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

(suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is 

separated from occupied habitats that 

has not been adequately inventoried, or 

without recent documentation of grouse 

presence) near the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population. 

Since 2004, a single 2.8-ha (7-ac) 

wildfire occurred in the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population area, 

and two prescribed fires, both less than 

12 ha (30 ac), were implemented in the 

San Miguel population area. No fire 

activity is reported within occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the last 

two decades in the Poncha Pass 

population area (CDOW 2009b, pp. 125– 

126) or the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population area (CDOW 2009b, p. 75; 

UDWR 2009, p. 5). Although fire can 

have devastating effects on Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitats, as discussed above, 

because fires have burned primarily 

outside of occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population area and fire has been 

recently absent or minimal in most 

other population areas, fire has not 

resulted in substantial impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse in these 

population areas. 

Summary of Fire 

Fires can cause the proliferation of 

weeds and can degrade suitable sagegrouse habitat, which may not recover 

to suitable conditions for decades, if at 

all (Pyke 2011, p. 539). Recent fires in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat were 

mostly small in size and did not result 

in substantial impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse, and there has been no obvious 

change in fire cycle in any Gunnison 

sage-grouse population area to date. 

Therefore, we do not consider fire to be 

a current threat to Gunnison sagegrouse. While the best available 

scientific information does not currently 

allow us to predict the extent or location 

of future fire events, it does indicate that 

fire frequency may increase in the future 

as a result of cheatgrass encroachment 

on the sagebrush habitat and the 

projected effects of climate change (see 

Invasive Plants and Climate Change 

discussions, above and below in this 

Factor A analysis, respectively). Fire is, 

therefore, likely to become a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the future. 

Climate Change 

Our analyses under the Act include 

consideration of ongoing and projected 

changes in climate and its associated 

effects. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and 

‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the 

mean and variability of different types 

of weather conditions over time, with 30 

years being a typical period for such 

measurements, although shorter or 

longer periods also may be used (IPCC 

2007, p. 78; IPCC 2013, p. 1450). The 

term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a 

change in the mean or variability of one 

or more measures of climate (e.g., 

temperature or precipitation) that 

persists for an extended period, 

typically decades or longer, whether the 

change is due to natural variability, 

human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. 

78; IPCC 2013, p. 1450). Various types 

of changes in climate can have direct or 

indirect effects on species. These effects 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

may be positive, neutral, or negative and 

they may change over time, depending 

on the species and other relevant 

considerations, such as the effects of 

interactions of climate with other 

variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) 

(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our 

analyses, we use our expert judgment to 

weigh relevant information, including 

uncertainty, in our consideration of 

various aspects of climate change. 

According to the IPCC, ‘‘Warming of 

the climate system in recent decades is 

unequivocal, as is now evident from 

observations of increases in global 

average air and ocean temperatures, 

widespread melting of snow and ice, 

and rising global sea level’’ (IPCC 2007, 

p. 1). Average Northern Hemisphere 

temperatures during the second half of 

the 20th century were very likely higher 

than during any other 50-year period in 

the last 500 years and likely the highest 

in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 

2007, p. 30). Over the past 50 years, cold 

days, cold nights, and frosts have 

become less frequent over most land 

areas, and hot days and hot nights have 

become more frequent. Heat waves have 

become more frequent over most land 

areas, and the frequency of heavy 

precipitation events has increased over 

most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 30). 

For the southwestern region of the 

United States, including western 

Colorado, warming is occurring more 

rapidly than elsewhere in the country 

(Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Annual 

average temperature in west-central 

Colorado increased about 1.11 °C (2 °F) 

over the past 30 years, but high 

variability in annual precipitation 

precludes the detection of long-term 

precipitation trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. 

5). Under high greenhouse gas emission 

scenarios, future projections for the 

southwestern United States show 

increased probability of drought (Karl et 

al. 2009, pp. 129–134), and the number 

of days over 32 °C (90 °F) could double 

by the end of the century (Karl et al. 

2009, p. 34). Climate models predict 

annual temperature increase of 

approximately 2.2 °C (4 °F) in the 

Southwest by 2050, with summers 

warming more than winters (Ray et al. 

2008, p. 29). Projections also show 

declines in snowpack across the West 

with the most dramatic declines at 

lower elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 

ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). 

Colorado’s complex, mountainous 

topography results in a high degree of 

spatial variability across the State. As a 

result, predicting localized climate 

changes is challenging for mountainous 

areas because current global climate 

models are unable to capture this 

variability at local or regional scales 

(Ray et al. 2008, pp. 7, 20). To obtain 

climate projections specific to the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse, we requested 

a statistically downscaled model from 

the National Center for Atmospheric 

Research for a region covering western 

Colorado. The resulting projections 

indicate the highest probability scenario 

is that average summer (June through 

September) temperature could increase 

by 2.8 °C (5.1 °F), and average winter 

(October through March) temperature 

could increase by 2.2 °C (4.0 °F) by 2050 

(University Corporation for 

Atmospheric Research (UCAR) 2009, 

pp. 1–15). Annual mean precipitation 

projections for Colorado are unclear; 

however, data indicate a shift towards 

increased winter precipitation and 

decreased spring and summer 

precipitation (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl 

et al. 2009, p. 30). Similarly, there is a 

high probability of a 5 percent increase 

in average winter precipitation and a 5 

percent decrease in average springsummer precipitation in 2050 (UCAR 

2009, p. 15). These predicted changes in 

precipitation and temperature will 

likely alter sagebrush plant community 

composition and dynamics, but to what 

degree is uncertain. 

For sagebrush, spring and summer 

precipitation comprises the majority of 

the moisture available to the species; 

thus, the interaction between reduced 

precipitation in the spring-summer 

growing season and increased summer 

temperatures will likely decrease 

growth of mountain big sagebrush. This 

effect could result in a significant longterm reduction in the distribution of 

sagebrush communities (Miller et al. 

2011, pp. 171–174). In the Gunnison 

Basin, increased summer temperature 

was strongly correlated with reduced 

growth of mountain big sagebrush 

(Poore et al. 2009, p. 558). Based on 

these results and the likelihood of 

increased winter precipitation falling as 

rain rather than snow, and the 

corresponding increase in evaporation 

and decrease in deep soil water 

recharge, Poore et al. (2009, p. 559) 

predict decreased growth of mountain 

big sagebrush, particularly at the lower 

elevation limit of the species. Because 

Gunnison sage-grouse are sagebrush 

obligates, loss of sagebrush would result 

in a reduction of suitable habitat and 

negatively impact the species. The 

interaction of climate change with other 

stressors likely has impacted and will 

impact the sagebrush steppe ecosystem 

where Gunnison sage-grouse occur. 

Climate change is likely to alter fire 

frequency, community assemblages, and 

the ability of nonnative species to 

proliferate. Increasing temperature as 

well as changes in the timing and 

amount of precipitation will alter the 

competitive advantage among plant 

species (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 175–179), 

and may shift individual species and 

ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al. 

2001, p. 174). Temperature increases 

may increase the competitive advantage 

of cheatgrass in higher elevation areas 

where its current distribution is limited 

(Miller et al. 2011, p. 182). Decreased 

summer precipitation reduces the 

competitive advantage of summer 

perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush 

cover, and subsequently increases the 

likelihood of cheatgrass invasion 

(Prevey et al. 2009, p. 11). This impact 

could increase the susceptibility of areas 

within Gunnison sage-grouse range to 

cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, p. 

204), which would reduce the overall 

cover of native vegetation, reduce 

habitat quality, and potentially decrease 

fire return intervals, all of which would 

negatively affect the species. In 

addition, The Nature Conservancy et al. 

(2011, p. 12) predicted increased fire 

frequency and severity in the Gunnison 

Basin associated with climate change. 

Under drought conditions, plants 

generally are less vigorous and less 

successful in reproduction, and may 

require several years to recover 

following drought (Weltzin et al. 2003, 

p. 946). Increased drought and shifts in 

the magnitude and timing of 

temperature and precipitation could 

reduce herbaceous and insect 

production within Gunnison sagegrouse habitats. 

A recent climate change vulnerability 

index applied to Gunnison sage-grouse 

ranked the species as ‘‘highly 

vulnerable’’ to modeled climate change 

by the year 2050 (The Nature 

Conservancy 2011, p. 11). The 

mechanism of this vulnerability was the 

degradation of high-quality broodrearing habitat due to the loss of 

adequate moisture for the maintenance 

of mesic meadows, springs, seeps, and 

riparian areas, as well as potential 

changes in the fire regime and 

subsequent loss of sagebrush cover. A 

reduction in the quality and amount of 

these resources, including brood-rearing 

habitats in particular, will likely affect 

key demographic processes such as the 

productivity of breeding hens and 

survival of chicks and juveniles, 

resulting in reduced population 

viability. A recent analysis indicated 

juvenile survival was the most 

influential vital rate affecting 

population growth rates in the 

Gunnison Basin (Davis 2012, pp. 89). 

Drought conditions from 1999 through 

2003 were closely associated with 

reductions in the sizes of all Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations, including the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69255 

Gunnison Basin (CDOW 2009b, entire). 

While geographic and microclimatic 

variation in the Gunnison Basin may 

provide some degree of local variation 

and, perhaps, local population 

redundancy to resist environmental 

pressures, past drought has had 

widespread impacts on this population, 

as indicated by negative trends in nearly 

all lek complexes during that period 

(see Drought in this Factor A analysis; 

and Resiliency, Redundancy, and 

Representation in the Factor E analysis 

for further discussion on this topic). 

Summary of Climate Change 

Climate change predictions are based 

on models with assumptions, and there 

are uncertainties regarding the 

magnitude of associated climate change 

parameters such as the amount and 

timing of precipitation and seasonal 

temperature changes. There is also 

uncertainty as to the magnitude of 

effects of predicted climate parameters 

on sagebrush plant community 

dynamics. These factors make it 

difficult to predict to what extent 

climate change will affect Gunnison 

sage-grouse. We recognize that climate 

change has the potential to alter 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat by 

facilitating an increase in the 

distribution of cheatgrass and 

concurrently increasing the potential for 

wildfires, and reducing herbaceous 

vegetation and insect production in 

drought years, which would have 

negative effects on Gunnison sagegrouse. We do not consider climate 

change to be a current threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse because of the 

uncertainties described above. However, 

based on the best available information 

on climate change projections over the 

next 35 years or so, climate change has 

the potential to alter important seasonal 

habitats and food resources of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the distribution and extent 

of sagebrush, and the occurrence of 

invasive weeds and associated fire 

frequencies. Climate change effects, 

including increased drought, are also 

predicted in the Gunnison Basin 

population. Therefore, we find that 

climate change is a substantial future 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

rangewide. 

Mineral Development 

Mineral commodity development on 

Federal lands includes three primary 

types: Leasable, locatable, and salable 

minerals. Below, we define each type of 

mineral development and assess the 

scope of those activities and their 

potential impacts across Gunnison sagegrouse range. 

Leasable Mineral Development 

Leasable minerals are defined and 

administered under the Mineral Leasing 

Act of 1920, as amended, and include 

oil and gas, oil shale, coal, geothermal, 

potash, sodium, and sulfur. In this 

section, we first discuss the effects of oil 

and gas development on sage-grouse 

and sage-grouse habitats in general. We 

then evaluate potential and ongoing 

development of oil and gas, coal and 

coal-bed methane, and other leasable 

minerals across the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Available scientific 

information on the effects of mineral 

development to sage-grouse is related 

primarily to oil and gas development. 

However, in terms of effects on the 

species and its habitat, we expect other 

types of mineral development to have 

impacts similar to that of oil and gas 

development, though those impacts may 

vary in magnitude and scope. 

Effects of Oil and Gas Development 

Oil and gas, or fluid mineral, 

development for energy resources on 

Federal (BLM and USFS) lands is 

regulated by the BLM (see Factor D 

analysis below for a more thorough 

discussion). The BLM (1999, p. 1) has 

classified the area encompassing all 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for its oil 

and gas potential. Two population areas, 

San Miguel Basin and Monticello-Dove 

Creek, have areas with high potential, 

and one, the Crawford population area, 

has medium potential. BLM classifies 

the oil and gas potential for the 

remaining populations as low or none. 

San Miguel County, where much oil and 

gas activity has occurred in the last few 

years, ranked 9 out of 39 in Colorado 

counties producing natural gas in 2009 

(Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission 2010a, p. 1) and 29 of 39 

in oil production in 2009 (Colorado Oil 

and Gas Conservation commission 

2010b, p. 2). 

Energy development impacts sagegrouse and sagebrush habitats through 

direct habitat loss from well pad 

construction, seismic surveys, roads, 

powerlines and pipeline corridors, and 

indirectly from noise, gaseous 

emissions, changes in water availability 

and quality, and human presence. The 

interaction and intensity of effects could 

cumulatively or individually lead to 

habitat degradation and fragmentation 

(Suter 1978, pp. 6–13; Aldridge 1998, p. 

12; Braun 1998, pp. 144–148; Aldridge 

and Brigham 2003, p. 31; Knick et al. 

2003, pp. 612, 619; Lyon and Anderson 

2003, pp. 489–490; Connelly et al. 2004, 

pp. 7–40 to 7–41; Holloran 2005, pp. 

56–57; Holloran et al. 2007, pp. 18–19; 

Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 521–522; 

Walker et al. 2007a, pp. 2652–2653; Zou 

et al. 2006, pp. 1039–1040; Doherty et 

al. 2008, p. 193; Leu and Hanser 2011, 

pp. 270–271). Increased human 

presence resulting from oil and gas 

development can also impact sagegrouse either through avoidance of 

suitable habitat or disruption of 

breeding activities (Braun et al. 2002, 

pp. 4–5; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, 

pp. 30–31; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 

518; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 194). The 

development of oil and gas resources 

requires surveys for economically 

recoverable reserves, construction of 

well pads and access roads, subsequent 

drilling and extraction, and transport of 

oil and gas, typically through pipelines. 

Ancillary facilities can include 

compressor stations, pumping stations, 

electrical generators and powerlines 

(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–39; BLM 

2007, p. 2–110). Surveys for recoverable 

resources occur primarily through loud 

seismic exploration activities. These 

surveys can result in the crushing of 

vegetation. Well pads vary in size from 

0.10 ha (0.25 ac) for coal-bed natural gas 

wells in areas of level topography to 

greater than 7 ha (17.3 ac) for deep gas 

wells and multi-well pads (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 7–39; BLM 2007, p. 2–123). 

Pads for compressor stations require 5– 

7 ha (12.4–17.3 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, 

p. 7–39). Individually, impacts from 

well pads, infrastructure, and ancillary 

features may be small; however, the 

cumulative impact of such development 

can be significant. 

The amount of direct habitat loss 

within an area of oil and gas 

development is ultimately determined 

by well densities and the associated loss 

from ancillary facilities. Roads 

associated with oil and gas development 

were suggested as the primary impact to 

greater sage-grouse due to their 

persistence and continued use even 

after drilling and production ceased 

(Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489). 

Declines in male greater sage-grouse lek 

attendance were reported within 3 km 

(1.9 mi) of a well or haul road with a 

traffic volume exceeding one vehicle per 

day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). Because of 

reasons discussed previously, the effects 

of oil and gas development to Gunnison 

sage-grouse are expected to be similar to 

those observed in greater sage-grouse. 

Sage-grouse also may be at increased 

risk for collision with vehicles simply 

due to the increased traffic associated 

with oil and gas activities (Aldridge 

1998, p. 14; BLM 2003, p. 4–222). 

Habitat fragmentation resulting from 

oil and gas development infrastructure, 

including access roads, may have 

greater effects on sage-grouse than 

habitat loss associated with drill sites. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Energy development and associated 

infrastructure works cumulatively with 

other human activity or development to 

decrease available habitat and increase 

fragmentation. Greater sage-grouse leks 

had the lowest probability of persisting 

(40–50 percent) in a landscape with less 

than 30 percent sagebrush within 6.4 

km (4 mi) of the lek. These probabilities 

were even less in landscapes where 

energy development also was a factor 

(Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2652). 

Oil and Gas Development Across the 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse Range— 

As noted above, high oil and gas 

development potential exists in the San 

Miguel Basin and Monticello-Dove 

Creek population areas, medium 

potential exists in the Crawford 

population area, and low or no potential 

exists in the remaining population 

areas. Approximately 33 percent of the 

Gunnison Basin population area was 

ranked as having low oil and gas 

potential with the remainder having no 

potential for oil and gas development 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 130). No Federal lands 

are currently leased for oil and gas 

development within the Gunnison Basin 

population area. 

Energy development within the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse is occurring 

primarily in the San Miguel Basin and 

Dove Creek population areas in 

Colorado. The San Miguel Basin and 

Monticello-Dove Creek population areas 

occur in the Paradox Basin, a known oil 

and gas producing region. The majority 

of oil and gas development and 

potential in the Paradox Basin, however, 

is outside of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) 

2014, p. 5–2, and references therein). In 

addition, to date, low levels of 

development and production have 

occurred in this area relative to recent 

development in other regions within the 

western U.S. Oil and gas production in 

San Juan County, Utah, which includes 

the Monticello portion of occupied 

range for Gunnison sage-grouse, has 

declined since the late 1980’s (IEc 2014, 

p. 5–1 to 5–2, and references therein). In 

the San Miguel Basin, approximately 

8,000 acres are leased for oil and gas 

development in occupied habitat on 

BLM land and, of that area, about 5,000 

acres (63 percent) are producing (IEc 

2014, p. 5–4, and references therein). 

The entire San Miguel Basin population 

area has high potential for oil and gas 

development (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). 

Fluid mineral development in the 

Paradox Basin is currently taking place 

on 44 active, producing, or permitted 

wells in occupied habitat in the San 

Miguel and Monticello-Dove Creek 

populations. Of these, 38 active or 

producing wells occur in the San 

Miguel population area on BLM land; 5 

newly permitted wells occur on nonFederal land in the Dove Creek 

population in Colorado; and 1 active 

well occurs on private land in the 

Monticello population in Utah (IEc 

2014, pp. 5–4 to 5–5, and references 

therein). In the San Miguel population, 

most wells are in or near the Dry Creek 

subpopulation area. The exact locations 

of potential future wells are not known, 

but because the area is small, they will 

likely lie within 3 km (2 mi) of one of 

only three leks in this area (CDOW 

2005, p. 108). 

In the remainder of the Gunnison 

sage-grouse range, a total of 10 oil and 

gas wells occur in occupied habitat. 

Eight oil and gas wells occur in the 

Gunnison Basin population area, and 

one in each of the Crawford and Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population areas (derived from Colorado 

Oil and Gas Commission 2010, GIS 

dataset). We are not aware of any new 

fluid mineral development in these or 

other population areas since 2010. No 

oil and gas wells or Federal leases are 

within the Pin ̃ on Mesa population area 

(BLM 2009a, p. 1), and no potential for 

oil or gas exists in this area except for 

a small area on the eastern edge of the 

largest habitat block (BLM 1999, p. 1; 

GSRSC 2005, p. 130). The Crawford 

population is in an area with medium 

potential for oil and gas development. A 

single Federal lease occurs on less than 

1 percent of the Crawford population 

area (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). We are not 

aware of any information which 

indicates that oil and gas development 

is a threat to the Poncha Pass 

population. Based on the best available 

information, we conclude that oil and 

gas development is not a current or 

future threat to the Pin ̃ on Mesa, 

Crawford, or Poncha Pass populations. 

Since 2005, the BLM has deferred 

(temporarily withheld from lease sales) 

federal parcels nominated for oil and 

gas leasing in occupied Gunnison sagegrouse habitat in Colorado (see further 

discussion in Factor D Federal Laws and 

Regulations). Even with this temporary 

deferment, however, we expect energy 

development on public and private 

lands in the San Miguel Basin and the 

Monticello-Dove Creek areas to continue 

over the next 20 years based on the 

length of development and production 

projects described in existing project 

and management plans. Gas 

development may be negatively 

impacting a portion of the Dry Creek 

subpopulation because this area 

contains some of the poorest habitat and 

smallest grouse populations within the 

San Miguel population ((SMBGSWG) 

2009, pp. 28 and 36). Overall, we 

believe that this stressor is localized 

and, although it is likely to increase in 

the future, it is not now, or likely to 

become a rangewide threat to the 

species in the future. 

Coal and Coal-bed Methane 

Development in All Population Areas 

While coal resources and several 

active coal fields (Somerset, Crested 

Butte, Grand Mesa, etc.) exist in the 

region, there are no active coal 

operations in Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat (Colorado Division of 

Reclamation, Mining, and Safety 

(CDRMS) 2013), and recoverable coal 

resources are limited in Gunnison sagegrouse range. We have reviewed the best 

available scientific information 

regarding the potential for development 

of any coal resources in the Gunnison 

sage-grouse range, and found that it is 

unlikely in the near future due to 

technological, geologic, economic, and 

other constraints (USFWS 2014a, 

entire). Therefore, we find that coal and 

coal-bed methane development are not 

current or future threats to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Other Leasable Mineral Development 

Potash exploration is currently 

underway in the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population area, but outside of occupied 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

During 2009 and 2010, BLM received 

applications for 22 prospecting permits 

on approximately 40,000 acres of BLM 

land in this area (outside of occupied 

habitat). Recently, BLM prepared an 

Environmental Analysis for six proof-ofconcept drill sites. The company that 

submitted the application estimates that 

between 250,000 and two million tons 

of potash may be recovered per year for 

at least 20 years. If preliminary 

explorations determine that extraction is 

feasible, potash development will likely 

follow (IEc 2014, p. 5–6). However, 

because it is unknown where and to 

what extent development would occur, 

the degree to which potash development 

would affect Gunnison sage-grouse and 

its habitat is unknown at this time. 

Summary of Leasable Mineral 

Development 

The San Miguel Basin and Dove Creek 

populations are the only areas within 

Gunnison sage-grouse range that 

currently have a moderate amount of oil 

and gas production. However, impacts 

to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat 

in this area are limited in scope relative 

to other regions of oil and gas 

development within the western U.S. 

We recognize that portions of the range, 

such as the Dry Creek subpopulation of 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69257 

the San Miguel population, may 

currently be impacted by fluid mineral 

development. However, current and 

potential leasable energy development 

is limited to a small portion of the 

species’ overall range. To date, the 

majority of oil and gas development has 

occurred outside of occupied habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

While the San Miguel, MonticelloDove Creek, and Crawford populations 

have high or medium potential for 

future development, the potential for 

future development is low throughout 

the remaining population areas, which 

represent the majority of the species’ 

range. While coal resources and several 

active coal fields exist in the region, 

there are no active coal operations in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and 

recoverable coal resources are limited in 

Gunnison sage-grouse range (USFWS 

2014a, entire). In the near future, there 

is a potential for potash development in 

the Monticello-Dove Creek population; 

however, the magnitude of the impacts 

(if any) of this development on the 

species are unknown at this time (see 

above discussion). Because of the 

localized scale of these impacts, we 

consider leasable mineral development 

to be a threat of low magnitude to 

species as a whole. However, given the 

small and isolated nature of the 

populations where oil and gas 

development is most likely to occur, oil 

and gas development is a current and 

future threat to those populations. 

Locatable and Salable Mineral 

Development in All Population Areas 

Locatable minerals include both 

metallic minerals (gold, silver, uranium, 

vanadium, lead, zinc, copper, etc.) and 

certain unique, valuable non-metallic 

minerals (gemstones, fluorspar, mica, 

gypsum, asbestos, mica, etc.). The 

Mining Law of 1872 governs the 

exploration, purchase, and development 

of locatable minerals on mining claims. 

This law grants citizens of the United 

States the opportunity to explore for, 

discover, develop, and purchase certain 

valuable mineral deposits on public 

domain minerals. Unpatented mining 

claims established under the Mining 

Law of 1872 give the holder the right to 

mine locatable minerals on Federal 

lands. Locating a mining claim requires 

discovery of a valuable mineral through 

exploration. The BLM administers 

mining claims and related notices and 

approvals on BLM and USFS lands. The 

BLM reviews and approves a ‘‘Plan of 

Operations’’ for mining on Federal lands 

resulting in surface disturbance of more 

than 5 acres, and, in Colorado, financial 

warranty (e.g., cash bond) is required for 

reclamation through the Colorado 

Division of Reclamation, Mining and 

Safety (CDRMS). A mine operator need 

only file a ‘‘Notice of Intent’’ with BLM 

before proceeding with locatable 

mineral exploration or prospecting 

resulting in surface disturbance of 5 

acres or less. Operators are required to 

provide financial warranty for 

reclamation costs associated with 

disturbance from exploration, which is 

also filed and held by the CDRMS. 

‘‘Casual use’’ activities related to 

locatable minerals on Federal lands that 

cause negligible disturbance (e.g., no 

use of earth moving equipment or 

explosives) have no legal requirements. 

The quantity and extent of casual use 

activities, and thus the effects on 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat, 

are unknown. 

Salable minerals, or mineral 

materials, include sand, gravel, stone, 

clay, pumice, cinders, and similar 

minerals. Salable minerals on Federal 

lands are subject to mineral material 

disposal under the Materials Act of 

1947, as amended. Mining of these 

minerals entails a sales contract or a 

free-use permit from the responsible 

Federal agency. 

The Service accessed CDRMS mine 

and mine claim data (CDRMS 2013, 

entire) to evaluate mineral potential and 

development in Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied range in Colorado. The 

CDRMS’s dataset includes both active 

and terminated or expired mining 

permits since about 1984 to present, 

including locatable and salable 

minerals. Our analysis found that in 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat 

in Colorado, there are 19 active mining 

permits (‘‘active’’ means the permits are 

valid and current, not necessarily that 

actual mining is occurring), comprising 

324.07 acres. Of this number, our 

analysis found that 247.96 acres (77 

percent) are in the Gunnison Basin 

population, and are associated primarily 

with sand and gravel operations 

(USFWS 2014b, p. 1). 

Fifty recently expired or terminated 

mining permits exist in Gunnison sagegrouse occupied range in Colorado, 

affecting approximately 256.5 acres. 

Again, the majority of area affected was 

in the Gunnison Basin, including 194.1 

acres (75.6 percent) associated with 

sand and gravel, borrow material, and 

gold mining. Some of these mining 

permit applications were withdrawn, or 

mining did not occur (USFWS 2014b, 

p. 2). 

Where mining has not yet been 

permitted or occurred, active (recorded) 

mining claims indicate potential 

development of those resources in the 

future, since identifying a claim requires 

discovery of a valuable mineral. 

Currently, in Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied habitat in Colorado, there are 

694 active mining claims, totaling 

approximately 9,966 acres, or 1.15 

percent of rangewide occupied habitat. 

Approximately 7.79 percent and 2.10 

percent of occupied habitat in the San 

Miguel Basin and Dove Creek 

populations, respectively, are under 

mining claims. For each of the other five 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations, the 

area under mining claims is less than 1 

percent of total occupied habitat in 

those populations (USFWS 2014b, p. 3). 

These data indicate that mining 

potential and future development is 

limited in scope in the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. It is uncertain 

what proportion of these mining claims 

will be developed in the future, and to 

what extent they will be developed. 

Future development depends on 

economic and market conditions, 

permitting requirements, and multiple 

other factors. 

Future development of some mining 

claims, however, could affect individual 

Gunnison sage-grouse or populations. 

Future development of uranium mining 

claims in the San Miguel population 

area, in particular, could result in 

impacts on this population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse and its habitat. This area 

includes the Uravan Mineral Belt, 

which has historically been the most 

productive uranium region in Colorado, 

and provides an important national 

reserve of uranium (IEc 2014, pp. 5–1, 

5–5 to 5–6). The Department of Energy, 

which is responsible for managing 

uranium leasing and development, is 

currently in the process of evaluating 

the continuation of existing uranium 

leases under a Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact statement. In 

recent years, uranium mining activity in 

this area has nearly ceased due to a 

decrease in global uranium prices. One 

active uranium mine occurs in occupied 

habitat in the San Miguel population. 

However, this mine is currently not in 

production (IEc 2014, p. 5–5 to 5–6). 

Construction of the first conventional 

uranium mill in 25 years, the Pin ̃ on 

Ridge Uranium Mill, is proposed near, 

but outside of, occupied habitat in the 

San Miguel Basin. However, this mill 

may not be built until uranium prices 

increase (IEc 2014, p. 5–5 to 5–6). Such 

a project may result in indirect impacts 

on Gunnison sage-grouse, though we 

cannot predict the scope or magnitude 

of those impacts. 

We were unable to acquire similar 

data for mining activity in the State of 

Utah, and as a result we do not know 

the degree to which mineral claims or 

mines overlap occupied habitat in the 

Monticello population area. Published 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

maps indicate there are four small 

mines (less than 5 ac of disturbance at 

any one time) on the periphery of 

occupied habitat in the Monticello 

population area. These include two 

uranium mines and one flagstone mine 

that are inactive; and one uranium/

vanadium mine that was active as of 

2008 (UGS 2008a, pp. 4–5, 7). The 

majority of uranium and vanadium 

potential and past production in San 

Juan County is south-southeast of the 

city of Monticello, Utah, outside of 

occupied habitat (UGS 2005, entire). 

Several large mines (more than 5 ac of 

disturbance at any one time), including 

uranium and copper (inactive and 

active) occur northeast of Monticello, 

Utah (UGS 2008b, pp. 2, 5), outside the 

species’ range. This information 

indicates that the overall current and 

potential development of locatable and 

salable minerals is very limited in 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range in 

Utah. 

Future mineral development, 

especially in seasonally important 

habitats or in smaller or declining 

populations, will likely impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

Indirect effects such as functional 

habitat loss associated with mineral 

operations, as well as impacts from 

associated infrastructure, are also likely. 

Summary of Locatable and Salable 

Mineral Development 

Mining, especially in seasonally 

important habitats or in smaller or 

declining populations, will likely 

impact Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. Indirect effects such as 

functional habitat loss associated with 

mining operations, as well as impacts 

from associated infrastructure, are also 

likely. However, currently active mines 

and mining claims are limited in 

geographic scope, and thus are 

considered a threat of low magnitude to 

Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide. If 

uranium prices increase in the future, 

development in the San Miguel Basin 

could potentially pose a threat to this 

already small and vulnerable population 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Renewable Energy Development— 

Geothermal and Wind 

Geothermal energy production is 

similar to oil and gas development in 

that it requires surface exploration, 

exploratory drilling, field development, 

and plant construction and operation, 

and likely results in similar degrees of 

direct and functional habitat loss (see 

Effects of Oil and Gas Development). 

Wells are drilled to access the thermal 

source, and drilling can require 3 weeks 

to 2 months of continuous activity 

(Suter 1978, p. 3), which may cause 

disturbance to sage-grouse. The ultimate 

number of wells, and, therefore, 

potential loss of habitat, depends on the 

thermal output of the source and 

expected production of the plant (Suter 

1978, p. 3). Pipelines are needed to 

carry steam or superheated liquids to 

the generating plant, which is similar in 

size to a coal- or gas-fired plant, 

resulting in further habitat destruction 

and indirect disturbance. Direct habitat 

loss occurs from well pads, structures, 

roads, pipelines and transmission lines, 

and impacts would be similar to those 

described above for oil and gas 

development. The development of 

geothermal energy requires intensive 

human activity during field 

development and operation, which 

could lead to habitat loss. Furthermore, 

geothermal development could cause 

toxic gas release. The type and effect of 

these gases depends on the geological 

formation in which drilling occurs 

(Suter 1978, pp. 7–9). The amount of 

water necessary for drilling and 

condenser cooling can be high. Local 

water depletions may be a concern if 

such use results in the loss or 

degradation of brood-rearing habitat. 

Geothermal Energy in the Gunnison 

Basin Population Area— 

The entire Gunnison Basin, or 87 

percent of rangewide occupied habitat, 

is within a region of known geothermal 

potential (BLM and USFS 2010, p. 1). 

Currently, geothermal leases in the 

Gunnison Basin occur in the same 

general vicinity on private, BLM, USFS, 

and Colorado State Land Board lands, 

near Tomichi Dome and Waunita Hot 

Springs in southeastern Gunnison 

County. The cumulative area of 

geothermal leases in occupied habitat is 

approximately 3,399 ha (8,400) ac, 

including 1,861 ha (4,600 ac) on BLM 

land, and 1,538 ha (3,800 ac) on USFS 

land. This comprises 1.4 percent of 

occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin. 

In 2012, all of the leased area 

described above was acquired by a 

conservation group that does not intend 

to develop the resource. Geothermal 

leases are issued for 10 years and may 

be extended for two five-year periods 

(IEc 2014, p. 7–2, and references 

therein). Therefore, we do not anticipate 

geothermal development of these leases 

prior to 2032. If geothermal 

development occurs on the leases in the 

future, it would likely negatively impact 

Gunnison sage-grouse through habitat 

loss and disturbance of birds. One active 

lek and two inactive leks are located 

within the leased parcels. In addition, 

six active leks and four inactive leks are 

within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the lease 

application parcels indicating that a 

high degree of seasonal use may occur 

within the area surrounding these leks 

(GSRSC 2005, p. J–4). A significant 

amount of high-quality Gunnison sagegrouse nesting habitat also exists on and 

near the leased parcels (Aldridge et al. 

2012, p. 402). Thus, geothermal 

development is a potential future threat 

to the Gunnison Basin population. 

Geothermal Energy in All Other 

Population Areas— 

Geothermal development potential 

exists in the San Luis Valley including 

portions of the Poncha Pass population 

area. No geothermal leases currently 

exist in the San Luis Valley or Poncha 

Pass areas (BLM 2012b, entire; IEc 2014, 

p. 7–2). Further, the 2013 BLM San Luis 

Valley Geothermal Amendment to their 

Resource Management Plan prohibits all 

geothermal development within 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat 

through a no surface occupancy 

stipulation (BLM 2012b, entire; BLM 

2013e, p. 2–11; BLM 2013f, entire). 

Therefore, geothermal development 

does not appear to be a current or future 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse in the 

Poncha Pass population. We found no 

other information on the presence of 

existing, pending, or authorized 

geothermal energy sites, nor any other 

areas with high potential for geothermal 

energy development, within any other 

Gunnison sage-grouse population area. 

Thus, at this time, geothermal 

development outside the Gunnison 

Basin does not appear to be a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Wind Energy Development 

Most published reports of the effects 

of wind development on birds focus on 

the risks of collision with towers or 

turbine blades. However, a recent study 

conducted in south-central Wyoming 

examined the short-term behavioral 

response of greater sage-grouse to wind 

energy development (LeBeau 2012, 

entire). In the two years following 

construction, greater sage-grouse were 

not avoiding habitats near wind 

turbines, and even selected for habitats 

closer to turbines during the summer 

months. Male lek attendance was 

apparently unaffected by wind energy 

development in the area. However, the 

author cautioned that these responses 

may have been due to typically high site 

fidelity of sage-grouse despite 

anthropogenic disturbances, and that 

impacts may not be realized until two 

to 10 years following development, 

similar to oil and gas development in 

sage-grouse habitats. The study reported 

that other fitness and vital rates such as 

nesting and brood survival rates 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69259 

declined near constructed wind 

turbines, potentially as a result of 

increased predation and edge effects 

created by wind energy infrastructure 

(LeBeau 2012, entire). 

Avoidance of human-made structures 

such as powerlines and roads by sagegrouse and other prairie grouse is welldocumented (Holloran 2005, p. 1; Pruett 

et al. 2009, pp. 1255–1256) (also see 

Roads and Powerlines sections above). 

Wind power requires many of the same 

features for construction and operation 

as do nonrenewable energy resources. 

Therefore, we anticipate that potential 

impacts from habitat decline due to 

roads and powerlines, noise, and 

increased human presence (Connelly et 

al. 2004, pp. 7–40 to 7–41) will 

generally be similar to those discussed 

above for mineral energy development. 

Wind farm development begins with 

site monitoring and collection of 

meteorological data to accurately 

characterize the wind regime. Turbines 

are installed after the meteorological 

data indicate the appropriate siting and 

spacing. Roads are necessary to access 

the turbine sites for installation and 

maintenance. Each turbine unit has an 

estimated footprint of 0.4 to 1.2 ha (1 to 

3 ac) (BLM 2005e, pp. 3.1–3.4). One or 

more substations may be constructed 

depending on the size of the farm. 

Substation footprints are 2 ha (5 ac) or 

less in size (BLM 2005e, p. 3.7). 

The average footprint of a turbine unit 

is relatively small from a landscape 

perspective. Turbines require careful 

placement within a field to avoid loss of 

output from interference with 

neighboring turbines. Spacing improves 

efficiency but expands the overall 

footprint of the field. Sage-grouse 

populations are impacted by the direct 

loss of habitat associated with the 

construction of access roads, as well as 

indirect loss of habitat and behavioral 

avoidance of the wind turbines. Sagegrouse could be killed by flying into 

turbine rotors or towers (Erickson et al. 

2001, entire), although reported 

collision mortalities have been few. One 

sage-grouse was found dead within 45 

m (148 ft) of a turbine on the Foote 

Creek Rim wind facility in south-central 

Wyoming, presumably from flying into 

a turbine (Young et al. 2003, Appendix 

C, p. 61). This is the only known sagegrouse mortality at this facility during 

three years of monitoring. We have no 

recent reports of sage-grouse mortality 

due to collisions with wind turbines; 

however, many facilities may not be 

monitored. No deaths of gallinaceous 

birds were reported in a comprehensive 

review of avian collisions and wind 

farms in the United States; the authors 

hypothesized that the average tower 

height and flight height of grouse, and 

diurnal migration habitats of some birds 

minimized the risk of collision (Johnson 

et al. 2000, pp. ii–iii; Erickson et al. 

2001, pp. 8, 11, 14, 15). 

Noise is produced by wind turbine 

mechanical operation (gear boxes, 

cooling fans) and airfoil interaction with 

the atmosphere. No published studies 

have focused specifically on the noise 

effects of wind power to Gunnison or 

greater sage-grouse. In studies 

conducted in oil and gas fields, noise 

may have played a factor in habitat 

selection and decrease in greater sagegrouse lek attendance (Holloran 2005, 

pp. 49, 56). However, comparison 

between wind turbine and oil and gas 

operations is difficult based on the 

character of sound. Adjusting for 

manufacturer type and atmospheric 

conditions, the audible operating sound 

of a single wind turbine has been 

calculated as the same level as 

conversational speech at 1 m (3 ft) at a 

distance of 600 m (2,000 ft) from the 

turbine. This level is typical of 

background levels of a rural 

environment (BLM 2005e, p. 5–24). 

However, commercial wind farms do 

not have a single turbine, and multiple 

turbines over a large area would likely 

have a much larger noise print. Lowfrequency vibrations created by rotating 

blades also produce annoyance 

responses in humans (Van den Berg 

2004, p. 1), but the specific effect on 

birds is not documented. 

Moving blades of turbines cast 

moving shadows that cause a flickering 

effect producing a phenomenon called 

‘‘shadow flicker’’ (American Wind 

Energy Association (AWEA) 2008, p. 5– 

33). Shadow flicker could mimic 

predator shadows and elicit an 

avoidance response in birds during 

daylight hours, but this potential effect 

has not been investigated. However, 

greater sage-grouse hens with broods 

have been observed under turbines at 

Foote Creek Rim in south-central 

Wyoming (Young 2004, pers. comm.), 

suggesting those birds were not 

disturbed by the motion of turbine 

blades. 

Wind Energy in the Monticello 

Population Area— 

There is increasing interest in wind 

energy development in the vicinity of 

the Monticello population in San Juan 

County, Utah (UDWR 2011, p. 3). Three 

wind energy projects are proposed in 

the vicinity of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat (IEc 2014, p. 7–2). The San Juan 

County Commission recently issued a 

permit for wind energy development on 

private land in occupied habitat in the 

Monticello population area, and 

development is currently underway 

there by Eco-Power Wind Farms, LLC 

(IEc 2014, p. 7–2). Other landowners 

have recently been approached to lease 

their properties for wind development 

as well (Messmer 2013, p. 14). The two 

other wind projects are proposed for 

areas outside of occupied Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat (IEc 2014, p. 7–2 to 

7–3, and references therein). 

In addition, the State of Utah recently 

completed a statewide screening study 

to identify geographic areas with a high 

potential for renewable energy 

development (UDNR 2009, entire). An 

area approximately 80,200-ha (198,300- 

ac) in size northwest of the city of 

Monticello, UT, was identified, with a 

high level of confidence, as a wind 

power production zone with a high 

potential for utility-scale wind 

development (production of greater than 

500 megawatts) (UDNR 2009, p. 19). The 

mapped wind power production zone 

overlaps with nearly all Gunnison sagegrouse occupied habitat in the 

Monticello population, as well as the 

large area surrounding the perimeter of 

occupied habitat. The Monticello 

population is currently small 

(approximately 70 individuals), with 

apparent low resilience (see discussion 

and analysis in Factor E below), making 

it particularly sensitive to habitat loss 

and other impacts. Therefore, we 

conclude that future wind energy 

development poses a threat to the 

Monticello population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Wind Energy in All Other Population 

Areas— 

We found no additional information 

on the presence of existing, pending, or 

authorized wind energy sites, or any 

other areas with high potential for wind 

energy development within any other 

Gunnison sage-grouse population area. 

Summary of Renewable Energy 

Development 

Based on the above information, we 

do not consider renewable energy 

development to be a current threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse range-wide. 

However, in the Gunnison Basin, 

geothermal development potential is 

high; if geothermal energy development 

were to increase here in the future, it 

may influence the overall long-term 

viability of the Gunnison Basin 

population; thus, it is a potential future 

threat to that population. Similarly, 

information suggests wind energy 

development may increase in the future 

in the Monticello population, 

potentially contributing to further 

population declines in this small and 

vulnerable population. Therefore, wind 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

energy development is a future threat to 

the Monticello population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

Pin ̃ on-Juniper Encroachment 

Pin ̃on-juniper woodlands are a native 

habitat type dominated by pin ̃on pine 

(Pinus edulis) and various juniper 

species (Juniperus species) that can 

encroach upon, infill, and eventually 

replace sagebrush habitat and other 

rangelands. Pin ̃ on-juniper extent has 

increased ten-fold in the Intermountain 

West since Euro-American settlement, 

causing the loss of many bunchgrass 

and sagebrush-bunchgrass communities 

(Miller and Tausch 2001, pp. 15–16). 

Pin ̃ on-juniper woodlands have also 

been expanding throughout portions of 

the range of Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM 

2009a, pp. 14, 17, 25), although we do 

not have information that quantifies this 

expansion. Pin ̃ on-juniper expansion has 

been attributed to the reduced influence 

of fire, the introduction of livestock 

grazing, increases in global carbon 

dioxide concentrations, climate change, 

and natural recovery from past 

disturbance (Miller and Rose 1999, pp. 

555–556; Miller and Tausch 2001, p. 15; 

Baker 2011, p. 199). In addition, Gambel 

oak (Quercus gambelii) invasion as a 

result of fire suppression is a potential 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOW 

2002, p.139) if stands become thick and 

begin to choke out sagebrush 

understory. However, some deciduous 

shrub communities (primarily Gambel 

oak and serviceberry) are used 

seasonally by Gunnison sage-grouse 

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

Removal of pin ̃on-juniper is a 

common treatment to improve sagegrouse habitat. Similar to powerlines, 

trees provide perches for raptors, and as 

a consequence, Gunnison sage-grouse 

avoid areas with pin ̃on-juniper 

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

Oregon, greater sage-grouse lek activity 

ceased when conifer canopy exceeded 4 

percent of the land area, suggesting that 

low levels of pin ̃ on-juniper 

encroachment can lead to populationlevel impacts (Baruch-Mordo et al. 

2013, p. 238). The number of male 

Gunnison sage-grouse observed on leks 

in the Crawford population doubled 

after pin ̃on-juniper removal and 

mechanical treatment of mountain 

sagebrush and deciduous brush 

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

removal of all trees in a given area is 

likely not appropriate, based on the 

historical presence of pin ̃ on-juniper 

communities when Gunnison sagegrouse were more abundant and 

widespread. Pin ̃ on-juniper abundance 

likely fluctuated over time in response 

to fire, at times occupying 

approximately 20 percent of the 

sagebrush landscape (Baker 2013, p. 8). 

Pin ̃ on-Juniper Encroachment in All 

Population Areas 

The Gunnison Basin population area 

is not currently undergoing significant 

pin ̃ on-juniper encroachment (Boyle and 

Reeder 2005, Figure 4–1); however, all 

other populations have some degree of 

documented encroachment. A 

considerable portion of the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population is experiencing pin ̃ onjuniper encroachment. Approximately 9 

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

habitat in the Pin ̃ on Mesa population 

area has pin ̃on-juniper coverage, while 

7 percent (4,414 ha [10,907 ac)] of 

vacant or unknown (suitable habitat for 

sage-grouse that is separated from 

occupied habitats that either (1) has not 

been adequately inventoried, or (2) has 

not had documentation of grouse 

presence in the past 10 years (GSRSC 

2005, p. 258) and 13 percent (7,239 ha 

[17,888 ac]) of potential habitat 

(unoccupied habitats suitable for 

occupation of sage-grouse if practical 

restoration were applied) have 

encroachment (BLM 2009a, p. 17). 

Some areas on lands managed by the 

BLM within other population areas are 

undergoing pin ̃ on-juniper invasion. 

However, the extent of the area affected 

has not been quantified (BLM 2009a, p. 

74; BLM 2009a, p. 9). Approximately 9 

percent of the 1,300 ha (3,200 ac) of the 

current range in the Crawford 

population is dominated by pin ̃ onjuniper (GSRSC 2005, p. 264). However, 

BLM (2005d, p. 8) estimated that as 

much as 20 percent of the Crawford 

population area is occupied by pin ̃ onjuniper, although much of that has been 

removed by habitat treatments in recent 

years. Pin ̃ on and juniper trees have also 

been encroaching in peripheral habitat 

on Sims Mesa, and to a lesser extent on 

Cerro Summit, but not to the point 

where it is a threat to the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population area 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 47). Pin ̃ on and juniper 

trees are reported to be encroaching 

throughout the current range in the 

Monticello group, based on a 

comparison of historical versus current 

aerial photos, but no quantification or 

mapping of the encroachment has 

occurred (San Juan County GSWG 2005, 

p. 20). A relatively recent invasion of 

pin ̃ on and juniper trees between the 

Dove Creek and Monticello groups 

appears to be contributing to their 

isolation from each other (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 276). 

Within the range of Gunnison sagegrouse, approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 

ac) of pin ̃on-juniper have been treated 

with various methods designed to 

remove pin ̃ on and juniper trees since 

2005, and nearly half of which occurred 

in the Pin ̃ on Mesa population area 

(CDOW 2009b, pp. 111–113). 

Mechanical treatment of areas 

experiencing pin ̃on-juniper 

encroachment continues to be one of the 

most successful and economical 

treatments for the benefit of Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat. However, such 

treatments may have minimal benefit at 

the population level, since the majority 

of affected populations have continued 

to decline since 1996 (Figure 3) despite 

considerable efforts to remove pin ̃ onjuniper in those areas. 

Summary of Pin ̃ on-Juniper 

Encroachment 

Most Gunnison sage-grouse 

population areas are experiencing low 

to moderate levels of pin ̃ on-juniper 

encroachment; however, considerable 

pin ̃ on-juniper encroachment in the 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population has occurred. 

The encroachment of pin ̃ on-juniper into 

sagebrush habitats can contribute to the 

decline of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

However, pin ̃ on-juniper treatments, 

particularly when completed in the 

early stages of encroachment when the 

sagebrush and forb understory is still 

intact, have the potential to benefit sagegrouse (Commons et al. 1999, p. 238). 

Approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 ac) 

within the range of Gunnison sagegrouse has been treated to address 

pin ̃ on-juniper encroachment. Based on 

the rate of past treatment efforts (CDOW 

2009c, entire), we expect pin ̃on-juniper 

encroachment and corresponding 

treatment efforts to continue. Pin ̃onjuniper encroachment is contributing to 

habitat decline in a limited area, but the 

level of encroachment is not sufficient 

to pose a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

at a population or rangewide level at 

this time. However, in combination with 

other factors such as those contributing 

to habitat decline (roads, powerlines, 

invasive plants, etc.), pin ̃ on-juniper 

encroachment poses a threat to the 

species. In addition, future conditions 

due to drought or climate change may 

intensify the problem such that pin ̃ onjuniper encroachment becomes a more 

serious threat, particularly in the 

smaller, declining populations. 

Conversion to Agriculture 

While sage-grouse may forage on 

agricultural croplands (Commons 1997, 

pp. 28–35), they tend to avoid 

landscapes dominated by agriculture 

(Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 991) and do not 

nest or winter in agricultural lands 

where shrub cover is lacking. Effects 

resulting from agricultural activities 

extend into adjoining sagebrush, and 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69261 

include increased predation and 

reduced nest success due to predators 

associated with agriculture (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 7–23). Agricultural lands 

provide limited benefits for sage-grouse 

as some crops such as alfalfa (Medicago 

sativa), winter wheat (Triticum 

aestivum), and pinto bean sprouts 

(Phaseolus spp.) are eaten or used 

seasonally for cover by Gunnison sagegrouse (Braun 1998, pers. comm., Lupis 

et al. 2006, entire). Since lek monitoring 

began, the Monticello population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse appears to have 

been at its highest numbers during the 

1970’s and 1980’s (SJCWG 2003, p. 5). 

During this time, winter wheat and 

dryland alfalfa were the primary 

agricultural crops in the area, and many 

growers did not use herbicides or 

insecticides because of the slim profit 

margin in growing these crops. Also 

during this period, landowners 

frequently reported observing flocks of 

sage-grouse in their fields during 

harvest and post-harvest periods 

(Messmer 2013, p. 19). These 

agricultural fields and their 

management may have provided a 

surplus of arthropods and forbs for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and for hens 

with broods, in particular. Despite these 

seasonal benefits, crop monocultures do 

not provide adequate year-round food or 

cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22–30). 

Current Agriculture in All Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Population Areas 

The following estimates of land area 

dedicated to agriculture (including 

grass/forb pasture) were derived 

primarily from Southwest Regional Gap 

Analysis Project (SWReGAP) landcover 

data (USGS 2004, entire). Agricultural 

parcels are distributed patchily amongst 

what was recently a sagebrush 

landscape. These agricultural parcels 

are likely used briefly by grouse to move 

between higher quality habitat patches. 

Habitat conversion to agriculture is most 

prevalent in the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population area, where approximately 

half of Gunnison sage-grouse occupied 

range is currently in agricultural 

production (primarily cropland and 

pastureland). The conversion of 

sagebrush to agricultural use eliminated 

suitable vegetation cover at three leks in 

the Monticello population, and those 

leks are no longer used by Gunnison 

sage-grouse (SJCWG 2000, p. 15; GBSC 

2005, p. 81). However, habitat loss due 

to agricultural conversion has been 

mitigated somewhat by the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 

(see section below, NRCS and Private 

Land Conservation Efforts, in this Factor 

A analysis). 

In the Gunnison Basin, approximately 

9 percent of the occupied range is 

currently in agricultural production. In 

Gunnison County, approximately 38,419 

ha (94,936 ac) is currently in 

agricultural production (primarily 

irrigated hay and pastureland) 

(Gunnison County 2013a, p. 97, 123; 

GSRSC 2005, p. 73), though we do not 

know what proportion of these lands 

occur in occupied range. Approximately 

15 percent of the occupied range in the 

San Miguel Basin is currently in 

agricultural production. In the Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population, approximately 14 percent of 

the occupied range is currently in 

agricultural production. Habitat 

conversion due to agricultural activities 

is limited in the Crawford, Pin ̃ on Mesa, 

and Poncha Pass populations, with 3 

percent or less of the occupied range 

currently in agricultural production in 

each of the population areas. 

Substantial portions of sage-grouse 

habitat on private land in the Gunnison 

Basin, Crawford, San Miguel, and Pin ̃ on 

Mesa population areas are currently 

enrolled in the CCAA (see Conservation 

Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat 

Conservation in this Factor A analysis). 

Except for properties recently enrolled 

in the program, all enrolled private 

lands have been monitored using 

standardized vegetation transects and 

rangeland health assessments and, 

despite recent drought conditions and 

ongoing land uses, no significant 

deviations from baseline habitat 

conditions were observed. CPW reports 

that all enrolled properties continue to 

be in compliance with the terms of their 

Certificates of Inclusion (CIs) (CPW 

2014a, p. 1). This information suggests 

that the current level of livestock 

grazing and operations on those lands is 

compatible with Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat needs. 

Except in Gunnison County, where 

cropland is relatively limited, total 

cropland has declined over the past two 

decades in all counties within the 

occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(USDA NASS 2010, entire). The 

majority of agricultural land use in 

Gunnison County is hay production, 

and this has also declined over the past 

two decades (USDA NASS 2010, p. 1). 

We do not have any information to 

predict changes in the amount of land 

devoted to agricultural purposes. 

However, because of this long-term 

downward trend in land area devoted to 

agriculture, we do not expect a 

significant amount of Gunnison sagegrouse habitat to be converted to 

agricultural purposes in the future. 

Summary of Conversion to Agriculture 

Throughout the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the amount of land area 

devoted to agriculture is declining. 

Therefore, although we expect most 

land currently in agricultural 

production to remain so indefinitely, we 

do not expect significant additional, 

future habitat conversion to agriculture 

within the range of Gunnison sagegrouse. The loss of sagebrush habitat 

from 1958 to 1993 was estimated to be 

approximately 20 percent throughout 

the range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 326). One 

exception is the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population, where more than half of the 

occupied range is currently in 

agriculture or other land uses that are 

generally incompatible with Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation. This habitat 

loss is being mitigated somewhat by the 

enrollment of lands in CRP. Because of 

its limited extent, we do not consider 

future conversion of sagebrush habitats 

to agriculture to be a current or future 

threat to the persistence of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

However, the extent of historical 

conversion of sagebrush to agriculture 

has fragmented the remaining Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat to a degree that 

currently occupied lands are inadequate 

for the species’ conservation, especially 

in light of other threats discussed 

throughout this rule. As described above 

in the introduction to this Factor A 

analysis, the onset of Euro-American 

settlement in the 1800s resulted in 

significant human alterations to 

sagebrush ecosystems throughout North 

America, primarily as a result of 

urbanization, agricultural conversion, 

and irrigation projects (West and Young 

2000, pp. 263–265; Miller et al. 2011, p. 

147). Areas in Colorado that supported 

basin big sagebrush were among the first 

sagebrush community types converted 

to agriculture because their soils and 

topography are well-suited for 

agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). 

Decreases in the abundance of sagegrouse paralleled the loss of range 

(Braun 1998, pp. 2–3), and a gradual but 

marked decrease in sage-grouse 

distribution and numbers in Colorado 

had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, 

pp. 20–22). However, due to the longterm downward trend in land area 

devoted to agriculture, we do not expect 

agricultural conversion to be a 

significant cause of further range 

contraction into the future. 

Large-Scale Water Development and 

Irrigation 

Irrigation projects have generally 

resulted in loss of sage-grouse habitat 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(Braun 1998, p. 6). Development of Blue 

Mesa Reservoir in 1965 in the Gunnison 

Basin flooded an estimated 3,700 ha 

(9,200 ac), or 1.5 percent of potential 

habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(McCall 2005, pers. comm.), and 

according to Gunnison County (2013a, 

p. 124), at least one known lek. Based 

on the size and location of Blue Mesa 

Reservoir, we presume that habitat 

connectivity and dispersal of birds 

between the Gunnison Basin population 

and satellite populations to the west 

were impacted. Three other reservoirs 

inundated approximately 2 percent of 

habitat in the San Miguel Basin 

population area (Garner 2005, pers. 

comm.). 

The demand for water in Gunnison 

sage-grouse range is expected to 

increase into the future due to increased 

temperatures resulting from climate 

change (see Climate Change in this 

Factor A analysis), severe drought (see 

Drought and Extreme Weather in the 

Factor E analysis), and human 

population growth (see Residential 

Development in this Factor A analysis). 

Water demand from the Upper Colorado 

River Basin, which encompasses 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range, is 

expected to increase over the next 

several decades, and there are likely to 

be significant shortfalls between 

projected water supply and demand 

through 2060 (BOR 2013, entire). 

However, it is unknown if, when, or 

where future water projects in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin would 

occur. 

A small amount of Gunnison sagegrouse habitat has been lost to largescale water development projects, but in 

potentially important areas (see 

discussion above). We expect these 

existing reservoirs to be maintained 

indefinitely, thus acting as another 

source of habitat fragmentation. With 

increased water demand in the future, 

we expect that water developments and 

irrigation practices may further 

contribute to impacts on Gunnison sagegrouse, though the scope and magnitude 

of those effects are unknown. Based on 

this information, we conclude that 

large-scale water developments and 

irrigation are a threat of low magnitude 

to Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, 

both now and in the future. Small-scale 

water developments, such as stock 

ponds and tanks, are described and 

evaluated in the Domestic Grazing and 

Wildlife Herbivory (Factor A analysis), 

and Disease (Factor C analysis) sections 

of this rule. 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Conservation 

Consideration of Conservation Efforts in 

This Rulemaking 

Multiple partners including private 

citizens, nongovernmental 

organizations, Tribal, State, and Federal 

agencies are engaged in conservation 

efforts across the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Numerous conservation 

actions have already been implemented 

for Gunnison sage-grouse, and these 

efforts have provided and will continue 

to provide conservation benefit to the 

species. These implemented efforts are 

considered below. 

Additionally, there are recent and 

planned conservation efforts that are 

intended to provide conservation 

benefits to the Gunnison sage-grouse; 

some of which have not been fully 

implemented or shown to be effective. 

The Service’s Policy for Evaluation of 

Conservation Efforts When Making 

Listing Decisions (PECE; 68 FR 15100, 

March 28, 2003) describes our 

procedure for evaluating the certainty of 

implementation and effectiveness of 

these recent and future actions. The 

purpose of PECE is to ensure consistent 

and adequate evaluation of recently 

formalized conservation efforts when 

making listing decisions. The policy 

provides guidance on how to evaluate 

formalized conservation efforts that 

have not yet been implemented or have 

not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The 

evaluation focuses on the certainty that 

the conservation efforts will be 

implemented and effectiveness of the 

conservation efforts. The policy defines 

‘‘formalized conservation efforts’’ as 

‘‘specific actions, activities, or programs 

designed to eliminate or reduce threats 

or otherwise improve the status of 

species’’ that are identified in a 

conservation agreement, conservation 

plan or similar document, and presents 

nine criteria for evaluating the certainty 

of implementation and six criteria for 

evaluating the certainty of effectiveness 

of such conservation efforts. These 

criteria are not considered 

comprehensive evaluation criteria. The 

certainty of implementation and the 

effectiveness of a formalized 

conservation effort may also depend on 

species-specific, habitat-specific, 

location-specific, and effort-specific 

factors. 

Conservation efforts that are not 

sufficiently certain to be implemented 

and effective cannot contribute to a 

determination that listing is 

unnecessary or a determination that to 

list as threatened rather than 

endangered (PECE, 68 FR 15115). 

Accordingly, before considering 

whether a future formalized 

conservation effort contributes to 

forming a basis for not listing a species, 

or listing a species as threatened rather 

than endangered, we must find that the 

conservation effort is sufficiently certain 

to be implemented, and effective, so as 

to have contributed to the elimination or 

adequate reduction of one or more 

threats to the species identified through 

the section 4(a)(1) (five-factor) analysis. 

If a conservation effort meets the criteria 

described in PECE, we are able to 

include and rely upon these recent and 

future efforts in our current threats 

analysis and status determination. 

We completed an evaluation of the 

recently developed multi-county 

Conservation Agreement and 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), 

the 2013 Gunnison Basin CCA and the 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s 2014 Species 

Management Plan pursuant to PECE; 

however, only the CCA met the criteria 

established under PECE and thus may 

be considered in determining whether 

the species is warranted for listing or is 

threatened rather than endangered. 

Neither the MOU nor the multi-county 

conservation agreement can contribute 

to these determinations because they do 

not include specific conservation efforts 

as defined in the PECE polic, and the 

Tribal plan only met 7 of the 15 PECE 

criteria. Therefore, we did not rely upon 

these conservation efforts in our current 

threats analysis and status 

determination. 

The 2006 Colorado Gunnison sagegrouse CCAA, 2013 Gunnison Basin 

CCA, habitat improvement projects, and 

other non-regulatory conservation 

efforts that address habitat-related 

issues are described and evaluated 

below in this section. Habitat-related 

and other conservation efforts provided 

through Federal, state, tribal, and local 

laws and regulations, conservation 

easements, and similar regulatory 

mechanisms are evaluated under Factor 

D below. Also, throughout this rule, 

conservation efforts are described under 

relevant threat sections. 

2006 Colorado Candidate Conservation 

Agreement with Assurances (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 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69263 

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). The draft CCAA, 

the permit application, and the draft 

environmental assessment were made 

available for public comment on July 6, 

2005 (70 FR 38977). The CCAA and 

environmental assessment were 

finalized in October 2006, and the 

associated permit was issued on October 

23, 2006, with a term of 20 years. 

The goal of the CCAA is to reduce 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and 

help provide for secure, self-sustaining 

local populations by enrolling, 

protecting, maintaining, and enhancing 

or restoring non-federally owned 

Colorado habitats of Gunnison sagegrouse (as described further below). 

Landowners with eligible property in 

southwestern Colorado could 

voluntarily sign up under the CCAA and 

associated permit through a Certificate 

of Inclusion (CI) that specifies the land 

enrolled in the CCAA and the habitat 

protection or enhancement measures the 

landowner will implement on these 

lands. Eligible lands include nonFederal 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. After 

Gunnison sage-grouse is listed under the 

Act, the CCAA remains in place and the 

permit becomes effective. The permit 

exempts take of Gunnison sage-grouse 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities 

specified in the CCAA (e.g., crop 

cultivation or harvesting, livestock 

grazing, farm equipment operation, 

commercial/residential development), 

when performed in accordance with the 

terms of the CCAA, provided the 

participating landowner is 

implementing conservation measures 

voluntarily agreed to in the landowner’s 

CI (USFWS 2006, entire). Landowners 

may only enroll properties in the CCAA 

and receive these benefits before a 

species is listed under the Act. 

CPW may terminate landowner 

participation in the CCAA or otherwise 

revoke the CI if the landowner fails to 

comply with or implement the terms of 

the agreement. Further, the Service may 

suspend or revoke the permit for just 

cause or if continuation of permitted 

activities would likely result in jeopardy 

to Gunnison sage-grouse (USFWS 2006, 

p. 20). However, except for recently 

enrolled properties, all properties have 

been monitored using standardized 

vegetation transects and rangeland 

health assessments and, despite recent 

drought conditions and ongoing land 

uses, no significant deviations from 

baseline habitat conditions have been 

observed. According to CPW, which is 

responsible for administering the CCAA 

with Service oversight, all enrolled 

properties continue to be in compliance 

with the terms of their CIs (CPW 2014a, 

p. 1). 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife has made 

great strides to enroll landowners, 

protect habitat, and alleviate threats to 

Gunnison sage-grouse under this 

voluntary program. We estimate that by 

December 2014, when this rule becomes 

effective, 40 CIs will have been 

completed for private properties, 

enrolling 94,391 ac, roughly 81,156 ac 

that are in suitable habitat, in four 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. This 

includes 32 CIs (54,580 ac (roughly 

50,410 ac in suitable habitat)) in the 

Gunnison Basin; 2 CIs (4,231 ac 

(roughly 3,921 ac in suitable habitat)) in 

Crawford; 3 CIs (16,820 ac (roughly 

13,694 ac in suitable habitat)) in San 

Miguel; and 3 CIs (18,761 ac (roughly 

13,131 ac in suitable habitat)) in Pin ̃on 

Mesa (Table 9). 

TABLE 9—COMPLETED AND IN-PROGRESS CIS UNDER THE GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE CCAA 

[CPW 2014a, entire; CPW 2014g, appendix 3] 

Population 

Total 

# Enrolled acres 

Acres * in 

suitable 

habitat 

Gunnison Basin ....................................................................................................................................... 32 54,580 50,410 

Crawford .................................................................................................................................................. 2 4,231 3,921 

San Miguel ............................................................................................................................................... 3 16,820 13,694 

Pin ̃on Mesa .............................................................................................................................................. 3 18,761 13,131 

Rangewide Totals ............................................................................................................................. 40 94,391 81,156 

* These are estimates based on Geospatial analyses. 

Based on the RCP conservation 

objective of securing and maintaining 90 

percent of seasonally important habitat 

for the Gunnison sage-grouse in each 

population area (GSRSC 2005, pp. 223– 

224), the CCAA identifies targets for 

private land protection for each 

population area, including private lands 

not already considered as protected 

under a conservation easement (USFWS 

2006, pp. 11–12). However, we note that 

there are lands that are part of the 

CCAA, and are also protected under a 

conservation easement. Targeted CCAA 

acreages on private lands are intended 

to complement lands already receiving 

some protection because they are under 

Federal ownership. 

A habitat protection objective of 75 

percent of seasonally important habitat 

was identified for the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population, 

because this area is thought to function 

more as a habitat linkage between the 

San Miguel Basin, Gunnison, and 

Crawford populations (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

223–224; USFWS 2006, p. 10). The 

CCAA habitat protection target for the 

Gunnison Basin population was based 

on important seasonal habitats since 

these are mapped in this area. In the 

remaining populations where important 

seasonal habitats are not mapped, CCAA 

targets were based on available 

occupied habitat (USFWS 2006, pp. 11– 

12). Roughly 99 percent of the Gunnison 

Basin population area target, 95 percent 

of the Crawford population area target, 

45 percent of the San Miguel population 

area target, and 217 percent of the Pin ̃on 

Mesa population area target on private 

lands are enrolled in the CCAA (Table 

10). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 10—CCAA HABITAT PROTECTION TARGETS ON PRIVATE LAND AND ENROLLMENT

[CPW 2014a, entire; CPW 2014b, entire] 

Population 

CCAA 

Target (ac) on 

private land 

Enrolled 

CIs (ac) a on 

private land 

% of CCAA 

target on 

private land 

Gunnison basin ............................................................................................................................ 55,302 54,580 99 

Crawford ...................................................................................................................................... 4,143 4,231 95 

San Miguel ................................................................................................................................... 37,690 16,820 45 

Pin ̃on Mesa .................................................................................................................................. 8,635 18,761 217 

a CI acreage in suitable habitat based on geospatial analyses. Includes some properties also protected by conservation easements.

The CCAA promotes the conservation 

of Gunnison sage-grouse on portions of 

private lands in the Gunnison Basin, 

Crawford, San Miguel, and Pin ̃ on Mesa 

populations. In these areas, threats to 

Gunnison sage-grouse are reduced and 

habitats covered by the CCAA are 

protected, maintained, enhanced, or 

restored. 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. Although enrollment of 

property in the CCAA is voluntary and 

not permanent or binding, the program’s 

regulatory assurances and take authority 

provide an incentive for participating 

landowners to continue enrollment and 

compliance with terms of their CI. 

However, there are instances in which 

those assurances and incentives would 

no longer be desirable to the landowner. 

For instance, a landowner may choose 

to opt out of the CCAA to sell subject 

lands, whether for development or other 

purposes, meaning the benefits to 

Gunnison sage-grouse provided under 

the program would cease as well unless 

the new owner decided to continue the 

property’s enrollment in the CCAA. 

Thus, although residential development 

is expected to be very limited on 

enrolled properties under the terms of 

the CIs (USFWS 2006, p. 13), the CCAA 

does not preclude the sale of those 

properties nor their subsequent 

development. Such development would 

likely result in further habitat loss and 

decline for Gunnison sage-grouse, 

though we cannot predict the scope or 

magnitude of those impacts. Therefore, 

the Service views the CCAA differently 

from conservation easements in terms of 

its regulatory certainty (see Other 

Regulatory Mechanisms: Conservation 

Easements, Factor D analysis; and 

Residential Development, in this Factor 

A analysis). Nevertheless, we consider 

lands enrolled under the CCAA to be a 

net gain for Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation, particularly in regard to 

the reduction of habitat-related impacts 

due to ongoing land uses on private 

lands. 

2013 Gunnison Basin Candidate 

Conservation Agreement 

Candidate Conservation Agreements 

are formal, voluntary agreements 

between the Service and one or more 

parties to address the conservation 

needs of one or more candidate species 

or species likely to become candidates 

in the near future. Participants commit 

to implement specific actions designed 

to remove or reduce threats to the 

covered species, so that listing may not 

be necessary. Unlike CCAAs, CCAs do 

not provide assurances that additional 

conservation measures will not be 

required if a species is listed or critical 

habitat is designated. 

In January 2010, the BLM, USFS, 

NPS, and other members of the 

Gunnison Basin Sage-Grouse Strategic 

Committee (Strategic Committee) began 

preparing a Candidate Conservation 

Agreement (CCA) with the Service to 

promote the conservation of the 

Gunnison Basin population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse (BLM 2013b, entire). The 

CCA was completed and signed by the 

Federal land management agencies on 

August 23, 2012. On April 12, 2013, the 

Federal land management agencies 

submitted a joint biological assessment 

(BA) and letter to the Service requesting 

an ESA Section 7 formal conference on 

the CCA. The Service issued its 

conference opinion on July 29, 2013 

(USFWS 2013b, entire) and 

subsequently signed the CCA. The 

conference opinion evaluated 

anticipated effects of the CCA on 

Gunnison sage-grouse and estimated 

incidental take over a 20-year period, or 

through July 29, 2033. 

The CCA serves as a project screen 

and requires implementation of 

conservation measures associated with 

specified actions under three Federal 

land use programs: Development (roads, 

transmission lines, etc.), recreation 

(such as trails and special recreation 

permits, etc.), and livestock grazing 

(permit renewals and operations). Larger 

or impact intensive projects (e.g., 

construction of a new transmission line, 

energy development) are not covered 

under the CCA, and any conservation 

measures required for these projects on 

Federal lands in the Gunnison Basin 

will be addressed separately through 

ESA section 7 consultation. However, 

the actions addressed by the CCA, as 

listed above, comprise the most 

common land use authorizations where 

Gunnison sage-grouse occur on Federal 

lands in the Gunnison Basin. The CCA 

and conference opinion cover an 

estimated 160,769 ha (397,267 ac) of 

occupied habitat on Federal lands in the 

Gunnison Basin. This constitutes about 

67 percent of the estimated 239,953 ha 

(592,936 ac) of total occupied habitat in 

the Gunnison Basin; approximately 78 

percent of rangewide occupied habitat 

on Federal lands; and approximately 42 

percent of rangewide total occupied 

habitat for the species. 

Conservation measures in the CCA 

and conference opinion are actions that 

the signatory agencies agreed to 

implement to further the recovery of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. A key 

component of the CCA’s site-specific 

conservation measures is a requirement 

for offsetting habitat loss or disturbance 

to ensure a net increase in priority 

habitats, and no net loss (maintenance) 

of secondary habitats for Gunnison sagegrouse. A number of other conservation 

measures and practices will be 

implemented pursuant to the CCA by 

the Federal agencies during the ESA 

section 7 consultation process to avoid 

and minimize project impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

The Service commends the Federal 

agencies, and the Gunnison Basin Sagegrouse Strategic Committee for their 

efforts in the design of the CCA and 

implementation of conservation 

measures to benefit Gunnison sagegrouse. In our conference opinion, we 

found that, despite incidental negative 

effects on individual birds and potential 

short-term, localized, and unavoidable 

effects, implementation of the CCA will 

provide a long-term, net benefit for 

Gunnison sage-grouse on a landscape 

scale. The conservation measures and 

mitigation scheme are required for the 

signatory Federal agencies engaging in 

covered activities, and are based on 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69265 

current applicable land management 

plans of the respective agencies. As 

noted earlier, approximately 87 percent 

of the rangewide population of 

Gunnison sage-grouse occurs in the 

Gunnison Basin population. 

Implementation of the proposed action 

and its conservation measures will help 

reduce several substantial threats 

known to affect the species on Federal 

lands in the Gunnison Basin, including 

habitat decline. Although we analyzed 

the CCA under our PECE policy and 

found it satisfies all the criteria for 

consideration in our listing 

determination, approximately 22 

percent of rangewide occupied habitat 

on Federal lands—all within the 

satellite population areas—are not 

covered under the CCA or a similar 

agreement. Additional protections on 

those Federal lands will be necessary to 

conserve these smaller, declining 

populations. Therefore, while the CCA 

is effective in reducing some threats in 

the Gunnison Basin population, it is not 

effective at reducing the threats to the 

species rangewide such that listing is 

not warranted. 

NRCS and Private Lands Conservation 

Efforts 

The NRCS’s Sage-Grouse Initiative 

(SGI) is a rangewide, collaborative, 

targeted effort to implement 

conservation practices which alleviate 

threats that some agricultural activities 

can pose to greater and Gunnison sagegrouse while improving the 

sustainability of working ranches. 

Through SGI, the NRCS and its partners 

help ranchers proactively conserve and 

improve sage-grouse habitat. The SGI 

includes a monitoring and evaluation 

component for projects to measure the 

response of sage-grouse populations and 

vital rates (USFWS 2010d, p. 5). 

In 2010, the Service issued the SGI 

Conference Report (USFWS 2010d, 

entire) to facilitate the SGI and 

conservation of Gunnison and greater 

sage-grouse rangewide. In the 

Conference Report, the Service provided 

guidance and conservation 

recommendations for avoiding and 

minimizing adverse effects to sagegrouse associated with the SGI, and 

found that the implementation of the 

SGI and identified conservation 

measures would have a net benefit on 

the species. The report identified 

primary conservation practices 

(management, vegetative, and structural) 

implemented by the NRCS to benefit 

sage-grouse and its habitat, and specific 

conservation measures (e.g., avoiding 

fence construction near leks) for those 

practices. The report did not provide for 

exemption of incidental take of sagegrouse if either species is listed under 

the Act (USFWS 2010d, entire). 

Also under the SGI and related 

private land programs (e.g., Farm Bill), 

the NRCS, Farm Service Agency (FSA), 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners 

for Fish and Wildlife (PFW), CPW, and 

other partners have implemented 

numerous habitat improvement projects 

on private lands to benefit Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Since 1998, the Service’s 

Colorado PFW has completed 20 habitat 

improvement or restoration projects in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat including 

projects on 638.5 ac of wetland habitat; 

3,957 ac of upland habitat; and 4.3 mi 

of riparian habitat in Gunnison, 

Saguache, and Montrose Counties, with 

most treated acres in Gunnison County. 

Project types included restoration, 

improvement, and management actions 

such as enhancement of wetland and 

brood-rearing habitat, treating 

sagebrush, reseeding of native 

vegetation, fencing installation, grazing 

management, and removal of pin ̃ onjuniper (USFWS 2014c, entire). 

Contributing partners for these projects 

have included CPW, NRCS, and Rocky 

Mountain Bird Observatory. In addition, 

in 2006 the NRCS Gunnison Basin 

Conservation District sponsored a Range 

Management School to assist ranchers 

in managing and monitoring their lands 

to benefit Gunnison sage-grouse and 

meet the requirements of the CCAA 

(Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 204–206). 

Projects undertaken through SGI and 

related private land programs, as 

described above, have benefitted 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat, 

but are limited in extent. Therefore, it is 

unlikely that such actions are able to 

offset habitat loss and decline across the 

species’ range. 

The CRP is another Federally 

sponsored program that has helped 

offset the loss of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. Administered by the FSA, this 

program provides incentives to 

landowners to plant more natural 

vegetation in lands formerly devoted to 

agricultural production. The NRCS 

provides technical assistance and 

planning in the implementation of CRP. 

The CRP helps address the threat of 

habitat decline due to agricultural 

conversion. 

Lands within the occupied range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse currently enrolled 

in the CRP are limited to Dolores and 

San Miguel counties in Colorado, and 

San Juan County in Utah (USDA FSA 

2010, entire). From 2000 to 2008, CRP 

enrollment averaged 10,622 ha (26,247 

ac) in Dolores County, 1,350 ha (3,337 

ac) in San Miguel County, and 14,698 ha 

(36,320 ac) in San Juan County (USDA 

FSA 2010, entire). In 2011, 

approximately 9,793 ha (24,200 ac) were 

enrolled in the CRP program within 

occupied habitat in the Monticello 

population (UDWR 2011, p. 7). This 

area represents approximately 34 

percent of the occupied habitat in the 

Monticello population, and 

approximately 22 percent of the entire 

Monticello-Dove Creek population area. 

By 2011, lands that had dropped out of 

the CRP program were replaced by 

newly enrolled properties, and the total 

acreage of lands enrolled in the CRP 

program remained at the maximum 

allowed by the FSA for San Juan 

County, UT (UDWR 2011, p. 7). 

Gunnison sage-grouse are known 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 sagegrouse use CRP lands in proportion to 

their availability (Lupis et al. 2006, p. 

959). The CRP areas are used by grouse 

primarily as foraging and brood-rearing 

habitat, but these areas vary greatly in 

plant diversity and forb abundance, 

generally lack any shrub cover (Lupis et 

al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Prather 2010, p. 

32), and thus are less suitable for 

nesting and wintering habitat. 

Except in emergency situations such 

as drought, CRP-enrolled lands are not 

hayed or grazed. In response to a severe 

drought, four CRP parcels totaling 1,487 

ha (3,674 ac) in San Juan County, UT, 

were emergency grazed for a duration of 

one to two months in the summer of 

2002 (Lupis et al. 2006, p. 959). Males 

and broodless females avoided the 

grazed areas while cattle were present 

but returned after cattle were removed 

(Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 960–961). Thus, 

the effects from grazing were likely 

negative but apparently short in 

duration. 

Largely as a result of agricultural 

conversion, sagebrush patches in the 

Monticello-Dove Creek subpopulation 

area have progressively become smaller 

and more fragmented, thereby limiting 

the amount of high quality nesting and 

winter habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 82, 

276). Overall, the CRP has provided 

important foraging habitat and has 

protected a portion of the MonticelloDove Creek population from more 

intensive agricultural use and 

development. Continued enrollment of 

lands in CRP and management of those 

lands are conservation priorities of the 

local sage-grouse working group 

(SJCWG 2003, entire). However, the 

overall value of CRP lands to Gunnison 

sage-grouse to reduce or remove the 

threat of habitat loss and fragmentation 

is currently limited because these lands 

largely lack sagebrush cover required by 

the species throughout most of the year. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

The value of CRP lands to the species 

will likely increase over time with the 

establishment of sagebrush in those 

areas. The extent to which existing CRP 

lands will be reenrolled in the future is 

unknown. However, given the recent 

enrollment, we expect lands to continue 

to be enrolled into the future. 

Tribal Species Management Plan 

Approximately 12,000 ac of occupied 

habitat on Pinecrest Ranch are owned 

by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Tribe) 

under restricted fee status. 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 February 2014, the Tribe 

completed 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 

(Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 2014a, entire). 

On April 9, 2014, the Tribe approved 

and adopted the SMP for the Pinecrest 

Ranch per Resolution No. 2014–059 

(Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 2014b, pp. 1– 

2). 

The SMP includes management 

actions and/or 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, 

wildlife-friendly fencing, outreach and 

education, and sustainable grazing 

practices which are compatible with 

maintaining habitat that meets the 

species’ needs (UMUT 2014, pp. 7–15). 

While we think the SMP provides a 

benefit to species, we evaluated the 

species management plan under our 

PECE policy, but found the plan met 

only 7 of the 15 criteria. 

Other Conservation Efforts 

To varying degrees, most counties in 

Colorado either support or are involved 

in other conservation efforts for 

Gunnison sage-grouse, such as local 

working groups, habitat improvement 

projects, and research projects 

(Gunnison County 2013b, Appendix 1 

A–K, CPW 2014g, Attachment 3 and 

Appendix A; Office of the Governor of 

Colorado 2014, entire). Through CPW, 

the State of Colorado has also been a 

leader in sage-grouse research and 

conservation efforts throughout the 

species’ range (CPW 2014g, entire; 

Office of the Governor of Colorado 2014, 

entire). We have considered all such 

conservation efforts in this listing 

determination, and highlight some of 

the more significant of these efforts 

below. 

Except for the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population, each 

of the Gunnison sage-grouse population 

areas has a Conservation Plan authored 

by Local Working Groups with 

publication dates of 1997 to 2011 

(CSGWG 1997; Dove Creek/Monticello 

Local Working Group 1998; GSRSC 

2005; Pin ̃ on Mesa Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Working Group 2000; Poncha Pass Local 

Working Group 2000; Gunnison Sagegrouse Working Group 2000; SJCWG 

2000 and 2003; SMBGSWG 2009; 

Crawford Area Sage-grouse Working 

Group 2011). These plans provide 

guidance and recommendations for 

management of Gunnison sage-grouse 

and have been the basis for identifying 

and prioritizing local conservation 

efforts. We have reviewed all of the 

Local Working Group plans and the 

implementation reporting we received 

with respect to these plans. While these 

plans are providing a conservation 

benefit to the species, the actions in 

these plans are all voluntary and many 

of the satellite populations are in a 

downward trajectory, therefore the 

actions do not reduce the threats, such 

as residential development (Factor A), 

which may require compensatory 

mitigation to ameliorate, and, to the 

species to a point where listing is not 

warranted. 

The Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) was 

developed by the states of Colorado and 

Utah and 5 Federal agencies, including 

the Service, in 2005 to supplement the 

local working group plans and to offer 

a rangewide perspective for 

conservation of the species. The RCP 

includes specific, recommended 

avoidance and minimization measures, 

as well as species and habitat 

conservation targets. However, similar 

to the local plans, the RCP is a guidance 

document only, is voluntary, and does 

not provide regulatory mechanisms for 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 1). Where RCP 

recommended conservation measures 

have been implemented, we have 

evaluated and included them in our 

analysis. For example, the RCP 

recommends road closures and the 

enactment of county regulations to 

minimize impacts to the species; where 

appropriate, the existing efforts that 

implement these recommendations are 

included in our analysis. Overall, 

however, there is no requirement to 

implement the recommendations in the 

RCP and past implementation of these 

recommendations has generally been ad 

hoc and opportunistic. Given this 

history, we find that the RCP is not 

effective at reducing the threats acting 

on the species to the point where listing 

the species is not warranted. 

Other conservation efforts in the 

species’ range include the North Rim 

Landscape Strategy developed by 

Federal and state agencies, partners, and 

stakeholders to supplement the 

Crawford Area Conservation Plan. The 

strategy identifies broad 

recommendations for resource 

management and conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Crawford 

population area, but is not a legal 

decision document (BLM 2013c, p. 4–5). 

Gunnison County has been 

particularly active in Gunnison sagegrouse conservation activities. In 2005, 

it hired a Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Coordinator and organized a Strategic 

Committee to facilitate implementation 

of conservation measures in the 

Gunnison Basin under both the local 

Conservation Plan (CSGWG 1997, 

entire) and RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire). 

An estimated $30 million has been 

invested in conservation actions by 

these groups and partners in the 

Gunnison Basin (Gunnison County 

2013a, p. 147). Gunnison County reports 

that it alone has contributed more than 

$1 million to Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation (Gunnison County 2013a, 

p. 218). In 2009, Gunnison County 

adopted the Gunnison Basin Sagegrouse Strategic Plan (Gunnison County 

2013a, Appendix E) to foster 

coordination and guide local citizens in 

the conservation of Gunnison sagegrouse. Also in 2009, the Gunnison 

County Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Action Plan (Gunnison County 2013a, 

Appendix F) was developed to guide 

and prioritize the implementation of 

specific conservation actions identified 

in the Strategic Plan. Gunnison County 

and the Gunnison Basin Sage-Grouse 

Strategic Committee (local working 

group for the Gunnison Basin 

population area) have also made 

significant public outreach efforts 

including holding the Gunnison SageGrouse Festival, providing Web site 

information for the public, and 

education and communication with area 

landowners (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 

59). 

The Crawford Working Group (Delta 

and Montrose County areas) also hired 

a Gunnison sage-grouse coordinator in 

December 2009. Likewise, Saguache 

County hired a part-time coordinator for 

the Poncha Pass population in 2013. 

These efforts facilitate coordination 

relative to sage-grouse management and 

reflect positively on these counties’ 

commitment to Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69267 

Gunnison County and several other 

counties in the species’ range have also 

enacted regulatory and related measures 

to benefit Gunnison sage-grouse and its 

habitat, as discussed under Factor D 

(Local Laws and Regulation). 

The Gunnison Climate Adaptation 

Pilot Project, led by the Gunnison 

Climate Change Working Group, 

implemented several habitat projects in 

2012 and 2013 to restore and improve 

the resiliency of Gunnison sage broodrearing habitats (riparian areas and wet 

meadows) to address climate change in 

the Gunnison Basin (The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC) 2012, entire). The 

projected vulnerability of the Gunnison 

Basin to climate change was the primary 

impetus for the pilot project (see 

Climate Change). Long-term monitoring 

will determine effectiveness of the 

projects. Additional projects under this 

initiative are planned for the future (The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2011, p. 1). 

A review of a database compiled by 

the CPW that included local, State, and 

Federal ongoing and pending Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation actions in 

Colorado from 2005 to 2009 (CDOW 

2009c, entire) revealed a total of 224 

individual conservation efforts, most of 

which were habitat improvement or 

protection projects. As of 2012, 165 of 

those efforts were completed, resulting 

in the treatment (enhancement or 

restoration) of 9,324 ha (23,041 ac), or 

approximately 2.5 percent of occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. A 

monitoring component was included in 

45 percent of the completed efforts, 

although we do not have information on 

their overall effectiveness. Five habitat 

improvement or protection projects 

occurred between January 2011 and 

September 2012, treating an additional 

300 acres (CPW 2012b, p. 7). Further 

discussions of habitat improvement 

projects occurred before 2005 and 

subsequent to the 2012 summary 

document (CPW 2012b, entire; CPW 

2014e, entire; CPW 2014g entire). These 

are not discussed here but were 

considered. Individually, these projects 

are generally all relatively small in 

scale, in relation to the individual 

populations where they have occurred. 

Cumulatively, these conservation efforts 

are providing a conservation benefit to 

the species, however, given the general 

downward trend of many of the satellite 

populations and the inability of these 

efforts to reduce threats such as 

residential development, we find these 

conservation efforts are not effective at 

reducing the threats acting on the 

species to the point where listing the 

species is not warranted. 

Multi-County Rangewide Efforts 

In 2013, the ‘‘Conservation Agreement 

for Gunnison Sage-grouse,’’ and a 

Memorandum of Understanding, was 

drafted by 11 Colorado and Utah 

Counties across the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse (Gunnison, Saguache, 

Dolores, Montezuma, Delta, Montrose, 

Hinsdale, Mesa, San Miguel, and Ouray 

Counties in Colorado; and San Juan 

County in Utah) (hereafter, County 

Coalition). To date, the Governors of the 

States of Colorado and Utah; and 

County Commissioners from all nine 

counties in occupied range from both 

States have signed the agreement. 

Hinsdale and Montezuma Counties do 

not contain occupied range for 

Gunnison sage-grouse and, therefore, 

did not sign the agreement. While the 

agreement itself is not regulatory, 

signatories of the agreement committed 

to implementing appropriate 

resolutions, regulations, and guidelines 

to enhance the species and its habitat in 

an effort to increase populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse (County Coalition 

2013, entire). Specifically, they have 

formally committed to adopting a 

Habitat Prioritization Tool, which will 

better predict preferred habitat for the 

species, and they have formally 

committed to updating and adopting an 

amended Rangewide Conservation Plan. 

We did evaluate these multi-county 

efforts under our PECE policy, but 

found they did not include specific 

conservation efforts as defined by the 

PECE policy, and hence cannot 

contribute to a determination that listing 

is unnecessary or a determination to list 

the species as threatened rather than 

endangered. 

Summary of Conservation Programs and 

Efforts Related to Habitat Protection 

Numerous conservation actions have 

been implemented for Gunnison sagegrouse, and these efforts have provided 

and will continue to provide 

conservation benefit to the species. The 

CCAA and CCA provide significant 

conservation benefit to the species and 

its habitat on private lands rangewide 

and Federal lands in the Gunnison 

Basin, respectively, reducing the 

impacts of primarily habitat-related 

threats in those areas. However, the 

identified conservation efforts, taken 

individually and in combination, do not 

fully address the substantial threats of 

rangewide habitat decline (Factor A), 

small population size and structure 

(Factor E), drought (Factor E), climate 

change (Factor A), and disease (Factor 

C). The Gunnison Basin CCA provides 

some protection for Gunnison sagegrouse on Federal lands in the Gunnison 

Basin, but does not cover the remaining, 

more vulnerable satellite populations. 

Similarly, the existing CCAA benefits 

Gunnison sage-grouse, but does not 

provide sufficient coverage of the 

species’ range to ensure the species’ 

long-term conservation. Based on their 

voluntary nature and track records, the 

RCP, local working group plans, and 

other conservation efforts are not 

effective at reducing the threats acting 

on the species to the point where listing 

the species is not warranted. Thus, 

although the ongoing conservation 

efforts are a positive step toward the 

conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse and have undoubtedly reduced 

the severity of certain threats to 

populations, on the whole we find that 

current conservation efforts are not 

sufficient to offset the full scope of 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Summary of Factor A 

Gunnison sage-grouse require large 

areas of sagebrush for long-term 

persistence, and thus are affected by 

factors that occur at the landscape scale. 

Broad-scale characteristics within 

surrounding landscapes influence 

habitat selection, and adult Gunnison 

sage-grouse exhibit a high fidelity to all 

seasonal habitats, resulting in low 

adaptability to habitat changes. Habitat 

loss, degradation, and fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitats are a primary cause 

of the decline of Gunnison and greater 

sage-grouse populations (Patterson 

1952, pp. 192–193; Connelly and Braun 

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

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

2000a, p. 975; Miller and Eddleman 

2000, p. 1; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, 

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

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

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

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

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

2011, p. 267). Documented negative 

effects of fragmentation include reduced 

lek persistence, lek attendance, 

population recruitment, yearling and 

adult annual survival, female nest site 

selection, and nest initiation rates, as 

well as the loss of leks and winter 

habitat (Holloran 2005, p. 49; Aldridge 

and Boyce 2007, pp. 517–523; Walker et 

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

2008, p. 194). 

We examined a number of factors that 

contribute to habitat decline. Habitat 

loss due to residential and 

infrastructural development (including 

roads and powerlines) is a current and 

future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

range-wide. Due to habitat decline, the 

seven individual populations are now 

mostly isolated, with limited migration 

and gene flow among populations, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

increasing the likelihood of population 

extirpations. Functional habitat loss also 

contributes to habitat decline as sagegrouse avoid areas due to human 

activities and noise, even when 

sagebrush remains intact. The collective 

disturbance from human activities 

around residences and infrastructure 

results in habitat decline that negatively 

impacts Gunnison sage-grouse survival. 

Human populations are increasing 

across the species’ range, a trend 

expected to continue into the future. 

Resulting habitat decline is diminishing 

the probability of Gunnison sage-grouse 

survival and persistence, particularly in 

the satellite populations. 

Other habitat-related threats that are 

impacting Gunnison sage-grouse 

include grazing practices inconsistent 

with local ecological conditions, fences, 

invasive plants, fire, mineral 

development, pin ̃on-juniper 

encroachment, and large-scale water 

development and irrigation. The 

cumulative presence of all these features 

and activities constitutes a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse as they 

collectively contribute to habitat 

decline. In particular, the satellite 

populations are less resilient and more 

vulnerable to extirpation and 

environmental pressures including 

habitat loss and fragmentation (see 

discussion in Factor A analysis above 

and in the Factor E analysis below). 

Several issues discussed above, such 

as fire, invasive species, and pin ̃ onjuniper encroachment, may not 

currently have a substantial impact on 

Gunnison sage-grouse. For example, 

while it may be impacting individual 

birds or populations, pin ̃ on-juniper 

encroachment does not currently pose a 

threat to the species because of its 

limited distribution throughout the 

range of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, the documented synergy 

among these three issues (pin ̃on-juniper 

encroachment, fire and invasive 

species), results in a high likelihood that 

they will pose a threat to the species in 

the future. Nonnative invasive plants, 

including cheatgrass and other noxious 

weeds, continue to expand their range, 

facilitated by ground disturbances such 

as fire, grazing incompatible with local 

ecological conditions, and human 

infrastructure. Invasive plants 

negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse 

primarily by reducing or eliminating 

native vegetation that sage-grouse 

require for food and cover, resulting in 

habitat decline (both direct and 

functional). Cheatgrass is present at 

varying levels in nearly all Gunnison 

sage-grouse population areas, but there 

has not yet been a demonstrated change 

in fire cycle in the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. However, climate change 

will likely alter the range of invasive 

plants, intensifying the proliferation of 

invasive plants to the point that they 

become a threat to the species. Even 

with aggressive treatments, invasive 

plants will likely persist and continue to 

spread throughout the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Livestock management inconsistent 

with local ecological conditions has the 

potential to degrade sage-grouse habitat 

at local scales by causing the loss of 

nesting cover and decreases in native 

vegetation, and by increasing the 

probability of incursion of invasive 

plants. Given the widespread nature of 

grazing within the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the potential for 

population-level impacts is probable. 

Effects of domestic livestock grazing 

inconsistent with local ecological 

conditions are likely being exacerbated 

by intense browsing of woody species 

by wild ungulates in parts of the 

Gunnison Basin. We conclude that 

habitat degradation that can result from 

grazing practices inconsistent with local 

ecological conditions is a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

We do not consider nonrenewable 

energy development to be impacting 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat to the 

extent that it is a threat to the long-term 

persistence of the species at this time, 

because its current and anticipated 

extent is limited throughout the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. We do not 

consider renewable energy development 

to be a threat to the persistence of 

Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide at this 

time. However, geothermal and wind 

energy development could increase in 

the Gunnison Basin and Monticello 

areas, respectively, in the future. 

We recognize ongoing and proposed 

conservation efforts by all entities across 

the range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, 

and commend all parties for their vision 

and participation. Local communities, 

landowners, agencies, and organizations 

in Colorado and Utah have dedicated 

resources to Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation and have implemented 

numerous conservation efforts. We 

encourage continued implementation of 

these efforts into the future to promote 

the conservation of Gunnison sagegrouse. Our review of conservation 

efforts indicates that the measures 

identified are not fully addressing the 

most substantial threats to Gunnison 

sage-grouse including habitat decline 

(Factor A), small population size and 

structure (Factor E), drought (Factor E), 

climate change (Factor A), and disease 

(Factor C). All of the conservation 

efforts are limited in size and the 

measures provided to us were not 

implemented at the scale (even when 

considered cumulatively) that would be 

required to effectively reduce the threats 

to the species and its habitat across its 

range. The Gunnison Basin CCA, for 

example, provides some protection for 

Gunnison sage-grouse on Federal lands 

in the Gunnison Basin, but does not 

cover the remaining, more vulnerable 

satellite populations. Similarly, the 

existing CCAA benefits Gunnison sagegrouse on participating lands, but does 

not provide sufficient coverage of the 

species’ range to ensure the species’ 

long-term conservation. Thus, although 

the ongoing conservation efforts are a 

positive step toward the conservation of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse, and some 

have likely reduced the severity of some 

threats to the species, on the whole we 

find that current conservation efforts are 

not sufficient to offset the full scope of 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. 

We have evaluated the best scientific 

information available on the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Gunnison sagegrouse’s habitat or range. Based on the 

current and anticipated habitat threats 

identified above and their cumulative 

effects as they contribute to the overall 

decline of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 

we have determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat poses a threat to the species 

throughout its range. This threat is 

substantial and current, and is projected 

to continue and increase into the future 

with additional anthropogenic 

pressures. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Hunting 

Hunting for Gunnison sage-grouse is 

not currently permitted under Colorado 

and Utah law. Hunting was eliminated 

in the Gunnison Basin in 2000 due to 

concerns with meeting Gunnison sagegrouse population objectives (Colorado 

Sage Grouse Working Group (CSGWG) 

1997, p. 66). Hunting has not occurred 

in the other Colorado populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse since 1995 when 

the Pin ̃on Mesa area was closed (GSRSC 

2005, p. 122). Utah has not allowed 

hunting of Gunnison sage-grouse since 

1989 according to GSRSC (2005, p. 82), 

or as early as the mid-1970’s according 

to SJCWG (2000, p. 11). 

Both Colorado and Utah report they 

will consider hunting of Gunnison sagegrouse only if populations can be 

sustained (GSRSC 2005, pp. 5, 8, 229). 

The local Gunnison Basin working 

group plan calls for a minimum 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69269 

population of 500 males (based on lek 

counts) before hunting would occur 

again (CSGWG 1997, p. 66). The 

minimum population level in the 

Gunnison Basin population has been 

exceeded in all years since 1996, except 

2003 and 2004 (CDOW 2009d, pp. 18– 

19). However, the sensitive State 

regulatory status and potential political 

ramifications of hunting the species has 

precluded the States from opening a 

hunting season. If hunting does ever 

occur again, harvest will likely be 

restricted to only 5 to 10 percent of the 

fall population, and will be structured 

to limit harvest of females to the extent 

possible (GSRSC 2005, p. 229). 

However, the ability of these measures 

to be implemented is in question, as 

adequate means to estimate fall 

population size have not been 

developed (Reese and Connelly 2011, 

pp. 110–111) and limiting female 

harvest may not be possible (WGFD 

2004, p. 4; WGFD 2006, pp. 5, 7). 

In 1992, a CPW effort to simplify 

hunting restrictions inadvertently 

opened the Poncha Pass area to sagegrouse hunting, and at least 30 grouse 

were harvested from this population. 

The area was closed to sage-grouse 

hunting the following year and has 

remained closed to hunting since 

(Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 3). One sagegrouse was known to be illegally 

harvested in 2001 in the Poncha Pass 

population (Nehring 2010, pers. comm.), 

but based on the best available 

information illegal harvest has not 

contributed to Gunnison sage-grouse 

population declines in either Colorado 

or Utah. We do not anticipate hunting 

to be opened in the Gunnison Basin or 

smaller populations for many years, if 

ever. Consequently, we do not consider 

hunting to be a threat to the species now 

or in the future. 

Lek Viewing and Counts 

The Gunnison sage-grouse was 

designated as a new species in 2000 

(American Ornithologists’ Union 2000, 

pp. 847–858), which has prompted a 

much increased interest by bird 

watchers to view the species on their 

leks (Pfister 2010, pers. comm.). Daily 

human disturbances on sage-grouse leks 

could cause a reduction in mating, and 

some reduction in total production (Call 

and Maser 1985, p. 19). Human 

disturbance, particularly if additive to 

disturbance by predators, could reduce 

the time a lek is active, as well as reduce 

its size by lowering male attendance 

(Boyko et al. 2004, in GSRSC 2005, p. 

125). Smaller lek sizes have been 

hypothesized to be less attractive to 

females, thereby conceivably reducing 

the numbers of females mating. 

Disturbance during the peak of mating 

also could result in some females not 

breeding (GSRSC 2005, p. 125). 

Furthermore, disturbance from lek 

viewing might affect nesting habitat 

selection by females (GSRSC 2005, p. 

126), as leks are typically close to areas 

in which females nest. If females move 

to poorer quality habitat farther away 

from disturbed leks, nest success could 

decline. If chronic disturbance causes 

sage-grouse to move to a new lek site 

away from preferred and presumably 

higher quality areas, both survival and 

nest success could decline. Whether any 

or all of these have significant 

population effects would depend on 

timing and degree of disturbance 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 126). 

Throughout the range of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, public viewing of leks is 

limited by a general lack of knowledge 

of lek locations, seasonal road closures 

in some areas, and difficulty in 

accessing many leks. Furthermore, 52 of 

109 active Gunnison sage-grouse leks 

occur on private lands, further limiting 

public access. The BLM closed a lek in 

the Gunnison Basin to viewing in the 

late 1990s due to declining population 

counts perceived as resulting from 

recreational viewing, although no 

scientific studies were conducted (BLM 

2005a, p. 13; GSRSC 2005, pp. 124, 

126). 

The Waunita lek east of Gunnison is 

the only lek in Colorado designated by 

the CPW for public viewing (Waunita 

Watchable Wildlife Area) (CDOW 

2009b, p. 86). Since 1998, a comparison 

of male counts on the Waunita lek 

versus male counts on other leks in the 

Doyleville zone show that the Waunita 

lek’s male counts generally follow the 

same trend as the others (CDOW 2009d, 

pp. 31–32). In fact, in 2008 and 2009, 

the Waunita lek increased in the 

number of males counted along with 

three other leks, while seven leks 

decreased in the Doyleville zone 

(CDOW 2009d, pp. 31–32). These data 

suggest that lek viewing on the Waunita 

lek has not impacted Gunnison sagegrouse attendance at leks. Two lek 

viewing tours per year are organized 

and led by UDWR on a privately owned 

lek in the Monticello population. The 

lek declined in males counted in 2009, 

but 2007 and 2008 had the highest 

counts for several years, suggesting that 

lek viewing is not impacting that lek 

either. Data collected by CPW on greater 

sage-grouse viewing leks also indicates 

that controlled lek visitation has not 

impacted greater sage-grouse at the 

viewed leks (GSRSC 2005, p. 124). 

A lek viewing protocol has been 

developed and has largely been 

followed on the Waunita lek, likely 

reducing impacts to sage-grouse (GSRSC 

2005, p. 125). During 2004–2009, the 

percentage of individuals or groups of 

people in vehicles following the 

Waunita lek viewing protocol in the 

Gunnison Basin ranged from 71 to 92 

percent (CDOW 2009b, pp. 86, 87; 

Magee et al. 2009, pp. 7, 10). Violations 

of the protocol, such as showing up after 

the sage-grouse started to display and 

creating noise, caused one or more sagegrouse to flush from the lek (CDOW 

2009b, pp. 86, 87). Despite the protocol 

violations, the percentage of days from 

2004 to 2009 that grouse were flushed 

by humans was relatively low, ranging 

from 2.5 percent to 5.4 percent (Magee 

et al. 2009, p. 10). The current lek 

viewing protocol includes regulations to 

avoid and minimize disturbance from 

photography, research, and educationrelated viewing; regulations and related 

information are provided to the public 

online (CDOW 2009b, p. 86; Gunnison 

County 2013a, p. 127; CPW 2013, 

entire). Implementation of this protocol 

should preclude lek viewing from 

becoming a threat to this lek. 

The CPW and UDWR will continue to 

coordinate and implement lek counts to 

determine population levels. We expect 

annual lek viewing and lek counts to 

continue into the future. Lek counts 

may disturb individual birds. However, 

since the Waunita lek is open to viewers 

on a daily basis throughout the lekking 

season, and lek counters only approach 

an individual lek 2–3 times per season, 

all leks counted will receive lower 

disturbance from counters than the 

Waunita lek receives from public 

viewing, so we do not consider lek 

counts a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations or the species. 

Scientific Research and Related 

Conservation Efforts 

Overall, it is expected that scientific 

research and related conservation efforts 

by the States, such as translocation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, have a net 

conservation benefit for the species, 

because they contribute to improved 

understanding of the species’ 

conservation needs and may have 

helped to augment some of the satellite 

populations, likely contributing to their 

continued persistence. However, some 

unintended negative effects are known 

to occur in the process. Gunnison sagegrouse have been the subject of multiple 

scientific studies, some of which 

included capture and handling. Most 

field research has been conducted in the 

Gunnison Basin population, San Miguel 

Basin population, and Monticello 

portion of the Monticello-Dove Creek 

population. Between zero and seven 

percent mortality of handled adults or 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

juveniles and chicks has occurred 

during recent Gunnison sage-grouse 

studies where trapping and radiotagging was done (Apa 2004, p. 19; 

Childers 2009, p. 14; Lupis 2005, p. 26; 

San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Working Group (SMBGSWG) 2009, p. 

A–10). For these studies combined, of 

688 birds captured, 11 (1.6 percent) died 

(Table 11). Additionally, one radiotagged hen was flushed off a nest during 

subsequent monitoring and did not 

return after the second day, resulting in 

the loss of 10 eggs (Ward 2007, p. 52). 

The CPW does not feel that these losses 

or disturbance are having significant 

impacts on the sage-grouse (CDOW 

2009b, p. 29), and we agree with this 

assessment. 

TABLE 11—MORTALITY OF GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE FROM RECENT STUDIES

Study focus 

Total birds 

handled/ 

captured/ 

studied 

Mortality 

Source Number of 

individuals 

% of total 

birds 

Habitat use, movement, survival of Gunnison sage-grouse in southwest Colorado.138 3 2.2 Apa 2004, p. 19. 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat use ...................................................... a 336 7 2.1 Childers 2009, p. 14. 

Summer ecology of Gunnison sage-grouse ......................................... 14 1 7.1 Lupis 2005, p. 26. 

Summary of CPW research projects in the Gunnison Basin and San 

Miguel populations from 2004 to 2009.

200 0 0.0 SMBGSWG 2009, p. 

A–10. 

Total ............................................................................................... 688 11 1.6 n/a. 

aThis figure includes 218 adults and 118 chicks captured; of these, 5 adults (2.3%) and 2 chicks (1.7%) died. 

Translocation of birds from the 

Gunnison Basin population has been 

used to augment some of the satellite 

populations and may contribute to their 

persistence. However, related to 

translocated birds, there are potential 

genetic and population viability 

concerns for the satellite (receiving) 

populations and the Gunnison Basin 

(source) population (see Small 

Population Size and Structure in Factor 

E). Trapping and translocation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse may also increase 

mortality rates, either due directly to 

capturing and handling, or indirectly 

(later in time) as a result of translocation 

to areas outside the individuals’ natal 

(home) range. 

From the spring of 2000 to the spring 

2013, CPW translocated a total of 300 

radio-collared Gunnison sage-grouse 

from the Gunnison Basin population to 

the following satellite populations: 

Poncha Pass (41 birds), San Miguel 

Basin (Dry Creek Basin) (51 birds), 

Pin ̃ on Mesa (93 birds), Dove Creek (42 

birds), and Crawford (73 birds). During 

this time, CPW reported only four bird 

deaths associated with capture 

myopathy (muscle damage due to 

extreme exertion or stress associated 

with capture and transport), including 

two deaths in 2007 and two in 2009 

(CPW 2014c, entire). Excluding capture 

myopathy cases, data for birds with 

unknown fates (i.e., due to dropped or 

expired radio collars), and some of the 

more recent (2013) translocated birds, 

CPW has tracked the survival of 176 

Gunnison sage-grouse translocated to 

date. Survival of all translocated birds to 

12 months following translocation was 

higher in the spring (53.8 percent) than 

fall (39.6 percent); higher for yearlings 

(55.4 percent) and juveniles (61.3 

percent) than adults (40.0 percent); and 

comparable for males (50.0 percent) and 

females (48.8 percent). By population, 

survival to 12 months was highest in 

Dove Creek (60 percent) and Crawford 

(59.6 percent), followed by Pin ̃ on Mesa 

(40 percent), Dry Creek Basin (35.3 

percent), and Poncha Pass (20.0 

percent). Overall survival of 

translocated birds to 12 months was 

approximately 48 percent (CPW 2013d, 

entire; Wait 2013, pers. comm.; CPW 

2014c, entire). Therefore, about 50 

percent of these translocated birds died 

within the first 12 months following 

translocation, greater than the average 

annual mortality rate of nontranslocated sage-grouse (approximately 

20 percent) (CDOW 2009b, p. 9). 

However, some birds with an unknown 

fate (e.g., a dropped radio collar with no 

sign of death) were assumed dead and, 

therefore, the data may overestimate 

actual mortality rates (Wait 2013, pers. 

comm.). 

In the fall of 2013, an additional 17 

Gunnison sage-grouse were translocated 

to the Poncha Pass population from the 

Gunnison Basin. As of January 2014, 10 

of these birds were known to be 

surviving (Nehring 2014, pers. comm.). 

In spring of 2014, 10 more birds were 

translocated to the Poncha Pass 

population from the Gunnison Basin 

(CPW 2014e, p. 7). In the fall of 2013 

and spring of 2014, CPW translocated 23 

birds from the Gunnison Basin to the 

Miramonte subpopulation of the San 

Miguel population (CPW 2014e, p. 7). 

Survival data for these birds were not 

available upon the drafting of this final 

rule. 

Greater sage-grouse translocations 

have not fared any better than those of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Over 7,200 

greater sage-grouse were translocated 

between 1933 and 1990, but only five 

percent of the translocation efforts were 

considered to be successful in 

producing sustained, resident 

populations at the translocation sites 

(Reese and Connelly 1997, pp. 235–238, 

240). More recent translocations from 

2003 to 2005 into Strawberry Valley, 

Utah, resulted in a 40 percent annual 

mortality rate (Baxter et al. 2008, p. 

182). We believe the lack of success of 

translocations found in greater sagegrouse is applicable to Gunnison sagegrouse because the two species exhibit 

similar behavior and life-history traits, 

and translocations are also managed 

similarly. 

Because the survival rate for 

translocated sage-grouse has not been as 

high as desired, the CPW started a 

captive-rearing program in 2009 to 

investigate techniques for captive 

breeding and rearing of chicks, and 

methods to release chicks into wild, 

surrogate broods, to potentially increase 

brood survival and recruitment (CDOW 

2009b, pp. 9–12). The GSRSC conducted 

a review of captive-rearing attempts for 

both greater sage-grouse and other 

gallinaceous birds and concluded that 

survival will be very low, unless 

innovative strategies are developed and 

tested (GSRSC 2005, pp. 181–183). 

However, greater sage-grouse have been 

reared in captivity, and survival of 

released chicks was similar to that of 

wild chicks (CDOW 2009b, p. 10). 

Consequently, the CPW started a 

captive-breeding project for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. After establishing a captive, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69271 

breeding flock, 78 domestically-reared 

chicks were introduced to wild 

Gunnison sage-grouse broods in 2010 

and 2011 at two treatment ages. While 

survival of successfully-adopted, 

domestically-reared chicks was slightly 

lower than that of wild-reared chicks 

through 14 weeks, across both years 

none of the domestically-reared chicks 

were recruited into the breeding 

population (Wiechman 2014c, pers. 

comm.). Although introduced chick 

survival was relatively low, chick 

survival during captivity increased with 

improved protocols, and valuable 

knowledge on Gunnison sage-grouse 

rearing techniques has been gained 

(CPW 2011b). In another study, 

approximately 42 percent of captivereared chicks introduced to wild 

females and their broods survived to 30 

days of age. Of chicks that did not 

survive, 26.3 percent of chicks were lost 

due to predation, and 25.6 percent were 

lost due to exposure to the elements 

(Thompson 2012, pp. 29, 93). 

As techniques improve, the CPW 

intends to develop a captive-breeding 

manual for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 11). Although adults 

or juveniles have been captured and 

moved out of the Gunnison Basin, as 

well as eggs, the removal of the grouse 

only accounts for a very small 

percentage of the total population of the 

Gunnison Basin sage-grouse population 

(less than 1 percent per year). 

The CPW has a policy regarding 

trapping, handling, and marking 

techniques approved by its Animal Use 

and Care Committee (SMBGSWG 2009, 

p. A–10, Childers 2009, p. 13). 

Evaluation of research projects by the 

Animal Use and Care Committee and 

improvement of trapping, handling, and 

marking techniques over the last several 

years has resulted in fewer mortalities 

and injuries. In fact, in the San Miguel 

Basin, researchers have handled more 

than 200 sage-grouse with no trapping 

mortalities (SMBGSWG 2009, p. A–10). 

The CPW has also drafted a sage-grouse 

trapping and handling protocol, which 

is required training for people handling 

Gunnison sage-grouse, to minimize 

mortality and injury of the birds (CDOW 

2002, pp. 1–4 in SMBWG 2009, pp. A– 

22–A–25). Injury and mortality does 

occasionally occur from trapping, 

handling, marking, and flushing off 

nests. However, research-related 

mortality is typically below two percent 

of handled birds (Table 11), indicating 

there is minimal effect on Gunnison 

sage-grouse at the population level. 

Overall, we find that ongoing and 

future scientific research and related 

conservation efforts provide a net 

conservation benefit for the species. 

Primarily due to handling, capture, and 

translocations, short-term negative 

effects to individuals occur as does 

injury and mortality, but these effects do 

not pose a threat to Gunnison sagegrouse populations or the species. 

Translocation of birds from the 

Gunnison Basin population has been 

used to augment some of the satellite 

populations and may have contributed 

to their persistence, albeit with potential 

genetic and population viability 

concerns for the receiving populations 

(see Genetic Risks), and for the 

Gunnison Basin (source) population (see 

Small Population Size and Structure in 

Factor E). Based on the best available 

information, scientific research and 

associated activities as described above 

have a relatively minor impact and are 

not a threat to the Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Summary of Factor B 

We have no evidence to suggest that 

legal hunting resulted in the 

overutilization of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, Gunnison sage-grouse harvest 

from an inadvertently opened hunting 

season resulted in a significant 

population decrease in the small Poncha 

Pass population. Nevertheless, we do 

not expect hunting to be permitted in 

the near future. Illegal hunting has only 

been documented once in Colorado and 

is not a known threat in Colorado or 

Utah. Lek viewing has not affected the 

Gunnison sage-grouse, and lek viewing 

protocols designed to reduce 

disturbance have generally been 

followed. CPW is currently revising its 

lek viewing protocol to make it more 

stringent and to include considerations 

for photography, research, and 

education-related viewing. Mortality 

from scientific research and capture or 

handling of wild birds is low, generally 

less than 2 percent and is not a threat. 

We know of no overutilization for 

commercial or educational purposes. 

Thus, based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we conclude 

that overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not a threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease 

No research focusing on the types or 

pathology of diseases in Gunnison sagegrouse has been published. However, 

multiple bacterial and parasitic diseases 

have been documented in greater sagegrouse (Patterson 1952, pp. 71–72; 

Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 14, 27). Some 

early studies have suggested that greater 

sage-grouse populations are adversely 

affected by parasitic infections 

(Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 22). 

However, the role of parasites or 

infectious diseases in population 

declines of greater sage-grouse is 

unknown based on the few systematic 

surveys conducted (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10–3). No parasites have been 

documented to cause mortality in 

Gunnison sage-grouse, but the 

protozoan, Eimeria spp., which causes 

coccidiosis, has been reported to cause 

death in greater sage-grouse (Connelly et 

al. 2004, p. 10–4). Infections tend to be 

localized to specific geographic areas, 

and no cases of greater sage-grouse 

mortality resulting from coccidiosis 

have been documented since the early 

1960s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10–4). 

Parasites have been implicated in 

greater sage-grouse mate selection, with 

potentially subsequent effects on the 

genetic diversity of this species (Boyce 

1990, p. 263; Deibert 1995, p. 38). These 

relationships may be important to the 

long-term ecology of greater sage-grouse, 

but they have not been shown to be 

significant to the immediate status of 

populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 

10–6). Although diseases and parasites 

have been suggested to affect isolated 

sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10–3), we have no evidence 

indicating that parasitic diseases are a 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. 

Greater sage-grouse are subject to a 

variety of bacterial, fungal, and viral 

pathogens. The bacterium Salmonella 

sp. has caused a single documented 

mortality in the greater sage-grouse and 

studies have shown that infection rates 

in wild birds are low (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10–7). The bacteria are 

apparently contracted through exposure 

to contaminated water supplies around 

livestock stock tanks (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10–7). Other bacteria found in 

greater sage-grouse include Escherichia 

coli, botulism (Clostridium spp.), avian 

tuberculosis (Mycobacterium avium), 

and avian cholera (Pasteurella 

multocida). These bacteria have never 

been identified as a cause of mortality 

in greater sage-grouse and the risk of 

exposure and hence, population effects, 

is low (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10–7 to 

10–8). In Gunnison sage-grouse, 

domestically-reared chicks have died 

due to bacterial infections by Klebsiella 

spp., E. coli, and Salmonella spp. In one 

case (CDOW 2009b, p. 11), bacterial 

growth was encouraged by a woodbased brooder substrate used to raise 

chicks. However, in a subsequent study 

(CPW 2011b, pp. 14–15) where the 

wood-based substrate was not used, 

similar bacterial infections and chick 

mortality still occurred. This was likely 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

a product of warm and potential moist 

substrates which promoted bacterial 

growth and spread. After switching to a 

gravel-based substrate and 

administering antibiotics, bacteriarelated mortalities decreased. While this 

appears to suggest that Gunnison sagegrouse may be less resistant to bacterial 

infections than greater sage-grouse, most 

of the bacteria found can be present at 

non-lethal levels in wild Gunnison sagegrouse (Wiechman 2014a, pers. comm.). 

However, we have no information that 

shows the risk of exposure in the wild 

is different for Gunnison sage-grouse; 

therefore, these bacteria do not appear 

to be a threat to the species. 

To limit the risk of disease 

transmission from introduced avian 

species, Gunnison County’s Land Use 

Resolution (LUR) Number 07–17 

regulates the importation of nonindigenous, gallinaceous game birds. 

This regulation requires that species 

only be imported from a source certified 

by the State of Colorado to be disease 

free (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 130). 

West Nile virus was introduced into 

the northeastern United States in 1999 

and has subsequently spread across 

North America (Marra et al. 2004, p. 

394). Greater sage-grouse are highly 

susceptible to West Nile virus (Clark et 

al. 2006, p. 19; McLean 2006, p. 54) and 

do not develop a resistance to the 

disease. Death is almost certain once an 

individual is infected with the disease 

(Clark et al. 2006, p. 18). Transmission 

occurs when mosquitoes acquire the 

virus by biting an infected bird, and 

then transfer it by feeding on a new host 

(avian or mammalian). Culex species are 

recognized as the most efficient 

mosquito vectors for West Nile virus 

(Turell et al. 2005, p. 60), and Culex 

tarsalis is the dominant vector of the 

virus in sagebrush habitats (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 711). West Nile virus 

transmission is regulated by multiple 

factors, including temperature, 

precipitation, biology of the mosquito 

vector (Turrell et al. 2005, pp. 59–60), 

and the presence of anthropogenic water 

sources, such as stock ponds and tanks, 

coal bed methane ponds, and irrigated 

agricultural fields that support mosquito 

life cycles (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309; 

Walker and Naugle 2011, pp. 131–132). 

The peak of West Nile virus activity 

typically occurs in the summer from 

July through August, though this varies 

by region (Walker et al. 2004). 

In Gunnison sage-grouse range and 

other parts of the west, water sources 

are commonly developed to support 

livestock operations and improve 

animal distribution and forage use. 

Some water developments are designed 

specifically to benefit Gunnison sagegrouse, although this practice was 

recommended prior to our knowledge of 

West Nile virus as a serious risk factor 

for sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle 

2011, p. 29) (see discussion below; also 

see discussion of the potential benefits 

of water development to Gunnison sagegrouse in Domestic Grazing and Wildlife 

Herbivory in Factor A above). The 

precise quantity and distribution of 

water developments in Gunnison sagegrouse range is unknown. However, we 

know that at least 87 percent of 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

on Federal lands is currently grazed by 

domestic livestock (USFWS 2010c, 

entire), suggesting that water 

developments are common and 

widespread across the species range. A 

similar proportion of area on private 

lands is likely grazed by domestic 

livestock as well. It is expected that 

some of these water sources are 

contributing to the persistence of 

mosquito populations and, therefore, to 

the potential spread of West Nile virus 

across the range of Gunnison sagegrouse. Management or modification of 

water developments in sage-grouse 

habitats is one way to control mosquito 

vector populations and, therefore, 

sources of West Nile virus (Walker and 

Naugle 2011, p. 29, and references 

therein). 

The virus persists largely within a 

mosquito-bird-mosquito infection cycle 

(McLean 2006, p. 45). However, direct 

bird-to-bird transmission of the virus 

has been documented in several species 

(McLean 2006, pp. 54, 59), including the 

greater sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle 

2011, p. 132; Cornish 2009, pers. 

comm.). The frequency of direct 

transmission has not been determined 

(McLean 2006, p. 54). Cold ambient 

temperatures preclude mosquito activity 

and virus amplification, so transmission 

to and in sage-grouse is limited to the 

summer (mid-May to mid-September) 

(Naugle et al. 2005, p. 620; Zou et al. 

2007, p. 4), with a peak in July and 

August (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 

131). Reduced and delayed West Nile 

virus transmission in sage-grouse has 

occurred in years with lower summer 

temperatures (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 621; 

Walker et al. 2007b, p. 694). In nonsagebrush ecosystems, high 

temperatures associated with drought 

conditions increase West Nile virus 

transmission by allowing for more rapid 

larval mosquito development and 

shorter virus incubation periods 

(Shaman et al. 2005, p. 134; Walker and 

Naugle 2011, p. 131). 

Greater sage-grouse congregate in 

mesic (moist) habitats in the mid-late 

summer (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971), 

thereby increasing their risk of exposure 

to mosquitoes. Likewise, Gunnison sagegrouse use more mesic habitats in the 

summer and early fall (GSRSC 2005, p. 

30, and references therein), increasing 

their exposure to mosquitoes. If West 

Nile virus outbreaks coincide with 

drought conditions that aggregate birds 

in habitat near water sources, the risk of 

exposure to West Nile virus will be 

elevated (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 

131). Greater sage-grouse inhabiting 

higher elevation sites in summer 

(similar to areas of the Gunnison Basin) 

are likely less vulnerable to contracting 

West Nile virus than birds at lower 

elevation (similar to Dry Creek Basin of 

the San Miguel population) as ambient 

temperatures are typically cooler at 

higher elevations (Walker and Naugle 

2011, p. 131). 

West Nile virus has caused 

population declines in wild bird 

populations on the local and regional 

scale (Walker and Naugle 2011, pp. 

128–129) and has reduced the survival 

rates of greater sage-grouse (Naugle et al. 

2004, p. 710; Naugle et al. 2005, p. 616). 

Experimental results, combined with 

field data, suggest that a widespread 

West Nile virus infection has negatively 

affected greater sage-grouse (Naugle et 

al. 2004, p. 711; Naugle et al. 2005, p. 

616). As noted above, the selective use 

of mesic habitats by sage-grouse during 

the summer and fall increases their 

exposure to West Nile virus. Greater 

sage-grouse are highly susceptible to 

West Nile virus (Clark et al. 2006, p. 19; 

McLean 2006, p. 54) and do not develop 

a resistance to the disease. Death is 

certain once an individual is infected 

with the disease (Clark et al. 2006, p. 

18). Furthermore, other gallinaceous 

bird species such as ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus), wild turkey 

(Meleagris gallopavo), and chukar 

partridge (Alectoris chukar), have died 

as a result of West Nile virus infection 

(CDC 2013, entire). 

It is reasonable to assume the 

Gunnison sage-grouse is susceptible to 

West Nile virus based on the confirmed 

cases of infection and mortality in 

greater sage-grouse and other 

taxonomically related birds. We are also 

aware of at least 3 Gunnison sage-grouse 

dying of West Nile disease, although 

these birds were growing in captivity in 

Fort Collins, CO where the virus is more 

likely to be present (Wiechman 2014b, 

pers. comm). To date, however, West 

Nile virus has not been documented in 

Gunnison sage-grouse despite the 

presence of West Nile virus across most 

of the species’ range (see discussion 

below). This may be the result of the 

small number of birds marked and 

studied; limited local abundance of the 

principle mosquito vector species, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69273 

Culex; unsuitable conditions in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for the 

virus to become virulent or widespread; 

or any number of other factors. West 

Nile virus activity within the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse is apparently low 

compared to other parts of Colorado, 

Utah, and the western United States. 

However, West Nile virus surveillance 

may not occur every year or in every 

county (USGS 2013, entire), meaning 

that incidents likely go undetected. 

Furthermore, rural areas with smaller 

human populations, such as the 

majority of lands within Gunnison sagegrouse range, may have decreased 

detection and reporting rates of avian 

mortalities, thus potentially biasing the 

modeled distribution of West Nile virus 

(Ward et al. 2006, p. 102). 

To date, across Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied range, only San Miguel and 

Dolores, Counties in Colorado have no 

confirmed avian mortalities associated 

with West Nile virus, nor has the virus 

been reported in human or mosquito 

infection data in those counties. 

However, adjacent counties have 

confirmed West Nile virus presence, so 

the virus is potentially present in San 

Miguel and Dolores Counties as well. A 

total of 84 dead wild birds (species 

other than Gunnison sage-grouse) 

infected by West Nile virus have been 

reported from nine counties within the 

current range of Gunnison sage-grouse 

since 2002, when reporting began in 

Colorado and Utah. These include 

Chaffee, Delta, Gunnison, Mesa, 

Montrose, Ouray, and Saguache 

Counties in Colorado; and Grand and 

San Juan Counties in Utah. Seventy and 

14 of these bird deaths were reported in 

Colorado and Utah, respectively. Fiftytwo (62 percent) of reported cases were 

in Mesa County where the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population is found. Also, the majority 

of reported cases were in Colorado 

counties (USGS 2013, entire; USFWS 

2013a, entire). However, as noted above, 

areas with higher human population 

densities, such as Mesa County, 

Colorado, can result in increased 

detection and reporting rates, thus 

potentially biasing the modeled 

distribution of West Nile virus (Ward et 

al. 2006, p. 102). In Utah, 13 (93 

percent) avian mortality reports were in 

Grand County, and 1 (7 percent) was in 

San Juan County. Sixty-four (76 percent) 

of the 84 total reported bird mortalities 

in Colorado and Utah occurred in 2003 

and 2004, when summer temperatures 

were above average and, likely 

contributing to the spread of West Nile 

virus (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 1). Since 

that time, reported avian mortalities 

associated with West Nile virus across 

the range of Gunnison sage-grouse have 

declined, and no avian infections or 

mortalities were reported from 2008 

through 2012 (USGS 2013, entire; 

USFWS 2013a, entire). 

A CPW study with the Colorado 

Mosquito Control Company in 2004 

used mosquito trap monitoring to 

evaluate the relative risk of West Nile 

virus on Gunnison sage-grouse in the 

Gunnison Basin. Trapping resulted in a 

total of 6,729 mosquitoes throughout the 

Gunnison Basin from June 1 through 

August 30. Testing of mosquito samples 

conducted by the Colorado Department 

of Public Health observed nine species 

of mosquito, including Culex tarsalis, 

the primary vector of West Nile virus. 

However, the relative abundance of C. 

tarsalis was low, comprising about 15.8 

percent of all samples collected. No 

other Culex species were observed. The 

other species observed are not known to 

be effective transmitters of West Nile 

virus to avian species. All mosquito 

samples tested negative for West Nile 

virus. Sixteen Gunnison sage-grouse 

were radiomarked by CPW during the 

same summer, and no mortalities of 

marked or unmarked birds were 

observed (Phillips 2013, p. 6). One avian 

mortality (a species other than 

Gunnison sage-grouse) due to West Nile 

infection was reported in Gunnison 

County in 2003 (USGS 2013, entire; 

USFWS 2013a, p. 1). 

Walker and Naugle (2011, p. 140) 

predict that West Nile virus outbreaks in 

small, isolated, and genetically 

depauperate populations could reduce 

sage-grouse numbers below a threshold 

from which recovery is unlikely because 

of limited or nonexistent demographic 

and genetic exchange from adjacent 

populations. If so, a West Nile virus 

outbreak in any Gunnison sage-grouse 

population, except perhaps the 

Gunnison Basin population, assuming it 

remains large and resilient, would 

challenge their survival. 

As described above, West Nile virus is 

present throughout most of the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Although the 

disease has not yet been documented in 

any Gunnison sage-grouse, it has caused 

large mortality events and has also 

caused the deaths of other gallinaceous 

birds including greater sage-grouse. 

Similar to observations in greater sagegrouse (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 

131), higher elevation populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, such as the 

Gunnison Basin may be at lower risk of 

West Nile virus infection and outbreaks. 

Also, the frequency of avian mortalities 

(species other than sage-grouse) 

associated with the virus have 

apparently declined since 2004 across 

the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, increased temperature and 

drought conditions are expected to 

increase in the future due to climate 

change across the range (see Climate 

Change in Factor A). Such conditions 

will contribute to the prevalence and 

spread of West Nile virus and, therefore, 

the exposure of Gunnison sage-grouse to 

this disease. Therefore, due to the 

known presence of West Nile virus 

across the majority of Gunnison sagegrouse range, the high risk of mortality 

and population-level impacts based on 

the biology of the species, and the 

immediacy of those potential impacts, 

we conclude that West Nile virus is a 

future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

rangewide. The threat of West Nile virus 

is currently lower in the high elevation 

areas, such as the Gunnison Basin 

population, but is expected to increase 

in the foreseeable future due to 

increased drought and the predicted 

effects of climate change. No other 

diseases or parasitic infections are 

known to be a threat to Gunnison sagegrouse now or in the future. 

Predation 

Predation is the most commonly 

identified cause of direct mortality for 

sage-grouse during all life stages 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et 

al. 2000b, p. 228; Connelly et al. 2011b, 

p. 66). However, sage-grouse have coevolved with a variety of predators, and 

their cryptic plumage and behavioral 

adaptations have allowed them to 

persist despite this mortality factor 

(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; Coates 

2008, p. 69; Coates and Delehanty 2008, 

p. 635; Hagen 2011, p. 96). Until 

recently, little published information 

has been available that indicates 

predation is a limiting factor for the 

greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 10–1), particularly where 

habitat quality has not been 

compromised (Hagen 2011, p. 96). 

Although many predators will consume 

sage-grouse, none specialize on the 

species (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Generalist 

predators have the greatest effect on 

ground-nesting birds because predator 

numbers are independent of the density 

of a single prey source since they can 

switch to other prey sources when a 

given prey source is not abundant 

(Coates 2007, p. 4). We presume that the 

effects of predation observed in greater 

sage-grouse are similar to those 

anticipated in Gunnison sage-grouse 

since overall behavior and life-history 

traits are similar for the two species. 

However, as discussed below, those 

effects may be more substantial and of 

greater concern for smaller, declining 

populations, such as the six satellite 

populations of Gunnison sage-grouse. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

Juvenile sage-grouse also are killed by 

many raptors as well as common ravens 

(Corvus corax), badgers (Taxidea taxus), 

red foxes, coyotes (Canis latrans), and 

weasels (Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, 

entire; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10). Nest 

predators include badgers, weasels, 

coyotes, common ravens, American 

crows (Corvus brachyrhyncos), 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). Several 

other small mammals visited sagegrouse nests in Nevada, but none 

resulted in predation events (Coates et 

al. 2008, p. 425). 

The most common predators of 

Gunnison sage-grouse eggs are weasels, 

coyotes, and corvids (Young 1994, p. 

37). Most raptor predation of sagegrouse is on juveniles and older age 

classes (GSRSC 2005, p. 135). Golden 

eagles were found to be the dominant 

raptor species recorded perching on 

power poles in Utah in Gunnison sagegrouse habitat (Prather and Messmer 

2009, p. 12), indicating a possible 

source of predation. In a study 

conducted from 2000 to 2009 in the 

western portion of the Gunnison Basin, 

22 and 40 percent of 111 adult 

Gunnison sage-grouse mortalities were 

the result of avian and mammalian 

predation, respectively (Childers 2009, 

p. 7). Twenty-five and 35 percent of 40 

chick mortalities were caused by avian 

and mammalian predation, respectively 

(Childers 2009, p. 7). A causative agent 

of mortality was not determined in the 

remaining mortalities (approximately 

one-third of all known mortalities) in 

the western portion of the Gunnison 

Basin from 2000 to 2009 (Childers 2009, 

p. 7). 

Adult male Gunnison and greater 

sage-grouse are very susceptible to 

predation while on the lek (Schroeder et 

al. 1999, p. 10; Schroeder and Baydack 

2001, p. 25; Hagen 2011, p. 5), 

presumably because they are 

conspicuous while performing their 

mating displays. Because leks are 

attended daily by numerous grouse, 

predators also may be attracted to these 

areas during the breeding season (Braun 

1995, p. 2). In a study of greater sagegrouse mortality causes in Idaho, it was 

found that, among males, 83 percent of 

the mortality was due to predation and 

42 percent of those mortalities occurred 

during the lekking season (March 

through June) (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 

228). In the same study, 52 percent of 

the mortality of adult females was due 

to predation and 52 percent of those 

mortalities occurred between March and 

August, which includes the nesting and 

brood-rearing periods (Connelly et al. 

2000b, p. 228). 

Predation of adult sage-grouse is low 

outside the lekking, nesting, and broodrearing season (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 

230; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711; 

Moynahan et al. 2006, p. 1536; Hagen 

2011, p. 97). Adult female greater sagegrouse are susceptible to predators 

while on the nest but mortality rates are 

low (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Greater sagegrouse selected nest and brood-rearing 

sites with lower avian predator densities 

than nearby random locations (Dinkins 

et al. 2012, p. 605). Hens will abandon 

their nest when disturbed by predators 

(Patterson 1952, p. 110), likely reducing 

this mortality (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Sagegrouse populations are likely more 

sensitive to predation upon females 

given the highly negative response of 

Gunnison sage-grouse population 

dynamics to adult female reproductive 

success and chick mortality (GSRSC, 

2005, p. 173). 

Estimates of predation rates on 

juvenile sage-grouse are limited and 

variable due to the difficulties in 

studying this age class (Aldridge and 

Boyce 2007, p. 509; Hagen 2011, p. 97). 

For greater sage-grouse, chick mortality 

from predation ranged from 10 to 51 

percent in 2002 and 2003 on three study 

sites in Oregon (Gregg et al. 2003, p. 15; 

2003b, p. 17). Mortality due to predation 

during the first few weeks after hatching 

was estimated to be 82 percent (Gregg et 

al. 2007, p. 648). Survival of juveniles 

to their first breeding season was 

estimated to be low (10 percent). In 

northwest Colorado, mortality due to 

predation was estimated at 26.3 percent 

in captive reared greater sage-grouse 

chicks introduced to the wild 

(Thompson 2012, pp. 29, 93). Given the 

known sources and rates of adult 

mortality due to predation, it is 

reasonable to assume that predation is a 

contributor to the high juvenile 

mortality rates as well (Crawford et al. 

2004, p. 4). 

Sage-grouse nests are subject to 

varying levels of predation. Predation 

can be total (all eggs destroyed) or 

partial (one or more eggs destroyed). 

However, hens abandon nests in either 

case (Coates, 2007, p. 26). Over a 3-year 

period in Oregon, 106 of 124 nests (84 

percent) were preyed upon (Gregg et al. 

1994, p. 164). Nest predation rates of 41 

percent were reported in one study in 

Wyoming (Patterson 1952, p. 104), 

while another study reported a 

predation rate of 12 percent in Wyoming 

(Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309). 

Moynahan et al. (2007, p. 1777) 

attributed 131 of 258 (54 percent) of nest 

failures to predation in Montana. Renesting efforts may partially compensate 

for the loss of nests due to predation 

(Schroeder 1997, p. 938), but re-nesting 

rates for greater sage-grouse are highly 

variable (Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 63). 

Further, re-nesting rates are low in 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Young, 1994, p. 

44; Childers, 2009, p. 7), indicating that 

re-nesting may not offset losses caused 

by predation. Loss of breeding hens and 

young chicks to predation can influence 

overall greater and Gunnison sagegrouse population numbers, as these 

two groups contribute most significantly 

to population productivity (GSRSC, 

2005, p. 29, Baxter et al. 2008, p. 185; 

Connelly et al., 2011, pp. 64–65). 

Nesting success of greater sage-grouse 

is positively correlated with the 

presence of big sagebrush and grass and 

forb cover (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971). 

Females actively select nest sites with 

these qualities (Schroeder and Baydack 

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

Nest predation appears to be related to 

the amount of herbaceous cover 

surrounding the nest (Gregg et al. 1994, 

p. 164; Braun 1995, pp. 1–2; DeLong et 

al. 1995, p. 90; Braun 1998; Coggins 

1998, p. 30; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 

975; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; 

Coates and Delehanty 2008, p. 636). 

Therefore, loss of nesting cover from 

any source (e.g., grazing, fire) has the 

potential to reduce nest success and 

adult hen survival. Also, habitat 

alteration that reduces cover for young 

chicks can increase their rate of 

predation (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, 

p. 27). Conversely, Coates (2007, p. 149) 

found that badger predation was 

facilitated by nest cover as it attracts 

small mammals, a badger’s primary 

prey. 

In a review of published nesting 

studies, Connelly et al. (2011, pp. 63– 

64) reported that nesting success was 

greater in unaltered habitats versus 

habitats affected by anthropogenic 

activities. Where habitat has been 

altered, it has been shown that the 

associated influx of predators can 

decrease annual recruitment of greater 

sage-grouse (Gregg et al. 1994, p. 164; 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69275 

DeLong et al. 1995, p. 91; Coates 2007, 

p. 2;), and the same cause-effect 

relationship has been speculated in 

other cases as well (Schroeder and 

Baydack 2001, p. 28; Braun 1995, pp. 1– 

2; Braun 1998; Hagen 2011, pp. 97–98). 

Agricultural development, landscape 

fragmentation, and human populations 

can increase predation pressure on all 

life stages of greater sage-grouse by 

forcing birds to nest in less suitable or 

marginal habitats, increasing travel time 

through altered habitats where they are 

vulnerable to predation, and increasing 

the diversity and density of predators 

(see further discussion below) (Ritchie 

et al. 1994, p. 125; Schroeder and 

Baydack 2001, p. 25; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7–23; and Summers et al. 2004, 

p. 523; GSRSC 2005, p.135). We believe 

the above information for greater sagegrouse is also applicable to Gunnison 

sage-grouse since overall behavior and 

life-history traits are similar between the 

two species (Young 1994, p. 4). 

In the Strawberry Valley of Utah, a 

high density of red fox contributed to 

historically low survival rates of female 

(30 percent) and male (29.7 percent) 

greater sage-grouse. The authors 

speculated that the high density of red 

foxes were attracted to the area by 

Strawberry Reservoir and associated 

anthropogenic activities (Bambrough et 

al. 2000, p. 1). The red fox population 

has apparently increased within the 

Gunnison Basin (BLM, 2009, p. 37), and 

the species was only recently observed 

in habitat within the Monticello, Utah, 

population area (UDWR 2011, p. 4). In 

addition to wild predators, domestic 

species including dogs (Canis 

domesticus) and cats (Felis domesticus) 

have been introduced by ranches, farms, 

and housing developments into greater 

sage-grouse habitats (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 12–2). 

Raven abundance has increased as 

much as 1,500 percent in some areas of 

western North America since the 1960s 

(Coates 2007, p. 5). Breeding bird survey 

trends from 1966 to 2007 indicate 

increases throughout Colorado and Utah 

(USGS, 2009, pp. 1–2). The presence of 

ravens was negatively associated with 

greater sage-grouse nest and brood 

success in western Wyoming (Bui 2009, 

p. 27). It was suggested that raven 

numbers have increased in the Pin ̃ on 

Mesa population, though data have not 

been collected to verify this (CDOW 

2009b, p. 110). Raven numbers in the 

Monticello population area remain high 

(UDWR 2011, p. 4). 

Local attraction of ravens to nesting 

hens may be facilitated by loss and 

fragmentation of native shrublands, 

which increases the exposure of nests to 

predators (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 

522; Bui 2009, p. 32; Howe et al. 2014, 

p. 41–44). Human-made structures in 

the environment increase the effect of 

raven predation, particularly in low 

canopy cover areas, by providing ravens 

with perches (Braun 1998, pp. 145–146; 

Coates 2007, p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2; 

Howe et al. 2014, p. 41–44) (also see 

discussion under Factor A above). 

Reduction in patch size and diversity of 

sagebrush habitat, as well as the 

construction of fences, powerlines, and 

other infrastructure, also are likely to 

encourage the presence of the common 

raven (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426; Bui 

2009, p. 4; Howe et al. 2014, p. 44). For 

example, raven counts have increased 

by approximately 200 percent along the 

Falcon-Gondor transmission line 

corridor in Nevada (Atamian et al. 2007, 

p. 2). Ravens contributed to lek 

disturbance events in the areas 

surrounding the transmission line 

(Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2), but as a 

cause of decline in surrounding sagegrouse population numbers, this could 

not be separated from other potential 

impacts, such as West Nile virus. 

Holloran (2005, p. 58) attributed 

increased sage-grouse nest predation to 

high corvid abundance, which resulted 

from anthropogenic food and perching 

subsidies in areas of natural gas 

development in western Wyoming. Bui 

(2009, p. 31) also found that ravens used 

road networks associated with oil fields 

in the same Wyoming location for 

foraging activities. Holmes (2009, pp. 2– 

4) also found that common raven 

abundance increased in association with 

oil and gas development in 

southwestern Wyoming. 

Raven abundance was strongly 

associated with sage-grouse nest failure 

in northeastern Nevada, with resultant 

negative effects on sage-grouse 

reproduction (Coates 2007, p. 130). The 

presence of high numbers of predators 

within a sage-grouse nesting area may 

negatively affect sage-grouse 

productivity without causing direct 

mortality. Increased raven abundance 

was associated with a reduction in the 

time spent off the nest by female sagegrouse, thereby potentially 

compromising their ability to secure 

sufficient nutrition to complete the 

incubation period (Coates 2007, pp. 85– 

98). Another model utilized known 

raven nest locations and found a 31 

percent decrease in the odds of nesting 

by ravens for every 1-km increase in 

distance from a transmission line (Howe 

et al. 2014), indicating that the presence 

of transmission lines may increase the 

presence of and risk of predation by 

ravens in sage-grouse habitat. 

As more suitable grouse habitat is 

converted to exurban development, 

agriculture, or other non-sagebrush 

habitat types, grouse nesting and broodrearing become increasingly spatially 

restricted (Bui 2009, p. 32). Future 

human population growth and 

associated development and 

infrastructure will likely further restrict 

nesting habitat within the species’ 

range. Additionally, Gunnison sagegrouse have been shown to avoid 

residential development and 

infrastructure in some areas, resulting in 

functional habitat loss (Aldridge et al. 

2012, p. 402). Of 99 nest sites studied 

in the western portion of the Gunnison 

Basin population, 69 (approximately 70 

percent) occurred within 13 percent of 

the available habitat (Aldridge et al. 

2012, p. 400). Unnaturally high nest 

densities, which result from habitat 

fragmentation or disturbance associated 

with the presence of edges, fencerows, 

or trails, may increase predation rates by 

making foraging easier for predators 

(Holloran 2005, p. C37). Increased nest 

density could negatively influence the 

probability of a successful hatch 

(Holloran and Anderson, 2005, p. 748). 

The influence of the human footprint 

in sagebrush ecosystems may be 

underestimated (Leu and Hanser 2011, 

pp. 270–271) since it is uncertain how 

much more habitat sage-grouse (a large 

landscape-scale species) need for 

persistence in increasingly fragmented 

landscapes (Connelly et al. 2011a, pp. 

80–82). Therefore, the influence of 

ravens and other predators associated 

with human activities may be 

underestimated. In addition, nest 

predation may be higher, more variable, 

and have a greater impact on the small, 

fragmented Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, particularly the six 

smallest populations (GSRSC 2005, p. 

134). 

Except for the few studies presented 

here, data that link Gunnison sagegrouse population numbers and 

predator abundance are limited. Still, in 

at least the six smaller populations, the 

best available information suggests that 

predation may be limiting Gunnison 

sage-grouse survival and persistence. 

The lack of recruitment in the San 

Miguel population may be associated 

with predation (CDOW 2009b, p. 31; 

Davis 2012, p. 162). In this area, six of 

12 observed nests were destroyed by 

predation. None of the chicks from the 

remaining successful nests survived 

beyond two weeks. Those observations 

are in contrast to the Gunnison Basin 

where approximately 20 percent of 

radio-marked chicks survived their first 

year during that period. Further, trends 

in lek count and other data indicate 

there has been no recruitment of young 

into the San Miguel population since 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69276 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

around 2005. The CPW suspects these 

trends are most likely due to predation 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 30–31; Davis 2012, 

pp. 37, 79). The other five satellite 

populations are smaller than the San 

Miguel population; therefore, it is 

reasonable to expect that predation may 

be limiting those populations as well. 

Actions To Address Predation 

Due to low population numbers and 

the potential impact of predation, a 

predator control program initiated by 

CPW occurred between March 2011 and 

June 2012 in the Miramonte 

subpopulation area of the San Miguel 

population to evaluate the effects of 

predator removal on Gunnison sagegrouse juvenile recruitment in the 

subpopulation (CPW 2012b, pp. 8–10). 

Over the two-year period, the United 

States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service removed 155 coyotes, 101 

corvids, two bobcats, eight badgers, two 

raccoons, and three red foxes. Radiomarked hens, nest success, and chick 

survival were monitored during this 

time, and results were compared to 

baseline data collected for the same area 

from 2007 to 2010. Prior to predator 

control, of eight marked chicks, no 

individuals survived to 3 months. From 

2011 through August of 2012, during 

which predator control occurred, of 10 

marked chicks, four (40 percent) chicks 

survived to three months, and two (20 

percent) survived at least one year. The 

study did not compare chick survival 

rates to non-predator removal areas, so 

it is unknown whether the apparent 

increase in chick survival was due to 

predator control or other environmental 

factors (e.g., weather, habitat conditions, 

etc.). 

Predator removal efforts have 

sometimes shown short-term gains that 

may benefit fall populations, but not 

breeding population sizes (Cote and 

Sutherland 1997, p. 402; Hagen 2011, 

pp. 98–99; Leu and Hanser 2011, p. 

270). Predator removal may have greater 

benefits in areas with low habitat 

quality, but predator numbers quickly 

rebound without continual control 

(Hagen 2011, p. 99). Red fox removal in 

Utah appeared to increase adult greater 

sage-grouse survival and productivity, 

but the study did not compare these 

rates against other nonremoval areas, so 

inferences are limited (Hagen 2011, p. 

98). 

Coyote control efforts failed to have 

an effect on greater sage-grouse nesting 

success in southwestern Wyoming 

(Slater 2003, p. 133). However, coyotes 

may not be an important predator of 

sage-grouse. In a coyote prey base 

analysis, sage-grouse and bird egg shells 

made up a very small percentage (0.4– 

2.4 percent) of analyzed scat samples 

(Johnson and Hansen 1979, p. 954). 

Additionally, coyote removal can have 

unintended consequences resulting in 

the release of smaller predators, like the 

red fox, many of which may have more 

negative impacts on sage-grouse 

(Mezquida et al. 2006, p. 752). 

Removal of ravens from an area in 

northeastern Nevada caused only shortterm reductions in raven populations 

(less than 1 year), as apparently 

transient birds from neighboring sites 

repopulated the removal area (Coates 

2007, p. 151). Additionally, badger 

predation appeared to partially 

compensate for decreases due to raven 

removal (Coates 2007, p. 152). In their 

review of literature regarding predation, 

Connelly et al. (2004, p. 10–1) noted 

that only two of nine studies examining 

survival and nest success indicated that 

predation had limited a sage-grouse 

population by decreasing nest success, 

and both studies indicated low nest 

success due to predation was ultimately 

related to poor nesting habitat. It has 

been suggested that removal of 

anthropogenic ‘‘subsidies’’ (e.g., 

landfills, tall structures) may be an 

important step to reducing the presence 

of sage-grouse predators (Bui 2009, pp. 

36–37). Leu and Hanser (2011, p. 270) 

also argue that reducing the effects of 

predation on sage-grouse can only be 

effectively addressed by precluding 

these features. 

In 1999, property was transferred 

from the BLM to Gunnison County for 

the purposes of the Gunnison County 

Landfill. This conveyance required 

implementation of a mitigation plan for 

potential impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse, including establishment of a 

mitigation fund known as the Gunnison 

Sage-grouse Conservation Trust. To 

date, over $250,000 has been allocated 

from the trust fund for Gunnison sagegrouse projects in occupied habitat in 

Gunnison County. Projects include, but 

are not limited to, habitat 

improvements, conservation easements, 

road closures, and outreach and 

education (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 

147–150). Gunnison County has actively 

controlled ravens at the Gunnison 

County Landfill since 2003. Between 

200 and 250 ravens are removed 

annually within the landfill boundaries. 

Further efforts to control ravens in the 

Gunnison Basin are under consideration 

by the county and the Gunnison Basin 

Sage-grouse Strategic Committee 

(Gunnison County 2013a, p. 132). The 

effects of these control efforts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse survival have not 

been studied. 

Gunnison County and CPW have 

jointly funded an ongoing study (Magee 

2013, pers. comm.) of the distribution 

and abundance of ravens and crows 

(corvids), which may help inform 

managers of the potential influence of 

these species in the Gunnison Basin. Of 

twelve survey sites in the Gunnison 

Basin, the site most used by ravens was 

the Gunnison County Landfill. 

Preliminary distribution and abundance 

data indicate that a large number of 

ravens are utilizing the landfill as their 

primary food source (Magee 2013, pers. 

comm.). Additional information from 

surveys during spring and early summer 

of 2014 may provide information on 

raven use of sagebrush habitats during 

the sage-grouse breeding and nesting 

season when Gunnison sage-grouse are 

more vulnerable to predation. 

Evaluating raven predation on Gunnison 

sage-grouse was not an objective of this 

study. However, preliminary data on 

raven abundance, spatial and temporal 

distribution, and movements suggest 

that ravens are not preying on Gunnison 

sage-grouse as primary food source in 

the Gunnison Basin. Planned spring and 

early summer surveys may indicate 

otherwise, but the results of these 

surveys were not available at the time of 

drafting of this final rule. 

Summary of Predation 

Due to the extent of human influence 

and alteration of habitat across its range, 

Gunnison sage-grouse may be 

increasingly subject to levels and 

impacts of predation that would not 

normally occur in the historically 

contiguous, intact sagebrush habitats, or 

in larger, more resilient populations. 

Gunnison sage-grouse are adapted to 

minimize predation through cryptic 

plumage and behavior, however 

predation is strongly influenced by 

anthropogenic factors on the landscape, 

and human presence on the landscape 

will continue to increase. The impacts 

of predation on greater sage-grouse can 

increase where habitat quality has been 

compromised by anthropogenic 

activities (exurban development, road 

development, powerlines, etc.) (e.g., 

Coates 2007, pp. 154, 155; Bui 2009, p. 

16; Hagen 2011, p. 100; Howe et al. 

2014, p. 41–44). Landscape 

fragmentation and habitat decline 

associated with human populations 

have the potential to increase predator 

populations through increasing the ease 

of securing prey and subsidizing food 

sources and nest or den substrate for 

predators. Consequently, otherwise 

suitable habitat may change into a 

habitat sink (habitat in which 

reproduction is insufficient to balance 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69277 

mortality) for grouse populations 

(Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 517). 

Anthropogenic influences on 

sagebrush habitats that increase 

suitability for ravens may also limit 

sage-grouse populations (Bui 2009, p. 

32). Current land-use practices in the 

Intermountain West favor high predator 

(in particular, raven) abundance relative 

to historical numbers (Coates et al. 

2008, p. 426). The interaction between 

changes in habitat and predation may 

have substantial effects to sage-grouse at 

the landscape level (Coates 2007, pp. 3– 

5; Howe et al. 2014, p. 41–44). 

Research and data linking predation 

to Gunnison sage-grouse abundance and 

viability are limited. However, the 

studies presented above suggest that, 

particularly in areas of intensive habitat 

alteration and fragmentation and in 

smaller less resilient populations, sagegrouse productivity and, potentially, 

population viability could be negatively 

affected by predation. Since the 

Gunnison and greater sage-grouse have 

similar behavior and life-history traits, it 

is reasonable to assume that predator 

impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse are 

similar to those documented in greater 

sage-grouse. As more habitats are altered 

or lost due to human development, 

including dispersed development, we 

expect predators to spread and increase 

in numbers into the future, thereby 

increasing the risk of predation. 

Ongoing effects from predation are 

likely greater in the smaller satellite 

populations, and will likely increase if 

these populations continue declining in 

abundance. Therefore, the best available 

information indicates that, as we stated 

in our proposed rule, predation is a 

current and future threat to the species, 

particularly in the satellite populations. 

While predation likely acts as a threat 

in localized areas across the range of the 

species, the stability of the Gunnison 

Basin population over the last 19 years 

indicates that predation is not having a 

significant impact on that population. 

We believe, however, that the effects of 

predation are more pronounced in the 

satellite populations. Given the stability 

of the Gunnison Basin population, we 

do not believe that the magnitude of this 

threat is significant at the rangewide 

level. 

Summary of Factor C 

We have reviewed the available 

information on the effects of disease and 

predation on the long-term persistence 

of the Gunnison sage-grouse. The only 

disease that is known to be a threat to 

the survival of the Gunnison sage-grouse 

is West Nile virus. This virus is 

distributed throughout most of the 

species’ range. However, despite its near 

100 percent lethality, disease 

occurrence is sporadic in other taxa 

across the species’ range and has not yet 

been detected in Gunnison sage-grouse. 

While we have no evidence of West Nile 

virus acting on Gunnison sage-grouse 

individuals or populations, because of 

its presence within the species’ range, 

its lethality to sage-grouse, and the 

continued development of 

anthropogenic water sources in the area 

that support mosquito vector 

populations, the virus is a future threat 

to the species. We anticipate that West 

Nile virus will persist within the range 

of Gunnison sage-grouse indefinitely 

and that the threat it presents will be 

exacerbated by any factor (e.g., drought, 

climate change) that increases ambient 

temperatures and the presence of the 

vector on the landscape. 

The best available information shows 

that existing and future habitat decline, 

and fragmentation in particular, will 

increase the effects of predation on this 

species, particularly in the six smaller 

populations, resulting in a reduction in 

sage-grouse productivity and abundance 

in the future. 

We evaluated the best available 

scientific information regarding disease 

and predation and their effects on the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on the 

information available, we have 

determined that predation and disease 

are threats to the species throughout its 

range at the present time and are likely 

to increase in the future. In particular, 

West Nile virus poses a substantial 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

rangewide in the foreseeable future. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Under this factor, we examine 

whether threats to the Gunnison sagegrouse are adequately addressed by 

existing regulatory mechanisms. 

Existing regulatory mechanisms that can 

provide some protection for Gunnison 

sage-grouse include: (1) Local land use 

laws, regulations and ordinances; (2) 

State laws and regulations; and (3) 

Federal laws and regulations. 

Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, 

may preclude the need for listing if such 

mechanisms adequately address the 

threat to the species such that listing is 

not warranted. Conversely, threats to a 

species may be exacerbated when not 

addressed at all by existing regulatory 

mechanisms, or if the existing 

mechanisms are not adequately 

implemented or enforced. 

Multiple partners, including private 

citizens, nongovernmental 

organizations, Tribes, Counties, States, 

and Federal agencies, are engaged in 

conservation efforts across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Conservation 

efforts by these parties that are 

voluntary or are not enforceable, 

however, including conservation 

strategies and guidance, are typically 

not regulatory mechanisms. Nonregulatory conservation efforts that 

address habitat related issues, such as 

the Rangewide Conservation Plan, the 

Colorado CCAA and the Gunnison Basin 

CCA, are described and evaluated under 

Factor A, and other non-regulatory 

conservation efforts are described and 

assessed under relevant threat sections. 

In this section, pursuant to Factor D, we 

review and evaluate only regulatory 

mechanisms undertaken by local, State, 

and Federal entities designed to reduce 

or remove threats to Gunnison sagegrouse and its habitat. 

Local Laws and Regulations 

Approximately 43 percent of 

Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide 

occupied habitat is privately owned 

(Table 1), and local laws and regulations 

are most applicable in those areas. Local 

laws and regulations vary widely by 

county across Gunnison sage-grouse 

range. Below we first broadly address 

general county regulations that have the 

potential to affect Gunnison sage-grouse 

and its habitat and then move on to 

local laws and regulations that 

specifically address Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Under state law, all county 

governments have general authority to 

regulate land use development in their 

jurisdictions through the 

implementation of comprehensive or 

master plans, zoning, and subdivision 

planning (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30–28–101 

et seq.; Utah 2011, entire), and to protect 

wildlife habitat through enforcement of 

wildlife-related regulations or 

requirements (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24– 

65.1–104; Utah Code § 17–27a–403). 

Local laws and regulations enacted 

pursuant to this authority may benefit 

Gunnison sage-grouse depending on the 

regulations adopted in a particular 

county and the degree to which threats 

to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat 

are considered and addressed in these 

local regulations. 

By statute, the State of Colorado 

grants Colorado counties broad 

authority for planning and regulation of 

land use and development in their 

respective jurisdictions (Colo. Rev. Stat. 

§ 30–28–101 et. seq.). This law provides 

that whenever local land use regulations 

impose higher standards than other 

statutes, the provisions of the 

regulations made under local authority 

(i.e., county planning) shall apply (Colo. 

Rev. Stat. § 30–28–123). Furthermore, 

Colorado law authorizes local 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

governments to plan for and regulate 

land uses in order to protect significant 

wildlife habitat and species (Colo. Rev. 

Stat. § 30–29–104). 

In our proposed rule, we reported that 

Colorado law exempts parcels of land 

that are 35 acres or larger from county 

land use regulations (78 FR 2523). This 

is only partially correct. Under Colorado 

law, a county does not have authority to 

regulate the subdivision of land that 

creates parcels that are each 35 acres or 

larger (‘‘plus-35 acre parcels’’) (Colo. 

Rev. Stat. § 30–28–101(10)(b)). However, 

Colorado counties retain authority to 

regulate the actual use and development 

of plus-35 acre parcels (for example, 

home, road, or infrastructure 

development). All Colorado counties in 

the occupied range of Gunnison sagegrouse have land use regulations that 

apply to development of plus-35 acre 

parcels (Delta County 2013–R–025; 

Dolores County policy on subdivisions 

exemptions; Gunnison County 95–34; 

Mesa County 31; Montrose County 45– 

2012, 02–2013, 24–2013, 14–2006; 

Ouray County 2013–022; Saguache 

County 2013–LU–11; San Juan County 

Utah Statute Summary; San Miguel 

Article 1). Similarly, the State of Utah 

grants County governments, including 

San Juan County, which encompasses 

the Monticello population of Gunnison 

sage-grouse, authority to regulate and 

control property (i.e., zoning) and 

development (Utah 2011, entire). 

County or city ordinances in San Juan 

County, Utah, that address agricultural 

lands, transportation, and zoning for 

various types of land uses have the 

potential to affect sage-grouse habitat, 

behavior, and abundance. Similarly, 

general, non-sage-grouse specific local 

land use codes and permitting 

requirements in the Colorado portion of 

the species’ range can affect 

development in occupied habitat and 

thus have implications for the species 

and its habitat. We do not, however, 

have sufficient information about 

implementation of general local land 

use laws and regulations to determine 

what uses, if any, have been modified 

pursuant to these general authorities to 

avoid or lessen impacts to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Therefore, we are unable to 

conclude that such general county land 

use codes and regulations within 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat 

constitute adequate regulatory 

mechanisms to reduce the threats to the 

species. (Local land use regulations 

specific to Gunnison sage-grouse are 

discussed individually and separately 

below.) 

Many Colorado counties within 

Gunnison sage-grouse range have 

requirements for County review of 

development proposals, which may 

include generic ‘‘1041’’ wildlife habitat 

regulations, requiring review and/or 

coordination with CPW/UDWR for new 

subdivision and development requests 

in sensitive wildlife habitat (Delta 

County 2011–R–054. 2012–R–044, 

2013–R–025; Delta County 2011–R–054; 

Dolores County land use regulations; 

Mesa County 7.6.4; Ouray County 6, 25, 

and site development permit; Saguache 

County Article XX). However, we do not 

have sufficient information to determine 

whether and how these general wildlife 

habitat regulations have been applied to 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, what 

recommendations may have been made 

by CPW/UDWR regarding the avoidance 

of impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse 

under these non-sage-grouse specific 

regulations, and how or if the counties 

incorporated any such 

recommendations in their land use 

authorization. Therefore, we cannot 

conclude that the generic county 

requirements to consult with state 

wildlife agencies for actions that occur 

within sensitive wildlife habitat 

constitute adequate regulatory 

mechanisms to reduce the threats to the 

species. (Again, wildlife habitat 

regulations specific to Gunnison sagegrouse are discussed separately below.) 

Several counties without specific land 

use regulations directed at Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat conservation do 

have regulations that contain 

restrictions that may benefit the species. 

These measures may include control of 

dogs, seasonal road closures, or 

requirements for clustering housing 

units within subdivisions. Specifically, 

San Juan County, Utah, and Gunnison, 

San Miguel, Mesa, and Montrose 

Counties, Colorado include regulations 

to control dogs from roaming freely and 

Dolores, Gunnison, Mesa, San Juan, and 

San Miguel Counties have regulations 

that apply to road closures (CPW 2014g; 

Appendix A). 

Counties within Gunnison sagegrouse range with regulations or policies 

that include conservation measures or 

considerations specifically targeted at 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat 

include Dolores, Gunnison, Montrose, 

Ouray, and San Miguel Counties, 

Colorado (Dolores County 05–13–04; 

Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 33–57; 

Gunnison County 2013b, p. 11; 

Gunnison County 11–106, 07–17 and 

2013–23; Gunnison County 2014–24; 

Montrose County 2013, entire; Montrose 

County 39–2013; Ouray County 2013– 

022; San Miguel County land use code, 

2–16, 5–407, 5–26; San Miguel County 

Wright’s Mesa Zone Districts), as 

described below. We anticipate that 

land use regulations designed 

specifically for Gunnison sage-grouse 

will typically be more effective in 

conserving the species and its habitat 

than the standard regulations described 

above that do not address the species 

specifically. 

Gunnison County Sage-Grouse 

Regulations (Gunnison Basin 

Population) 

The Gunnison Basin population is 

located in Gunnison and Saguache 

County, Colorado. Gunnison County has 

adopted specific regulations to further 

the conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse and its habitat (Gunnison County 

Land Use Resolution (LUR) § 11.106 

including amendments 07–17 and 

2013–23). Approximately 79 percent of 

private lands in occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin population is in 

Gunnison County, and is thereby subject 

to those regulations. The remaining 21 

percent of private lands in the Gunnison 

Basin population is in Saguache County, 

which does not currently have similar 

species-specific regulations in place, 

although Saguache County is working to 

develop species-specific criteria (CPW 

2014g, Attachment 3, Appendix A). 

Gunnison County’s Land Use 

Resolution (LUR) 11.106 was adopted in 

1977 and broadly provides for the 

regulation of land uses in sensitive 

wildlife habitat areas. In 2007, 

Gunnison County Board of County 

Commissioners approved Resolution 

Number 07–17, which amended LUR 

11.106, to create a review process and 

protective standards specific to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. In 2013, 

Gunnison County further amended LUR 

§ 11.106 to incorporate use of the 

Gunnison Basin Sage Grouse Habitat 

Prioritization Tool, a GIS model 

developed by the Gunnison Basin Sagegrouse Strategic Committee in 2012 that 

first stratifies or values Gunnison sagegrouse habitat (largely based on 

distances to leks) and then discounts the 

value of the habitat based on soils, and 

on distance to developed areas 

including structures, roads, and power 

lines. This process stratifies occupied 

habitat in the Gunnison Basin into three 

types (Gunnison County 2013a, 

Appendix G; see detailed description 

under Local Laws and Regulations, 

Gunnison County). Tier 1 habitat 

includes important seasonal habitats 

and is considered the highest value for 

the species; Tier 2 habitat includes the 

remainder of occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin that is closer to 

structures, roads, and power lines, and 

is generally of lower value to the 

species. Occupied habitat that does not 

stratify into Tier 1 or Tier 2 is not 

considered Gunnison sage-grouse 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69279 

habitat under Gunnison County’s sagegrouse regulations. CPW telemetry data 

from 2004 to 2010 for approximately 

500 collared Gunnison sage-grouse in 

the Gunnison Basin showed that, of 

10,140 radio locations in Saguache and 

Gunnison County, approximately 79.63 

percent (8,074) and 15.65 percent 

(1,587) points occurred in Tier 1 habitat 

and Tier 2 habitats, respectively 

(including all occupied habitat in the 

Gunnison Basin regardless of 

ownership) (Gunnison County 2013b, p. 

25; Gunnison County 2013d, p. 1). This 

indicates a preference for modeled Tier 

1 habitats by the Gunnison Basin birds 

and supports the model’s reliability. 

As amended, Gunnison County LUR 

§ 11.106 requires the County to review 

applications for land use change 

permits, building permits, individual 

sewage disposal system permits, 

Gunnison County access permits, and 

Gunnison County Reclamation permits 

(Gunnison County Public Works 

Department 2014a, 2014b; subject to 

some exceptions) specifically for 

potential impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse and occupied habitat. If the 

activity to be permitted is located 

wholly or partially in Gunnison sagegrouse habitat identified pursuant to the 

Habitat Prioritization Tool, then the 

County performs a site-specific analysis 

and works with the applicant to ensure 

that the project meets the County’s sagegrouse specific and other wildlife 

protective standards for such 

development (LUR § 11.106.G–11.106.J). 

In general, these standards direct that 

covered land use activities and projects 

be designed to avoid, minimize, and/or 

mitigate impacts on the species and its 

habitat. According to Gunnison County, 

standard avoidance and minimization 

measures included in permits subject to 

LUR § 11.106 include restrictions on 

pets and animals and on the siting and 

timing of construction, adjustment of 

building envelopes, and other 

recommendations (Gunnison County 

2013a, pp. 24–31). Mitigation 

techniques as defined and used by 

Gunnison County include visual and 

sound buffers, limitation of human 

activities during sensitive time periods, 

and controls on the location of 

development. Gunnison County’s use of 

the term ‘‘mitigation’’ thus differs from 

the Service’s definition of this term, 

which is the full suite of activities to 

avoid, minimize, and compensate for 

adverse impacts to sage-grouse and sagegrouse habitat. 

From July 2006 through September 

2014, Gunnison County reviewed 461 

projects under § 11.106 for impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Gunnison 

County reports that, to date, the majority 

of development projects have been 

located within existing areas of 

development, including outbuildings or 

additions to buildings. According to the 

County seventy-one (15.4 percent) of the 

projects reviewed involved 

development within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a 

lek (CPW 2014g, Attachment 3, p. 27). 

Implementation of the County 

regulations likely reduced impacts from 

these projects, but did not fully 

compensate for disturbance or lost 

habitat. 

Pursuant to Gunnison County 

Resolution No. 95–34, adopted on June 

6, 1995, ‘‘individual parcels of land 

greater than 35 acres in size are subject 

to the same county review and 

regulatory processes as individual 

parcels less than 35 acres in size except, 

as is generally provided in current state 

statute, for the act of subdividing such 

parcels into resultant parcels all of 

which are 35 acres or greater in size’’ 

(Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 34–35). As 

a result, development on parcels that are 

35 acres or larger requires one or more 

of the County permits identified above 

and are subject to review and regulation 

under LUR § 11.106. 

Gunnison County reports that five 

separate developments involving 35- 

acre or greater parcels (‘‘plus-35 acre’’) 

have occurred in the County since 2003. 

This included a total of about 2,700 

acres divided into 75 parcels, with 

portions occurring in occupied habitat 

for Gunnison sage-grouse. Two of the 

five projects were reviewed by 

Gunnison County under LUR § 11.106 

for Gunnison sage-grouse concerns and 

included permit conditions to avoid and 

minimize potential impacts from their 

development. The County reports that 

the other three projects did not occur in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitats. The 

Ohio Creek area, which has experienced 

the greatest concentration of plus-35 

acre development in the county since 

lek counts were standardized in 1996, 

has had increasing numbers of 

Gunnison sage-grouse since that time 

(based on increased high male counts at 

the Ohio Creek lek) (Gunnison County 

2013a, pp. 35–37). 

Recently, Gunnison County has 

started requiring monetary 

compensation for reclamation of 

habitats disturbed in Tier 1 and Tier 2 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Gunnison 

County Public Works Department 

2014a, 2014b; subject to some 

exceptions). This is a recently enacted 

regulation for which we have little more 

information that what is presented here. 

Additional regulatory measures 

implemented by Gunnison County in 

coordination with State and Federal 

agencies include: closing of shed antler 

collection in the Gunnison Basin by the 

Colorado Wildlife Commission due to 

its disturbance of Gunnison sage-grouse 

during the early breeding season, and a 

BLM/USFS/Gunnison County/CPW 

collective effort to implement and 

enforce road closures during the early 

breeding season (March 15 to May 15) 

(see Roads for more details). These 

regulatory efforts have provided a 

benefit to Gunnison sage-grouse during 

the breeding period. 

We commend Gunnison County for 

the regulatory measures (and other 

actions it has taken, as described in the 

Factor A discussion above and 

elsewhere in this final rule), to conserve 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. 

The County regulations have helped to 

reduce some of the negative effects of 

human development and infrastructure 

on the species and its habitat. However, 

Gunnison County’s current Gunnison 

sage-grouse related regulations do not 

prevent human development in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat nor do 

they prevent additional habitat loss and 

fragmentation that occurs as a result. 

Further, they do not address or require 

offsetting or mitigation for the habitat 

loss and fragmentation that cannot be 

avoided and that occurs as a result of 

permitted development in the species’ 

habitat. Gunnison County’s sage-grouse 

regulations have not, therefore, 

sufficiently or adequately reduced this 

threat, which is the primary concern 

related to human development (see 

Factor A, Residential Development). 

San Miguel County Gunnison SageGrouse Regulations (San Miguel 

Population) 

In 2005, San Miguel County amended 

its Land Use Codes to require 

consideration and implementation, to 

the extent possible, of conservation 

measures recommended in the 2005 

RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse when considering 

land use activities and development 

located within its habitat (San Miguel 

County 2005). More specifically, under 

its Land Use Code, the County has 

specific requirements that apply when 

there is a request for a special use 

permit (such as for oil and gas facilities 

or wind turbines) in occupied habitat. 

Special use permits are not, however, 

typically required for residential 

development projects, which limits the 

County’s involvement in review of 

projects adversely affecting Gunnison 

sage-grouse and their habitat. In 

addition, when the County receives an 

application for a special use permit for 

activities in sage-grouse habitat, it only 

solicits recommended conservation 

measures from the CPW and a local 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Gunnison sage-grouse working group, 

and does not require implementation of 

the recommended conservation 

measures. As a result, implementation 

of recommended conservation measures 

is dependent on negotiations between 

the County and the applicant. 

Some positive measures (e.g., locating 

a special use activity outside grouse 

habitat, establishing a 324-ha (800-ac) 

conservation easement; implementing 

speed limits to reduce likelihood of 

bird/vehicle collisions) have been 

implemented as a result of this process. 

Most measures that result from 

discussions with applicants, however, 

result in measures that may minimize, 

but do not prevent, or mitigate for 

impacts (Henderson 2010, pers. comm.). 

In addition, as noted above, residential 

development proposals typically do not 

require a special use permit so are not 

subject to this review and negotiation 

process. San Miguel County also has 

regulations relating to the Wrights Mesa 

Zone Districts that restrict fence 

building, sagebrush removal, 

powerlines, housing, and roads within 

0.6 miles of a lek (San Miguel County 

2010, entire). In addition, San Miguel 

County hired a Gunnison Sage-grouse 

Coordinator for the San Miguel Basin 

population in March 2006 to implement 

the regulatory process. 

The San Miguel County Land Use 

Codes provide some conservation 

benefit to the species by encouraging 

landowners to voluntarily minimize 

impacts of residential development in 

grouse habitat where the County has 

authority to do so (with special use 

permits). The County’s regulations do 

not prevent human disturbance in 

occupied habitat or address or require 

offsetting or mitigation for habitat loss 

and fragmentation resulting from such 

disturbance. As a result, we find that 

San Miguel County’s regulations do not 

adequately address the threat of habitat 

loss, degradation and fragmentation 

which is the primary concern related to 

human development (see Factor A, 

Residential Development). 

Dolores, Ouray, and Montrose County 

Sage-Grouse Regulations (San Miguel 

and Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

Populations) 

Ouray County adopted a resolution 

(Resolution Number 2013–022) on May 

28, 2013, directed at protecting 

Gunnison sage-grouse breeding and 

brood-rearing habitat from land use 

activities including construction and 

motor vehicle use. The resolution 

provides that seasonal restrictions 

(March 15 until May 15) be 

implemented for roads (not belonging to 

adjacent property owners or their 

guests) and appropriate terms and 

conditions be applied during this same 

time period at construction sites within 

0.6 miles of a lek to minimize and avoid 

impacts on breeding and brood-rearing 

habitat (Ouray County 2013, entire). The 

restrictions do not specify what 

avoidance or minimization will occur 

with development permits in these 

areas. 

On November 4, 2013, Montrose 

County adopted special regulations 

(‘‘1041 regulations’’ 39–2013) that are 

intended to avoid and minimize impacts 

from land use activities on Gunnison 

sage-grouse and occupied habitat, 

similar to the approach adopted by 

Gunnison County. Building permits are 

required for construction within 0.6 

miles of an active lek, and land use 

projects or permitting in occupied 

habitat will require conservation actions 

to avoid or minimize impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse (Montrose County 

2013, entire). 

On May 20, 2013 Dolores County 

clarified what planning and regulatory 

means are available for local efforts in 

preservation of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Dolores County Resolution 05–13–04). 

The resolution highlights coordination 

with CPW (and other agencies) to 

review the impacts to wildlife from any 

change of use application submitted to 

the County. It also highlights regular 

coordination with both the BLM and the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

While these three recently enacted 

county regulations likely provide some 

conservation benefits to the species, 

none of them provide the requisite 

certainty that they will be effective in 

ameliorating the threat human 

development poses to the species and 

its habitat. For example, the Ouray 

County regulations do not specify what 

terms or conditions will be required for 

construction in occupied habitat, and 

neither the Montrose nor Dolores 

County regulations specify how 

mitigation will occur where effects 

cannot be avoided. None of these county 

regulations prevent human development 

in occupied habitat and the additional 

habitat loss and fragmentation that 

occurs as a result, or address or require 

offsetting or mitigation of habitat loss 

for the species, which is the primary 

concern related to human development 

(see Factor A, Residential 

Development). As a result, none of these 

local land regulations eliminate or 

adequately reduce the impact of human 

development on Gunnison sage-grouse 

and their habitat. 

Summary of Local Laws and 

Regulations 

We commend the efforts that local 

governments have made to date (those 

regulations not yet completed are not 

included) to enact and strengthen local 

regulatory protections for Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Existing local laws and 

regulations are helping and will 

continue to help to reduce the negative 

effects of human development and 

infrastructure on the species. 

Continuation, enhancement, and 

expansion of these efforts across the 

species’ range will likely be necessary 

for conservation of the species. 

Nevertheless, current local laws and 

regulations do not fully address the full 

scope of threats to the species (Factors 

A through C and E), including habitat 

loss due to residential and human 

development (see Residential 

Development). The permanent loss, and 

associated fragmentation and 

degradation, of sagebrush habitat are 

considered the greatest threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. 

2). Residential development is likely 

contributing to habitat loss and 

degradation throughout the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Future 

development, especially in areas of 

important seasonal habitats, is a concern 

throughout the range, including in the 

Gunnison Basin, where we believe that 

the level of impact from residential 

development will increase in the future 

(Factor A). For the reasons described 

above, existing local regulations and 

laws do not fully address this threat. 

Likewise, existing local regulations and 

laws do not address other substantial 

threats to the species, including small 

population size and structure (Factor E), 

drought (Factor E); or disease (Factor C). 

State Laws and Regulations 

Colorado and Utah State laws and 

regulations may influence Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation by providing 

specific authority for sage-grouse 

conservation over lands that are directly 

owned by the States. As described in 

more detail below, the States also have 

broad authority to regulate and protect 

wildlife on all lands within their 

borders, and State laws provide 

mechanisms for indirect conservation 

through regulation of threats to the 

species (e.g., noxious weeds). In the 

previous section, we described the 

authorities granted by Colorado and 

Utah to local and county governments 

in regulating land use development 

within their respective jurisdictions to 

conserve wildlife, including the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69281 

Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) 

section 33–1–104 gives the CPW Board 

responsibility for the management and 

conservation of wildlife resources 

within State borders. The CPW, which 

operates under the direction of the CPW 

Board, is required by statute to provide 

counties with information on 

‘‘significant wildlife habitat,’’ and 

provide technical assistance in 

establishing guidelines for designating 

and administering such areas, if asked 

(C.R.S. § 24–65.1–302). The CPW Board 

also has authority to regulate possession 

of the Gunnison sage-grouse, set hunting 

seasons, and issue citations for poaching 

(C.R.S § 33–1–106). These authorities, as 

implemented by the CPW Board, 

provide individual Gunnison sagegrouse with protection from direct 

mortality from hunting, as described 

below. 

The Wildlife Resources Code of Utah 

(Utah Code Annotated Title 23) 

provides UDWR with the powers, 

duties, rights, and responsibilities to 

protect, propagate, manage, conserve, 

and distribute wildlife throughout the 

State (Utah Code Ann. § 23–14–1). 

Section 23–13–3 of the Code declares 

that wildlife existing within the State, 

not held by private ownership and 

legally acquired, is property of the State. 

Section 23–14–18 authorizes the Utah 

Wildlife Board to prescribe rules and 

regulations for the taking and/or 

possession of protected wildlife, 

including Gunnison sage-grouse. These 

authorities provide adequate protection 

to individual Gunnison sage-grouse 

from direct mortality from hunting, as 

described below. 

Gunnison sage-grouse are managed by 

CPW and UDWR on all lands within 

each State as resident native game birds. 

In both States this classification allows 

the direct human taking of the bird 

during hunting seasons authorized and 

conducted under State laws and 

regulations. In 2000, CPW closed the 

hunting season for Gunnison sagegrouse in the Gunnison Basin, the only 

area then open to hunting for the 

species. The hunting season for 

Gunnison sage-grouse in Utah has been 

closed since 1989 according to GSRSC 

(2005, p. 82), or as early as the mid1970’s according to SJCWG (2000, p. 

11). The Gunnison sage-grouse is listed 

as a species of special concern in 

Colorado, as a sensitive species in Utah, 

and as a Tier I species under the Utah 

Wildlife Action Plan, providing 

heightened priority for management 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 40; UDWR 2009, p. 9). 

Hunting and other State regulations that 

deal with issues such as harassment 

provide adequate protection for 

individual birds (see discussion under 

Factor B), but do not protect the habitat 

or address other substantial threats such 

as drought, climate change, or disease. 

In 2009, the Colorado Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (COGCC), 

which is the entity responsible for 

permitting oil and gas well development 

in Colorado, adopted new rules 

addressing the impact of oil and gas 

development on wildlife resources 

(COGCC as amended 2014, entire). 

These COGCC rules require that 

permittees and operators on all lands 

within the state of Colorado determine 

whether their proposed development 

location overlaps with ‘‘sensitive 

wildlife habitat,’’ or is within a 

restricted surface occupancy (RSO) area. 

If it does, the COGCC rules require that 

the Commission consult with CPW, the 

operator and the surface owner to allow 

it to determine whether conditions of 

approval are necessary to ‘‘minimize 

adverse impacts’’ from the proposed oil 

and gas operations in the identified 

sensitive wildlife habitat or RSO area 

(COGCC 2014). For purposes of this 

rule, ‘‘minimize adverse impacts’’ 

means, ‘‘wherever reasonably 

practicable, to (i) avoid adverse impacts 

from oil and gas operations on wildlife 

resources, (ii) minimize the extent and 

severity of those impacts that cannot be 

avoided, (iii) mitigate the effects of 

unavoidable remaining impacts, and (iv) 

take into consideration costeffectiveness and technical feasibility 

with regard to actions taken and 

decisions made to minimize adverse 

impacts to wildlife resources, consistent 

with the other provisions of the Act.’’ 

(Id.) Consultation with CPW is not 

required under certain circumstances, 

however, such as when the Director of 

the COGCC issues a variance, a 

previously CPW-approved wildlife 

mitigation plan exists, and others 

(COGCC 2014). 

All oil and gas operations in sensitive 

wildlife habitat or RSO areas authorized 

since implementation of the regulations 

in 2009 are also required to comply with 

specified general operating 

requirements, including (1) educating 

employees and contractors on 

conservation practices, (2) consolidating 

new facilities to minimize disturbance, 

(3) controlling road access and limiting 

traffic, where approved by the surface 

owner and appropriate authorities, and 

(4) monitoring wells remotely when 

possible (COGCC 2014). The COGCC 

Director may waive these requirements, 

however (COGCC 2014). With respect to 

RSO areas, operators are also required to 

avoid these areas in planning and 

conducting new oil and gas operations 

‘‘to the maximum extent technically and 

economically feasible,’’ again subject to 

various exceptions (COGCC 2014). 

The 2009 COGCC rules identified 

certain areas as ‘‘sensitive wildlife 

habitat’’ and RSO areas for Gunnison 

sage-grouse (COGCC 2009). In 

September 2013, COGCC amended its 

rules to, among other things, update and 

expand the definitions and maps of 

sensitive wildlife habitat and RSO areas 

for Gunnison sage-grouse (COGCC 

2013). The COGCC rules as amended 

define sensitive wildlife habitat for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse lek based on 4 

mile buffers around lek sites and RSO 

areas for the species as areas within 0.6 

miles of a lek (COGCC 2014; COGCC 

2013). 

We find that while COGCC’s rules 

provide for greater consideration of 

Gunnison sage-grouse needs, the rules 

only apply to oil and gas development, 

and they do not adequately address the 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. Oil and 

gas operations that were approved 

before the COGCC’s 2009 adoption of 

the wildlife protection rules are not 

subject to Rule 1202’s wildlife 

consultation and conditions of approval 

requirements, for example, even if 

operations have not yet begun (COGCC 

2014). The limitations on new oil and 

gas development operations in RSO 

areas also do not apply to applications 

that were approved before May 1, 2009 

on federal land or April 1, 2009 on all 

other land (COGCC 2014). Unless 

operations change in a manner that 

requires additional COGCC 

authorization, drilling operations that 

are already on the landscape may 

continue to operate without further 

restriction into the future. In addition, 

the COGCC regulations qualify 

implementation of many of its 

conservation measures to ‘‘wherever 

reasonably practicable’’ and like terms, 

which can limit the effectiveness of 

these measures in avoiding or 

minimizing impacts to the species. We 

also are not aware of any situations 

where RSOs have been effectively 

applied or where conservation measures 

have been implemented for potential oil 

and gas development impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse on private lands 

underlain with privately owned 

minerals. 

Colorado and Utah have laws that 

directly address the priorities for use of 

State school section lands, which 

require that management of these 

properties be based on maximizing 

financial returns. We have no 

information on any conservation 

measures that will be implemented 

under statutes or regulations for 

Gunnison sage-grouse on State school 

section lands. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

In 2007, the Colorado State Land 

Board (SLB) purchased the Miramonte 

Meadows property (approximately 809 

ha (2,300 ac) next to the Dan Noble State 

Wildlife Area (SWA)). Roughly 526 ha 

(1,300 ac) of this property is considered 

prime Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

(Garner 2010, pers. comm.). Discussions 

with the SLB have indicated a 

willingness to implement habitat 

improvements (juniper removal) on the 

property. They have also accepted an 

application to designate the tract as a 

‘‘Stewardship Trust’’ parcel. The 

Stewardship Trust program is capped at 

119,383 to 121,406 ha (295,000 to 

300,000 ac), and no more property can 

be added until another tract is removed 

from the program. Because of this cap, 

it is unknown if or when the 

designation of the tract as a Stewardship 

Trust parcel may occur. The scattered 

nature of State school sections 

(generally single sections of land) across 

the landscape and the requirement to 

conduct activities to maximize financial 

returns minimize the likelihood of 

implementation of measures that will 

benefit Gunnison sage-grouse. Thus, no 

regulatory mechanisms are present on 

State trust lands to minimize habitat 

decline and thus help ensure 

conservation of the species. However, 

State school section lands account for 

only 1 percent of occupied habitat in 

Colorado and 1 percent in Utah, so 

impacts from development and relevant 

laws or regulation pertaining to State 

lands may be negligible in terms of 

effects on Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Some States require landowners to 

control noxious weeds, which are a 

potential habitat threat to sage-grouse 

(as discussed in Factor A, Invasive 

Plants). The types of plants considered 

to be noxious weeds vary by State. 

Cheatgrass, which is a particular threat 

to sage-grouse, is listed as a Class C 

species in Colorado (Colorado 

Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 3). 

The Class C designation delegates to 

local governments the choice of whether 

or not to implement activities for the 

control of cheatgrass. Gunnison, 

Saguache, and Hinsdale Counties target 

cheatgrass with herbicide applications 

(GWWC 2009, pp. 2–3). The CPW 

annually sprays for weeds on SWAs 

(CDOW 2009b, p. 106). The State of 

Utah, however, does not consider 

cheatgrass as noxious within the State 

(Utah Department of Agriculture 2010a, 

p. 1) nor in San Juan County, Utah (Utah 

Department of Agriculture 2010b, p. 1). 

The laws dealing with other noxious 

and invasive weeds may provide some 

protection for sage-grouse in local areas 

by requiring some control of the 

invasive plants, although large-scale 

control of the most problematic invasive 

plants is not occurring. Rehabilitation 

and restoration techniques for sagebrush 

habitats are mostly unproven and 

experimental (Pyke 2011, p. 543). 

Neither Colorado nor Utah’s regulatory 

mechanisms have been demonstrated to 

be effective in addressing the overall 

impacts of invasive plants on the 

decline of sagebrush habitat within the 

species’ range. 

Federal Laws and Regulations 

Gunnison sage-grouse are not covered 

or managed under the provisions of the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 

703–712) because they are considered 

resident game species. Federal agencies 

are responsible for managing 54 percent 

of the total Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. The Federal agencies with the 

most sagebrush habitat are BLM, an 

agency of the Department of the Interior, 

and USFS, an agency of the Department 

of Agriculture. The NPS in the 

Department of the Interior also has 

responsibility for lands that contain 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

BLM 

About 42 percent of Gunnison sagegrouse occupied habitat is on BLMadministered land (see Table 1). The 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

seq.) is the primary Federal law 

governing most land uses on BLMadministered lands. Section 102(a)(8) of 

FLPMA specifically recognizes wildlife 

and fish resources as being among the 

uses for which these lands are to be 

managed. Regulations pursuant to 

FLPMA (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and other 

statutory authorities that address 

wildlife habitat protection on BLMadministered land include 43 CFR 

3162.3–1 and 43 CFR 3162.5–1 (oil and 

gas); 43 CFR 4120 et seq. (grazing); and 

43 CFR 4180 et seq. (grazing). 

Gunnison sage-grouse has been 

designated as a BLM Sensitive Species 

since they were first identified and 

described as a species in 2000 (BLM 

2009a, p. 7). The management guidance 

afforded sensitive species under BLM 

Manual 6840—Special Status Species 

Management (BLM 2008, entire) states 

that ‘‘Bureau sensitive species will be 

managed consistent with species and 

habitat management objectives in land 

use and implementation plans to 

promote their conservation and to 

minimize the likelihood and need for 

listing’’ under the Act (BLM 2008, p. 

05V). BLM Manual 6840 further requires 

that Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs) should address sensitive 

species, and that implementation 

‘‘should consider all site-specific 

methods and procedures needed to 

bring species and their habitats to the 

condition under which management 

under the Bureau sensitive species 

policies would no longer be necessary’’ 

(BLM 2008, p. 2A1). As a designated 

sensitive species under BLM Manual 

6840, sage-grouse conservation must be 

addressed in the development and 

implementation of RMPs on BLM lands. 

RMPs are the basis for all actions and 

authorizations involving BLMadministered lands and resources. They 

establish allowable resource uses, 

resource condition goals and objectives 

to be attained, program constraints and 

general management practices needed to 

attain the goals and objectives, general 

implementation sequences, and 

intervals and standards for monitoring 

and evaluating the plan to determine its 

effectiveness and the need for 

amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601 et 

seq.). 

The RMPs also provide a framework 

and programmatic guidance for activity 

plans, which are site-specific plans 

written to implement decisions made in 

an RMP. Examples include Allotment 

Management Plans that address 

livestock grazing, oil and gas field 

development, travel management 

(motorized and mechanized road and 

trail use), and wildlife habitat 

management. Activity plan decisions 

normally require additional planning 

and National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) analysis. If an RMP contains 

specific direction regarding Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat, conservation, or 

management, the specific direction for 

the species is an enforceable regulatory 

mechanism to ensure that the species 

and its habitats are considered during 

permitting and other decision making 

for activities that occur on BLM lands. 

The BLM in Colorado manages 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat under six 

existing RMPs. These include the 

Gunnison Field Office (1993), 

Uncompahgre Field Office (1989), 

Gunnison Gorge National Conservation 

Area (NCA) (2004), Tres Rios Field 

Office (1985), Grand Junction Field 

Office (1987), and San Luis Valley Field 

Office (1991) RMPs. A new RMP for the 

BLM Dominguez-Escalante NCA, 

designated in 2009 and encompassing 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the 

vicinity of the Pin ̃ on Mesa population, 

is also under development. 

In Utah, Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

falls under the Monticello Field Office 

(2008) and Moab Field Office (2008) 

RMPs. All six of the existing Colorado 

RMPs contain broad objectives for 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation, but 

lack specific land use allocation 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69283 

decisions, stipulations, and enforceable 

measures to achieve those objectives. 

Three of these RMPs were under 

revision as of the drafting of this rule, 

including the Tres Rios, Grand Junction, 

and Uncompahgre Field Offices, 

covering all or portions of the San 

Miguel, Pin ̃ on Mesa, Crawford, Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and Dove 

Creek populations. 

All ongoing RMP revisions include in 

their range of alternatives or preferred 

alternative various stipulations and 

measures, such as spatial buffers, 

seasonal limitations, and other sitespecific restrictions and best 

management practices, for land use 

activities in important Gunnison sagegrouse habitat (leks, nesting habitat, 

brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat). 

Many of these recommendations are 

derived or adapted from the RCP 

(GSRSC 2005, entire) or local Gunnison 

sage-grouse working group plans (see 

Multi-County and Rangewide Efforts in 

Factor A above) and should provide 

conservation benefits to the species and 

its habitat, if adopted into Final RMP 

Plan Revisions and Records of Decision 

(BLM 2009a, p.6). 

In May of 2014, BLM Headquarters 

issued guidance and direction to BLM 

Colorado and Utah to undertake a 

landscape-level, targeted RMP 

Amendment for the conservation of 

Gunnison sage-grouse on BLMadministered public lands in Colorado 

and Utah (BLM 2014a). This process is 

expected to be completed within 18–24 

months, and will evaluate the adequacy 

of all current RMPs, including those 

which may be revised during the 

current plan amendment review 

process. It is unknown what 

conservation measures will be included 

in the planned RMP Amendments or in 

the three BLM Colorado RMPs that are 

currently under revision rangewide. 

All existing Colorado BLM RMPs date 

from 1985 to 1993 and, as described 

above, contain broad objectives for 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation, but 

generally lack specific land use 

allocation decisions, stipulations, and 

enforceable measures to ensure that 

those objectives are achieved. This may 

be attributed, in part, to the broader 

view and approach in land use planning 

and resource decisions typical of older 

RMPs. 

More recent (i.e., 2000 and later) 

RMPs or revisions typically contain 

more detailed and resource-specific 

decisions and protections than their 

predecessors. The Gunnison Gorge NCA 

RMP (BLM 2004) contains management 

decisions adequate to conserve 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat in 

the Crawford population. This RMP 

designates an ACEC in habitat occupied 

by Gunnison sage-grouse where 

management and protection of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat 

will be emphasized. Within this area, 

the plan contains specific protections to 

maintain or increase Gunnison sagegrouse numbers and its distribution, 

improve the quality of sage-grouse 

habitat, and to prevent, minimize and 

mitigate fragmentation and loss of 

habitat. The RMP adopts and 

incorporates the Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation plan, Crawford Area, 

Colorado (Crawford Area Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse Working Group 2011), as 

part of the direction and management 

objectives of the ACEC. 

Current BLM RMPs in Utah and 

Colorado do provide limited regulatory 

protection for Gunnison sage-grouse as 

they are implemented through projectlevel planning. These protections 

include conservation measures to be 

implemented during travel management 

(the management of the motorized and 

non-motorized use of public lands), 

energy development, and grazing permit 

renewals. 

The 2008 Final RMP for the BLM 

Monticello Field Office in Utah 

incorporates the recommendations of 

the 2005 RCP, which provides a level of 

benefit for Gunnison sage-grouse. For 

example, this RMP precludes oil and gas 

development, roads, power lines, 

fences, and other aboveground 

structures within 0.6 mile of a Gunnison 

sage-grouse lek. It also prohibits grazing 

in allotments containing Gunnison sagegrouse during the breeding season, It 

does not, however, specifically limit oil 

and gas development and the 

construction of other infrastructure in 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat beyond 

0.6 mile, which includes nesting, brood 

rearing, and wintering habitat. 

In general, other than the Gunnison 

Gorge NCA RMP, the remaining RMPs 

provide only partial protection for 

Gunnison sage-grouse in terms of land 

use allocation decisions specific to the 

species and its habitat and, therefore, 

are considered inadequate to protect the 

species 

In addition to land use planning 

through its RMPs, BLM uses Instruction 

Memoranda (IM) to provide instruction 

to district and field offices regarding 

specific resource issues. Instruction 

Memoranda provide policy guidance or 

directives, but do not contain binding 

legal decisions such as those 

promulgated under an RMP. IMs are 

temporary directives, generally of short 

duration (1 to 2 years), intended to 

address urgent resource concerns by 

providing interim direction to staff until 

a threat passes or until the resource 

issue can be addressed through 

revisions or updates to manuals or 

RMPs. 

BLM has issued a number of IMs 

addressing Gunnison sage-grouse. On 

July 12, 2005 BLM Colorado issued IM 

Number CO–2005–038, stating BLM’s 

intent and commitment to assist with 

and participate in the implementation of 

the 2005 RCP. This guidance has been 

used for BLM-administered lands in the 

State of Colorado to provide 

conservation benefit for Gunnison sagegrouse (BLM 2009a, p. 6). On August 17, 

2010, BLM Colorado issued IM number 

CO–2010–028 on Gunnison sage-grouse 

and greater sage-grouse habitat 

management policy, which provides 

direction regarding implementation of 

National BLM sage-grouse guidance, 

ensures continued coordination with 

CPW and other agency partners 

regarding sage-grouse conservation 

planning, and calls for fluid mineral 

leasing deferrals in core Greater sagegrouse habitats until Field Office plan 

revisions have been completed (BLM 

2010b, entire). 

On July 15, 2013, BLM Colorado 

issued IM Number CO–2013–033 to 

provide policy guidance to Colorado 

Field Offices on Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat management, land uses, and 

resource management planning (BLM 

2013d, p. 1). This IM updated and 

superseded the 2010 IM, Number CO– 

2010–028. The 2013 IM was developed 

in coordination with the Service and 

provided direction regarding 

management and ongoing land use 

planning in Gunnison sage-grouse 

occupied habitat, including the 

application of specific conservation 

measures for the species (BLM 2013d, p. 

2). 

On May 30, 2014, BLM HQ issued a 

new IM, 2014–100, which applies to all 

Gunnison sage-grouse proposed 

occupied critical habitat in both 

Colorado and Utah (BLM 2014b entire). 

In order to protect important habitat 

across the range of the species, BLM 

will continue to apply conservation 

measures and focus any type of 

development in non-habitat areas. All 

disturbances will be focused outside of 

a 4-mile buffer around leks, except 

where there are valid existing rights or 

where benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse 

may be greater than under other 

alternatives (BLM 2014b, p.1). The 

Policy identifies conservation measures 

for activities including Land Use 

Planning, Proper Livestock Grazing, 

Wildland Fire and Fuels Management, 

Processing Fluid Mineral Leases and 

Solid Mineral Leases (BOM 2014b pp. 

2–5). This IM is expected to remain in 

effect until the RMP Amendment 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

process is complete in 2016. While this 

IM is of short duration, we anticipate 

that its implementation will reduce 

threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse on 

BLM lands from the covered activities. 

Fluid Minerals 

The BLM has regulatory authority for 

oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and 

on private lands with a severed Federal 

mineral estate, as provided at 43 CFR 

3100 et seq., and they are authorized to 

require stipulations as a condition of 

issuing a lease. The BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook describes programspecific guidance for fluid minerals 

(which include oil and gas) and the 

handbook specifies that RMP decisions 

will identify restrictions on areas 

subject to leasing, including closures, as 

well as lease stipulations (BLM 2005e, 

Appendix C, pp. 23–24). The handbook 

also specifies that all stipulations must 

have waiver, exception, or modification 

criteria documented in the plan, and 

notes that the least restrictive constraint 

to meet the resource protection objective 

should be used (BLM 2005e, Appendix 

C, pp. 23–24). 

To our knowledge, BLM Field Offices 

are deferring the sale of new drilling 

leases, which was first implemented in 

the 2010 IM, in habitats they have 

identified as ‘‘priority’’ or ‘‘core’’ 

habitats for Gunnison sage-grouse until 

RMP revisions are complete and/or 

adequate protective lease stipulations 

are in place. However, there is currently 

no regulatory mechanism in effect 

which assures that future lease sales in 

occupied habitat on BLM administered 

lands will not occur or that operations 

on federal leases are conducted in a 

manner consistent with protection of 

the Gunnison sage-grouse. 

In addition, oil and gas leases already 

exist in 17 percent of the Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population area, and 49 percent of the 

San Miguel Basin population. For 

existing oil and gas leases on BLM land 

in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat, oil and gas companies may 

conduct drilling operations subject to 

BLM-imposed permit conditions. 

Specifically, the BLM has regulatory 

authority to condition ‘‘Application for 

Permit to Drill’’ authorizations that are 

conducted under a lease that does not 

contain specific Gunnison sage-grouse 

conservation stipulations, consistent 

with lease rights, but utilization of these 

conditions is discretionary and we are 

uncertain at this time how widely such 

authority has or will be applied to avoid 

or minimize impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse. 

We also note that onshore federal oil 

and gas leases include a provision (also 

known as a standard lease term) that 

allows movement of the drilling area or 

facilities by 200m (650ft) to avoid 

sensitive resources (43 CFR 3101.1(c)). 

However, in most cases this small 

amount of movement would have little 

to no conservation benefit to Gunnison 

sage-grouse because sage-grouse 

respond to nonrenewable energy 

development at much further distances 

(Holloran et al. 2007, p. 12; Walker et 

al. 2007, p. 10). Pursuant to its 

permitting authority as described above, 

our experience is that many of the BLM 

field offices work with the operators to 

move a proposed drilling site farther 

from sensitive resources and justify 

such a move through a site-specific 

NEPA process. 

Given the already small and 

fragmented nature of the populations 

where future oil and gas leases are likely 

to occur, additional development within 

occupied habitat would negatively 

impact those populations by 

contributing to further habitat decline. 

Since we have no information on what 

minimization and mitigation measures 

might be applied to future leases at this 

time, we cannot assess the conservation 

benefit of potential BLM regulations to 

those populations. 

Salable and Locatable Minerals 

As discussed under Factor A 

(Locatable and Salable Mineral 

Development), currently active mines 

and mining claims are limited in 

geographic scope and mining is 

expected to have limited impacts on 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. As a 

result, we found current locatable and 

salable mineral development to be a 

threat of low magnitude to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. We have no information 

indicating that any regulatory 

mechanisms currently exist to reduce 

impacts of mines. 

Grazing 

As stated previously, Gunnison sagegrouse are a BLM Sensitive Species and 

therefore receive Special Status Species 

management considerations. The BLM 

regulatory authority for grazing 

management is provided at 43 CFR part 

4100 (Regulations on Grazing 

Administration Exclusive of Alaska). 

Livestock grazing permits and leases 

contain terms and conditions 

determined by BLM to be appropriate to 

achieve management and resource 

condition objectives on the public lands 

and other lands administered by BLM, 

and to ensure that habitats are, or are 

making significant progress toward 

being, restored or maintained for BLM 

special status species (43 CFR 

4180.1(d)). BLM’s State or regional 

standards for grazing administration 

must address habitat for endangered, 

threatened, proposed, candidate, or 

special status species, and habitat 

quality for native plant and animal 

populations and communities (43 CFR 

4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). BLM’s guidelines 

for ensuring that grazing standards are 

met similarly must address restoring, 

maintaining, or enhancing habitats of 

BLM special status species to promote 

their conservation, as well as 

maintaining or promoting the physical 

and biological conditions to sustain 

native populations and communities (43 

CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and (10)); BLM 2009b, 

p. 8). The BLM is required to take 

appropriate action no later than the start 

of the next grazing year upon 

determining that existing grazing 

practices or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to achieve 

the standards and conform with the 

guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). 

The BLM is required to consult with 

their Resource Advisory Councils 

(RACs) to expand the rangeland health 

standards required under 43 CFR part 

4180 so that there are public land health 

standards relevant to all ecosystems, not 

just rangelands, and that these standards 

apply to all BLM programs and actions 

across public lands, not just livestock 

grazing (BLM Land Health Manual 4180 

(BLM 2009b, p. 8)). Both southwest 

Colorado and southeast Utah have RACs 

established by the BLM. 

A detailed analysis of grazing on 

BLM-administered lands and its impacts 

on the Gunnison sage-grouse is included 

above in Factor A. As of 2012, all active 

BLM grazing permits in occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat managed 

by the BLM Gunnison Field Office have 

vegetation structure guidelines specific 

to Gunnison sage-grouse incorporated 

into Allotment Management Plans or 

Records of Decision for permit renewals 

as habitat objectives (BLM 2012a, pp. 3– 

4). These Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

objectives are designed to provide good 

habitat for the species. Similar 

objectives are also incorporated into 

Allotment Management Plans in 

portions of some of the smaller 

population areas (see section, Public 

Lands Grazing in other Population 

Areas under Factor A). However, as 

noted earlier (see Domestic Grazing and 

Wild Ungulate Herbivory under Factor 

A), available information suggests that 

LHA objectives important to Gunnison 

sage-grouse are not being met across 

parts of the species’ range. Reduced 

habitat quality in those areas, as 

reflected in unmet LHA objectives, may 

be negatively impacting Gunnison sagegrouse. However, the relationship 

between LHA determinations and the 

effects of domestic livestock grazing on 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69285 

Gunnison sage-grouse is difficult to 

quantify. 

Specific Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

objectives from the 2005 RCP are 

incorporated into some Federal grazing 

permits and are an effective means of 

ensuring that the needs of Gunnison 

sage-grouse are met on grazed lands. 

Certain grazing permits also contain 

standard terms and conditions, such as 

forage utilization standards, that may 

indirectly help achieve habitat 

objectives for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

However, terms and conditions applied 

within BLM’s existing livestock grazing 

permits and leases are currently 

inadequate in parts of the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. As discussed 

under Factor A (Summary of Domestic 

Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory), 

the best available information suggests 

that Land Health Assessment objectives 

important to Gunnison sage-grouse are 

not being met across localized parts of 

the species’ range and that livestock 

grazing is likely contributing to those 

conditions in some instances. Reduced 

habitat quality in those areas, as 

reflected in LHA data, is likely 

negatively impacting Gunnison sagegrouse in some of the populations. 

While it is anticipated that future terms 

and conditions in BLM grazing permits 

will minimize further grazing impacts to 

habitat on BLM-administered lands, it is 

currently unknown what terms and 

conditions might be incorporated into 

grazing permits and how such terms and 

conditions may improve degraded 

habitats for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

USFS 

The USFS manages 10 percent of the 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

(Table 1). Management of National 

Forest System lands is guided 

principally by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 

1600–1614, August 17, 1974, as 

amended). The NFMA specifies that all 

National Forests must have a Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (16 

U.S.C. 1600) to guide and set standards 

for all natural resource management 

activities on each National Forest or 

National Grassland. The NFMA requires 

USFS to incorporate standards and 

guidelines into LRMPs (16 U.S.C. 1600), 

which include provisions to manage 

plant and animal communities for 

diversity, based on the suitability and 

capability of the specific land area in 

order to meet overall multiple-use 

objectives. 

The Gunnison sage-grouse is a USFS 

sensitive species in both Region 2 

(Colorado) and Region 4 (Utah). USFS 

policy provides direction to USFS 

Forests to analyze potential impacts of 

programs and activities to endangered, 

threatened, proposed, or sensitive 

species in a biological evaluation. The 

National Forests within the range of 

sage-grouse provide important seasonal 

habitats for the species, particularly the 

Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and 

Gunnison (collectively known as 

GMUG) National Forests. The 1991 

Amended Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the GMUG 

National Forests has not incorporated 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation 

measures or habitat objectives. 

Similarly, the 1996 the Forest Plan for 

the Rio Grande National Forest does not 

contain Gunnison sage-grouse specific 

conservation measures. The newer 2013 

Forest Plan for the San Juan National 

Forest does contain measures to protect 

Gunnison sage-grouse, although there is 

very little Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

on this national forest. The Regional 

Forester signed the 2005 RCP, agreeing 

to follow and implement the 

recommendations in the plan. 

Nonetheless, only three of the 34 

grazing allotments in occupied grouse 

habitat on National Forest lands have 

incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives from the RCP, 

indicating that USFS regulations and 

the USFS agreement to implement the 

RCP are currently inadequate to protect 

the species. 

The only Gunnison sage-grouse 

population within USFS lands that is in 

an area of high or even medium 

potential for oil and gas reserves is the 

San Miguel Basin, and USFS lands only 

make up 1.4 percent of that population 

(GSRSC 2005, D–8). Although the 2014 

BLM IM does not specifically apply to 

USFS lands, USFS considers the IM in 

evaluating leasing decisions. The BLM, 

which regulates oil and gas leases on 

USFS lands, has the authority to defer 

leases and would make a leasing 

decision consistent with their 2014 IM 

in coordination with USFS (McDonald 

2014, pers. com). 

While USFS consideration of 

Gunnison sage-grouse as a sensitive 

species and commitment to follow the 

recommendations contained in the 2005 

RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) can provide 

some conservation benefits to the 

species, both of these actions are 

primarily voluntary in nature and thus 

are not treated as regulatory 

mechanisms in our evaluation process. 

Considering the above information, the 

USFS has implemented some regulatory 

mechanisms and policies to provide for 

the long-term conservation of Gunnison 

sage-grouse and is a signatory to the 

CCA for the Gunnison Basin (see Factors 

A and E). However, we find that USFS 

regulations are not fully addressing the 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse 

because the GMUG and Rio Grande 

National Forests, which cover the vast 

majority of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitats on national forest lands, are 

governed by older Forest Plans that do 

not contain detailed conservation 

standards for this species. 

NPS 

The NPS manages 2 percent of 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

(Table 1), which means that there is 

little opportunity for the agency to affect 

range-wide conservation of the species. 

The NPS Organic Act (16 U.S. C. § 1) 

states that NPS will administer areas 

under their jurisdiction ‘‘by such means 

and measures as conform to the 

fundamental purpose of said parks, 

monuments, and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and 

the natural and historical objects and 

the wildlife therein and to provide for 

the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for the enjoyment of 

future generations.’’ Lands in the Black 

Canyon of the Gunnison National Park 

and the Curecanti National Recreation 

Area include portions of occupied 

habitat in the Crawford and Gunnison 

Basin populations and are managed 

under NPS’s General Management Plan 

for these Park units (NPS 1997, entire). 

Under this plan, resource objectives 

related to Gunnison sage-grouse include 

protection of the species and its habitat, 

protection of threatened and endangered 

species, and minimization of the causes 

and impacts of habitat fragmentation 

(NPS 1997, pp. 18–19). In addition, the 

NPS has nearly completed an area 

Resource Stewardship Strategy, a plan 

that identifies more specific 

conservation measures and actions, 

including an emphasis on Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation, for 

implementation of the General 

Management Plan (Stahlnecker 2014, 

pers. comm.). In the meantime, NPS’s 

ability to actively manage for Gunnison 

sage-grouse is not limited by the scope 

of their management plans, as discussed 

below. 

The NPS completed a Fire 

Management Plan in 2006 that covers 

both of the areas mentioned above (NPS 

2006, entire). Both prescribed fire and 

fire use (allowing wildfires to burn) are 

identified as a suitable use in Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat. However, Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat is identified as a 

Category C area, meaning that, while fire 

is a desirable component of the 

ecosystem, ecological constraints must 

be observed. For Gunnison sage-grouse, 

constraints in the plan include 

limitation of acreage burned per year 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

and limitation of percent of project 

polygons burned. Moreover, the NPS is 

currently following the fire-related 

conservation measures in the local 

conservation plans as described in 

Multi-County and Rangewide 

Conservation Efforts above under Factor 

A, and the 2005 RCP fire 

recommendations (Stahlnecker 2010, 

pers. comm.). In most cases, 

implementation of NPS fire 

management policies should result in 

minimal adverse effects since emphasis 

is placed on activities that will 

minimize impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse habitat. Overall, implementation 

of NPS plans should reduce impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse because they 

include conservation measures to 

protect Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 

Recreational activities are generally 

managed more intensively on NPS land 

than on other Federal lands. 

Nevertheless, recreational activities 

within occupied habitat on NPS land 

may have adverse effects on Gunnison 

sage-grouse individuals (see Factor E 

discussion). However, given the limited 

amount of occupied habitat on NPS land 

(2 percent of the Gunnison Basin 

population area), recreation on those 

lands is likely having negligible impacts 

on Gunnison sage-grouse at the 

population or species level. 

Grazing management activities on 

NPS lands are governed by BLM 

regulations, and their implementation 

and the results of these regulations are 

likely similar to those discussed for the 

BLM, because they occur under the 

same management criteria and 

guidance. In 2013, all of the active 

allotments in the Crawford population, 

including NPS allotments, had 

incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat objectives and completed LHAs 

(see Grazing section in Factor A). 

Grazing management plans on NPS 

lands appear to be provide conservation 

measures for the species. Overall, NPS 

regulations reduce threats to Gunnison 

sage-grouse on the 2 percent of occupied 

habitat in the Gunnison Basin 

population under NPS jurisdiction. 

However, they do not significantly 

reduce threats on a rangewide basis. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

On December 15, 2009, the EPA 

published in the Federal Register (74 

FR 66496) a rule titled, ‘‘Endangerment 

and Cause or Contribute Findings for 

Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) 

of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the 

EPA Administrator found that the 

current and projected concentrations of 

the six long-lived and directly emitted 

greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, 

and sulfur hexafluoride—in the 

atmosphere threaten the public health 

and welfare of current and future 

generations; and that the combined 

emissions of these greenhouse gases 

from new motor vehicles and new motor 

vehicle engines contribute to the 

greenhouse gas pollution that threatens 

public health and welfare. In effect, the 

EPA has concluded that the greenhouse 

gases linked to climate change are 

pollutants, whose emissions can now be 

subject to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S. C. 

7401 et se.; see 74 FR 66496, December 

15, 2009). On October 15, 2012, EPA 

and the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) issued a joint Final 

Rulemaking to extend the National 

Program of harmonized greenhouse gas 

and fuel economy standards to model 

year 2017 through 2025 passenger 

vehicles (77 FR 62624). On June 17, 

2013, EPA and NHTSA implemented 

standards for medium- and heavy-duty 

vehicles (model years 2014 through 

2018) (78 FR 36370). These regulations 

are relatively new, and at present, we 

have no basis to conclude that 

implementation of the Clean Air Act in 

the near future (40 years, based on 

global climate projections) will 

substantially reduce the current rate of 

global climate change through 

regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Thus, we conclude that while the Clean 

Air Act may reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, it does not address the 

primary threats to the Gunnison sagegrouse, such as drought, nonnatives, fire 

frequency, and decrease of sagebrush. 

Other Regulatory Mechanisms: 

Conservation Easements 

Conservation easements are voluntary 

legal agreements between a landowner 

and a land trust, nongovernmental 

organization, or government agency that 

permanently limit or restrict land uses 

for identified conservation values and 

purposes and are binding regulatory 

mechanisms once established. With 

very few exceptions, conservation 

easements require that individual 

parcels be owned and conveyed as 

single units in perpetuity, thereby 

ensuring they are not 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). Therefore, 

we generally consider conservation 

easements to be an effective regulatory 

tool to prevent long-term or permanent 

habitat loss. 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 (Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), NPS, and 

BLM). Some conservation easements 

include conservation measures specific 

to Gunnison sage-grouse, while many 

are directed at other species, such as big 

game (GSRSC 2005, pp. 59–103). 

Following is a summary of the 

estimated amount of lands under 

conservation easement for occupied and 

unoccupied Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat in Colorado and Utah, based on 

Lohr and Gray (2013, entire) (Table 12). 

This report also included lands not 

under conservation easement, but which 

are owned by entities that manage the 

property for Gunnison sage-grouse and 

other conservation values (e.g., The 

Nature Conservancy properties), or 

which carry covenants that restrict 

subdivision and development in 

perpetuity (e.g., Eagle Ridge Ranch in 

the Gunnison Basin). Rangewide, 

approximately 35,195 ha (86,968 ac), or 

22.6 percent, of private lands in 

occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

were under conservation easement as of 

2013 (Lohr and Gray 2013, entire). 

Another 51,040 ac, or 11 percent, of 

private lands in mapped unoccupied 

habitat are also under conservation 

easement (Lohr and Gray 2013, entire). 

Combined, conservation easements 

include approximately 138,008 ac, or 16 

percent, of all occupied and unoccupied 

habitat on private land (840,346 ac) 

across the species’ range. 

Of all the Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, the Gunnison Basin 

contains the most acres under 

conservation easement (102,986 ac total 

in occupied and unoccupied habitat). In 

proportion to total occupied habitat, 

conservation easements in the Pin ̃ on 

Mesa and Crawford population areas are 

significant (74 and 41 percent, 

respectively). Approximately 30 percent 

of private land in unoccupied habitat is 

also protected under conservation 

easement in the Gunnison Basin and 

Crawford population areas (Table 12). 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69287 

TABLE 12—CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIED a AND UNOCCUPIED a HABITATS

[Lohr and Gray 2013, entire; Gunnison County 2013b, p. 21] 

Population 

Private land in 

occupied 

habitat (ac) 

Private land in 

occupied habitat 

under CE 

Private land in 

unoccupied 

habitat (ac) 

Private land in 

unoccupied habitat 

under CE 

Acres % of total Acres % of total 

Monticello-Dove Creek ............................. 100,702 6,117 5 200,318 0 0 

Pin ̃on Mesa .............................................. 27,283 20,076 74 64,275 20,246 31 

San Miguel Basin ..................................... 49,492 6,938 14 45,843 1,486 3 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ........ 28,218 3,995 14 20,117 3,774 19 

Crawford ................................................... 8,481 3,470 41 44,552 8,665 20 

Gunnison Basin ........................................ 178,531 46,372 26 56,614 16,348 29 

Poncha Pass ............................................ 4,792 0 0 11,128 521 5 

Rangewide Totals ............................. 397,499 86,968 22 442,847 51,040 12 

aOccupied and unoccupied habitat acres and conservation easements provided in Lohr and Gray (2013) were based on the Service’s proposed critical habitat designation for Gunnison sage-grouse (78 FR 2540, January 11, 2013). 

In the context of potential threats to 

Gunnison sage-grouse, conservation 

easements and the protections they 

afford are most relevant to the threat of 

residential and human development. 

Therefore, in the Residential 

Development section of this rule (Factor 

A), we further analyzed existing 

conservation easements by Gunnison 

sage-grouse population and across the 

species’ range. Therein, Table 6 

summarizes conservation easement 

acres in occupied habitat for each 

Gunnison sage-grouse population, and 

also provides estimates for those 

portions of occupied habitat not under 

conservation easement, for the purposes 

of evaluating the threat of residential 

development. 

Total conservation easements 

recorded to date cover about 18.3 

percent of private lands in rangewide 

occupied habitat for Gunnison sagegrouse. The Service has analyzed the 

conservation and regulatory benefit of 

existing conservation easements 

throughout the range of the species. 

However, conservation easements are 

offered and held by numerous entities 

and happen opportunistically with 

willing sellers across the range of the 

species. 

Summary of Factor D 

Gunnison sage-grouse conservation 

has been addressed in some local, State, 

and Federal, laws, regulations, and land 

management plans. We commend 

Gunnison, San Miguel, Ouray, and 

Montrose Counties for enacting special 

regulations for Gunnison sage-grouse for 

land uses within their jurisdictions. 

Existing local laws and regulations will 

help to reduce some of the negative 

effects of human development and 

infrastructure on Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Continuation and enhancement of these 

efforts across the species’ range will be 

necessary for conservation of the 

species. Past residential and exurban 

development throughout the species 

range is a primary cause of habitat 

decline. Future human development 

will further contribute to habitat loss 

(see Factor A, Residential Development, 

Roads, and Powerlines). As described 

above, existing local laws and 

regulations do not fully address this 

threat to the species. Local regulatory 

mechanisms also do not fully address 

other substantial threats to the species, 

including small population size (Factor 

E), invasive plants (Factor A), disease 

(Factor B), and climate change (Factor 

A). 

Implementation of Federal agency 

regulations specifically for Gunnison 

sage-grouse conservation provides 

obvious benefits to the species, 

considering that approximately 54 

percent of rangewide occupied habitat 

occurs on Federal lands (Table 1). 

Protections afforded to Gunnison sagegrouse vary by agency and field office or 

unit, but many of these protections are 

discretionary or undertaken on a 

voluntary basis rather than required by 

a regulatory mechanism. BLM’s land use 

management plans are regulatory 

mechanisms, but for the most part do 

not currently include requirements 

directed at sage-grouse conservation. 

This will likely change in the future, as 

a result of the ongoing revision process 

for some RMPs in the species’ range and 

the planned rangewide RMP 

Amendment to address sage-grouse 

threats. Nonetheless, we do not know at 

this time what conservation measures 

will be included in these future RMPs 

or the degree to which they may address 

threats to the species. As a result, we do 

not consider or rely on these future 

planning efforts in this rule. BLM’s 2014 

IM for Gunnison sage-grouse in 

Colorado provides a more consistent 

foundation for the management and 

conservation of the species on BLM land 

in Colorado, but it is a temporary 

measure and is not a binding regulatory 

mechanism. Based on this analysis, and 

our more detailed evaluation of BLM 

and other possible Federal regulatory 

mechanisms, we find that existing 

Federal laws and regulations are not 

fully addressing the full scope of 

threats to the species (Factors A through 

C, and E). 

The CPW, UDWR, and other entities 

have acquired and continue to pursue 

conservation easements in Colorado and 

Utah, respectively, to conserve 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and meet 

the species’ needs. We determined that 

perpetual conservation easements offer 

protection from habitat loss, but that 

conservation values and objectives for 

those properties vary according to the 

terms of the easement. Existing 

conservation easements provide a level 

of protection from future development 

on these lands, but are limited in 

geographic scope such that they do not 

adequately address the threat of habitat 

loss across the species’ range. State 

wildlife regulations provide protection 

for individual Gunnison sage-grouse 

from direct mortality due to hunting but 

do not address habitat loss and other 

threats such as drought, climate change, 

or disease. While the COGCC 

regulations discussed above provide 

some protection and mitigation (as 

defined by COGCC, not the Service) for 

loss of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, 

they do not prevent ongoing habitat loss 

and fragmentation (Factor A). 

We evaluated the best available 

information related to existing 

regulatory mechanisms that address 

threats (Factors A through C, and E) to 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitats. 

Based on our analysis, we find that 

some existing regulatory mechanisms 

are in place to conserve Gunnison sagegrouse, but individually or collectively 

they do not fully address the substantial 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

threats faced by Gunnison sage-grouse 

across their range. Further, while these 

existing regulatory mechanisms may 

help reduce current threats to the 

species, they are insufficient to fully 

reduce or eliminate the increase in 

threats that may act on the species in 

the future. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Other factors potentially affecting the 

Gunnison sage-grouse’s continued 

existence include small population size 

and structure; drought, recreational 

activities, pesticides and herbicides, and 

contaminants. 

Small Population Size and Structure 

Negative effects on population 

viability, such as reduced reproductive 

success or loss of genetic variation and 

diversity, become more evident as 

populations decline or become more 

isolated. In this section, we evaluate the 

issue of small and declining population 

size and structure in Gunnison sagegrouse, and associated genetic risks and 

other effects. We also evaluate existing 

population viability analyses for the 

species. Finally, we synthesize this 

information to assess resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

individual Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations and the species as a whole. 

Relevant Species Information 

In general, while various natural 

factors would not limit sage-grouse 

populations across large geographic 

scales under historical conditions or in 

larger populations, they may contribute 

to local population declines or 

extirpations when populations are 

small, isolated, or when weather 

patterns, habitats, or mortality rates are 

altered. When coupled with mortality 

stressors related to human activity and 

significant fluctuations in annual 

population size, long-term persistence 

of small populations (in general) is 

unlikely (Traill et al. 2010, entire). Sagegrouse have low reproductive rates and 

high annual survival rates (Schroeder et 

al. 1999, pp. 11, 14; Connelly et al. 

2000a, pp. 969–970), resulting in a long 

recovery period from disturbances due 

to slower potential or intrinsic 

population growth rates than is typical 

of other game birds. Also, as a 

consequence of their site fidelity to 

seasonal habitats (Lyon and Anderson 

2003, p. 489), measurable population 

effects may lag behind negative changes 

in habitat (Harju et al. 2010, entire; 

Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). 

As described in the Current 

Distribution and Population Estimates 

and Trends subsection in the 

Background section above, the 

Gunnison Basin is the largest 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(3978 individuals in 2014) and, while 

showing variation over the period of 

record, has been relatively stable since 

1996, based on lek count data (Figure 2). 

However, as discussed later in this 

section, demographic data indicate this 

population may not be quite as stable as 

suggested by lek count data (Davis 2012, 

p. 38). The Gunnison Basin population 

declined during the period 2005–2010, 

as shown by rates of growth estimated 

from demographic parameter estimates 

measured during that time period (Davis 

2012, entire), and from lek count indices 

(CPW 2014e, entire). In addition to this, 

an integrated population model that 

used this short term demographic data 

in conjunction with the longer time 

series of lek count data estimated a rate 

of growth slightly less than 1.0 (lambda 

= 0.984) with confidence intervals that 

overlapped 1.0 (0.879–1.179) for the 

period 1996–2012 (Davis et al. in press). 

This 1996–2012 estimate was not 

statistically significantly different from 

a lambda of 1.0, suggesting the 

population is currently largely stable. 

The Gunnison Basin population 

comprises about 84 percent of the 

rangewide population of Gunnison sagegrouse and includes 63 percent of 

rangewide occupied habitat. 

In contrast, the remaining six 

populations, also referred to in this final 

rule as satellite populations, were 

generally in decline from 1996 until 

2010; however, increases in several 

populations have been observed 

recently (Figure 3) and could be a 

product of numerous factors including 

but not limited to population cycles, 

translocation efforts, and increased 

access to leks. The San Miguel and 

Pin ̃ on Mesa populations are currently 

the largest of the satellite populations, 

with 206 and 182 birds, respectively, in 

2014. The Monticello-Dove Creek and 

Crawford populations currently have 

less than 160 birds. Population 

estimates in 2014 for the two smallest 

populations, Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa and Poncha Pass, were 74 

and 16, respectively (CPW 2014, p.6). 

The 16 radio-telemetered birds known 

at Poncha Pass in summer 2014 are the 

remainder of 27 birds translocated from 

Gunnison Basin in fall of 2013 and 

spring of 2014. 

Based on lek count-based population 

estimates, some satellite populations 

have increased slightly over the last 

several years, or intermittently over 

time. However, the last 19 years (1996 

to 2014) of lek count data as a whole 

indicate that the satellite populations 

are in decline, with the possible 

exception of the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa population which 

appears to be relatively stable to 

increasing, and Pin ̃ on Mesa, which is at 

its highest over the 19 year period 

(Figure 3). However, some of the recent 

increases in population sizes may be 

attributable to translocation and survey 

efforts, rather than an actual increase in 

the population, which may be the case 

with Pin ̃ on Mesa. For example, the 2014 

estimated population for Pin ̃ on Mesa 

was 182 birds (CPW 2014, p. 6), much 

greater than the 2012 estimate of 54 

birds. This increase could be, in part, a 

product of the 93 birds translocated to 

Pin ̃ on Mesa population between the 

spring of 2010 and spring of 2013 (CPW 

2014c, entire) and the discovery of two 

new leks in 2012 (CPW 2012a, pp. 2–3). 

For all six satellite populations, 

population estimates from 1996 to 2014 

are below population targets (based on 

a 10-year average), as set forth by the 

RCP (CPW 2013, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, pp. 

255–302) (see Current Distribution and 

Population Estimates and Trends in the 

Background section for more details). 

The RCP identified population targets as 

attainable population sizes sufficient to 

conserve Gunnison sage-grouse in those 

population areas (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). 

This constitutes the current and best 

available information on population 

targets for Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Combined, the satellite populations 

comprise about 16 percent of the 

rangewide population of Gunnison sagegrouse and include approximately 37 

percent of rangewide occupied habitat. 

Small population size and population 

structure occur in all of the six satellite 

populations, or across approximately 37 

percent of occupied range for the 

species. The small sizes of the satellite 

populations of Gunnison sage-grouse 

make them particularly sensitive to 

stochastic and demographic 

fluctuations, and this vulnerability is 

exacerbated by other threats such as 

drought (GSRSC 2005, p. G–22). Small 

population size, declining population 

trends, and apparent isolation indicate 

long-term population persistence and 

evolutionary potential are compromised 

in the satellite populations (see Genetic 

Risks). 

Genetic Risks 

Small populations face three primary 

genetic risks: Inbreeding depression; 

loss of genetic variation; and 

accumulation of new mutations. In 

general, these negative genetic 

consequences influence a species’ 

fitness, or ability to reproduce and 

survive in the face of environmental 

pressures. Inbreeding can have 

individual and population level 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69289 

consequences by either increasing the 

phenotypic expression of recessive, 

deleterious alleles (the expression of 

harmful genes through the physical 

appearance) or by reducing the overall 

fitness of individuals in the population 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 109 and references 

therein). 

Gunnison sage-grouse have low levels 

of genetic diversity, particularly in 

comparison to greater sage-grouse 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). 

There is no consensus regarding how 

large a population must be in order to 

prevent inbreeding depression. 

However, the San Miguel Basin satellite 

population has an effective population 

size (the number of individuals in a 

population that contribute their genes to 

the next generation) that is below the 

level at which inbreeding depression 

has been observed to occur (Stiver et al. 

2008, p. 479). Since the remaining 

Gunnison sage-grouse satellite 

populations are smaller than the San 

Miguel population, they are likely small 

enough to induce inbreeding 

depression, and thus could be losing 

adaptive potential (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 

479). 

Population structure of Gunnison 

sage-grouse was investigated using 

mitochondrial DNA sequence (mtDNA, 

maternally-inherited DNA located in 

cellular organelles called mitochondria) 

and nuclear microsatellite data from six 

geographic areas (Crawford, Gunnison 

Basin, Curecanti area of the Gunnison 

Basin, Monticello-Dove Creek, Pin ̃ on 

Mesa, and San Miguel Basin) (OylerMcCance et al. 2005, entire). The Cerro 

Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

population was not included in the 

analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. 

The Poncha Pass population also was 

not included as it is composed of 

individuals translocated from Gunnison 

Basin. Levels of genetic diversity were 

highest in the Gunnison Basin, which 

had more alleles and many but not all 

of the alleles present in other 

populations. All other populations had 

much lower levels of diversity. The 

lower diversity levels were thought to 

be the result of small population sizes 

and a high degree of geographic 

isolation (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, 

entire). 

Collectively, the smaller populations 

contained 24 percent of the genetic 

diversity of the species. Individually, 

each of the satellite populations may not 

be crucially important genetically to the 

survival of the species, but collectively 

it is reasonable to assume that 24 

percent of the genetic diversity is 

important to the future rangewide 

survival and adaptability of the species. 

Some of the genetic makeup contained 

within the satellite populations (with 

the potential exception of the Poncha 

Pass population since it consists of birds 

from the Gunnison Basin) may be 

critical to maintaining adaptability in 

the face of issues such as climate change 

or other environmental change. All 

populations sampled were found to be 

genetically discrete units (OylerMcCance et al. 2005, p. 635), so the loss 

of any of them would result in a 

decrease in genetic diversity of the 

species. In addition, having multiple 

populations across a broad geographic 

area (population redundancy) provides 

insurance against catastrophic events, 

such as prolonged drought, and the 

aggregate number of individuals across 

all populations increases the probability 

of demographic persistence and 

preservation of overall genetic diversity 

by providing an important genetic 

reservoir (GSRSC 2005, p. 179). The 

satellite populations are important to 

the long-term 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) provide 

additional genetic diversity not found in 

the Gunnison Basin (GSRSC 2005, p. 

199). 

Habitat loss and decline can lead to 

range contraction and population 

extinction (see Factor A). As a species’ 

range contracts and distances between 

populations increase, opportunities for 

gene flow are reduced. Historically, the 

Monticello-Dove Creek, San Miguel, 

Crawford, and Pin ̃ on Mesa populations 

were larger and were connected through 

more contiguous areas of sagebrush 

habitat. The loss and fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitat between the late 

1950s and the early 1990s led to the 

current isolation of these populations, 

which is reflected in low amounts of 

gene flow and isolation by distance 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). 

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

636) noted that a few individuals in 

their analysis appeared to have the 

genetic characteristics of a population 

other than their own, suggesting they 

were dispersers from a different 

population. Two probable dispersers 

were individuals moving from the San 

Miguel Basin population into 

Monticello-Dove Creek and Crawford. 

The San Miguel population itself 

appeared to have a mixture of 

individuals with differing probabilities 

of belonging to different clusters. This 

information suggests that the San 

Miguel population may act as a conduit 

of gene flow among the satellite 

populations surrounding the larger 

Gunnison Basin population. 

Additionally, another potential 

disperser into Crawford was found from 

the Gunnison Basin (Oyler-McCance et 

al. 2005, p. 636). This result is not 

surprising given their close geographic 

proximity. The genetic makeup of the 

outlying Monticello-Dove Creek and 

Pin ̃ on Mesa populations were 

consistently distant from all other 

populations and from each other. This 

and other tests indicated that geographic 

distances (or separation) are correlated 

with the genetic distance between 

populations of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). 

Movement of local (not translocated) 

birds between the Monticello and Dove 

Creek populations has not been 

documented. In 2011, five translocated 

and radio-collared hens released in 

Dove Creek during the spring were 

recorded in Utah during the breeding 

season (Messmer 2013, p. 4). These 

movements may not be representative of 

typical behavior of local birds, however, 

since translocated birds have been 

known to make erratic or irregular 

movements following translocation. 

While we acknowledge there are 

likely benefits from translocating 

Gunnison sage-grouse from the 

Gunnison Basin to satellite populations 

(see Scientific Research and Related 

Conservation Efforts in Factor B), such 

efforts may have diluted the genetic 

makeup and potentially unique 

characteristics of some of the receiving 

populations (e.g., Pin ̃ on Mesa, which is 

thought to be more unique genetically). 

However, more research is needed to 

determine the success of translocations, 

what the effect is on genetic make-up 

within populations, and whether 

translocations should continue in all 

satellite populations. 

In northwestern Colorado, dispersal of 

juvenile male greater sage-grouse had 

more influence on genetic diversity in 

populations than dispersal of females 

(Thompson 2012, p. 256). Based on 

observed bird dispersal, gene flow and 

connectivity in greater sage-grouse can 

likely be maintained for populations 5 

to 10 km apart (most dispersals were 

less than 10 km) and possibly as far as 

20 km (the maximum dispersal distance 

of birds studied) (Thompson 2012, p. 

285–286). If genetic diversity and 

dispersal mechanisms operate similarly 

in Gunnison sage-grouse populations 

(typical dispersals less than 10 km), it 

is unlikely that gene flow and genetic 

diversity is currently being maintained 

due to the distance between these 

populations. The seven Gunnison sagegrouse populations are generally more 

than 10 km apart from each other (based 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

on mapped occupied habitat), and most 

are 20 km apart or more (Figure 1). 

Lowered hatching success is a welldocumented indicator of inbreeding in 

wild bird populations. In one study, it 

was suggested that the low hatching 

success rates observed in Gunnison 

sage-grouse may have been due to 

inbreeding depression (Stiver et al. 

2008, p. 479, and references therein). 

Other bird species that had undergone 

genetic bottlenecks have had similar 

hatchability rates. Independent of 

genetic pressures or differences in a 

given population, some eggs fail to 

hatch because they are infertile or 

simply do not develop fully. Based on 

a review of sage-grouse research in 

Colorado, an estimated 10 percent of 

eggs produced will likely fail to hatch, 

even in healthy populations (CPW 

2013b, p. 12). However, we expect that 

hatch failure rates would likely increase 

above that level in smaller populations 

where inbreeding is more likely to 

occur. 

Effective Population Size and 

Population Viability Analyses 

Effective population size (Ne) is an 

important parameter in conservation 

biology. It is defined as the number of 

individuals contributing their genes to 

the next generation. In technical terms, 

effective population size is an idealized 

population size of breeding adults that 

would experience the same rate of (1) 

loss of heterozygosity (the amount and 

number of different genes within 

individuals in a population), (2) change 

in the average inbreeding coefficient (a 

calculation of the amount of breeding by 

closely related individuals), or (3) 

change in variance in allele (one 

member of a pair or series of genes 

occupying a specific position in a 

specific chromosome) frequency 

through genetic drift (the fluctuation in 

gene frequency occurring in an isolated 

population) as the actual population 

(Wright 1930, entire). 

The effective size of a population is 

often much less than its actual size or 

number of individuals. As effective 

population size decreases, the rate of 

loss of allelic diversity via genetic drift 

increases. Two consequences of this loss 

of genetic diversity, reduced fitness 

through inbreeding depression and 

reduced response to sustained 

directional selection (‘‘adaptive 

potential’’), are thought to elevate 

extinction risk (Stiver et al., 2008, p. 472 

and references therein). While no 

consensus exists on the population size 

needed to retain a level of genetic 

diversity that maximizes evolutionary 

potential (i.e., the ability to adapt to 

local changes) for a given species, up to 

5,000 greater sage-grouse may be 

necessary to maintain an effective 

population size of 500 birds (Aldridge 

and Brigham, 2003, p. 30). Other recent 

recommendations also suggest 

populations of at least 5,000 individuals 

to deal with evolutionary and 

demographic constraints (Traill et al. 

2009, p. 3, and references therein). 

While the persistence of wild 

populations is usually influenced more 

by ecological rather than by genetic 

effects, once populations are reduced in 

size, genetic factors become increasingly 

important (Lande 1995, p. 318). 

Population viability analysis (PVA) is 

a risk assessment tool used to predict 

the relative probability of extinction for 

a species, population, or various 

population sizes under different 

management scenarios to aid in 

decision-making for conservation and 

management. Fundamentally, 

population viability and persistence 

depends on a population’s growth rate 

(births and deaths) and the recruitment 

of individuals through immigration and 

emigration. PVA does not predict the 

real or absolute risk of extinction for a 

species or population, only their relative 

extinction risk under various scenarios, 

and thus should be interpreted and 

applied with caution. To date, three 

population viability analyses or studies 

have been conducted for Gunnison sagegrouse: (1) A PVA developed as part of 

the RCP in 2005 by Dr. Phil Miller 

through CPW (GSRSC 2005, Appendix 

G); (2) a PVA developed for the Service 

in 2005 by Dr. Edward Garton (Garton 

2005, entire); and (3) a demographic 

study and PVA developed by Dr. Amy 

Davis at Colorado State University 

(Davis 2012, entire). Each of these 

studies and their results are described in 

detail below. 

RCP Population Viability Analysis 

Dr. Phillip Miller prepared a 

population viability analysis (PVA) for 

the Gunnison sage-grouse for CPW as 

part of the RCP (GSRSC 2005, Appendix 

G). The purpose of this PVA was to 

assist the CPW in evaluating the relative 

risk of extinction for each population 

under the conditions at that time (i.e., 

the risk of extinction if nothing 

changed), to estimate relative extinction 

probabilities and loss of genetic 

diversity over time for various 

population sizes, and to determine the 

sensitivity of Gunnison sage-grouse 

population growth rates to various 

demographic parameters (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 169). The PVA was used by the RCP 

as a tool to predict the relative, not 

absolute or precise, probability of 

extinction for the different populations 

under various management scenarios 

based on information available at that 

time. The model did not incorporate 

certain factors including habitat loss 

and fragmentation, density-dependent 

reproduction, effects of disease, or 

inbreeding depression, all of which may 

affect the demographic rates and, 

therefore, status of a given population 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 170). Furthermore, 

while Gunnison sage-grouse 

demographic data were used where 

available, the PVA also applied greater 

sage-grouse demographic data, as 

needed (GSRSC 2005, p. 169). We 

believe it is appropriate to apply greater 

sage-grouse data where Gunnison sagegrouse data are not available or limited. 

However, this may weaken inferences in 

assessing the viability of Gunnison sagegrouse due to the species’ unique 

behavioral and genetic characteristics 

(Young et al. 2000b, entire) and 

potentially different vital rates, such as 

annual survival (Davis 2012, p. 63) and 

nesting success rates (Davis 2012, p. 11). 

In contrast, another more recent PVA 

applied only Gunnison sage-grouse 

demographic data (Davis 2012, entire) 

(see Davis Population Viability 

Analysis), and thus it is likely more 

reliable in terms of assessing the 

viability of the species. 

This 2005 PVA indicated that, in the 

absence of additional habitat loss and 

fragmentation and the factors noted 

above, stable populations in excess of 

500 birds had an extinction risk of less 

than 5 percent within the next 50 years 

following the study (that is, through 

2055) and may be considered ‘‘secure’’ 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 170; GSRSC 2005, p. 

G–21). The PVA found that the 

probability of the Gunnison Basin 

population going extinct within the next 

50 years was less than approximately 1 

percent (GSRSC 2005, p. G–21). The 

Gunnison Basin population was 

approximately 3,000 individuals around 

the time the PVA was developed (2005). 

If the model were re-run, with 

approximately 3,978 birds as of 2014, 

the predicted risk of extinction would 

be even lower due to this population 

increase (Phillips 2013, p. 2). This view 

does not take into account, however, 

other new information that could be 

incorporated into an updated model rerun, such as the Gunnison sage-grouse 

demographic data collected by Davis 

(2012, entire). The model concluded 

that the Gunnison Basin population, 

and therefore the species, is likely to 

survive over the long term (GSRSC 

2005, p. 179), barring catastrophic 

events such as disease or prolonged 

drought (assuming a degree of 

consistency of environmental influences 

on sage-grouse demography) or a 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69291 

significant reduction in carrying 

capacity through habitat loss. 

In contrast, the analysis found that 

small populations (<25 to 50 birds) are 

at high risk of extinction within the next 

50 years (through the year 2055) 

(assuming some degree of consistency of 

environmental influences on sagegrouse demography), even if these 

populations are expected to increase 

over the long-term (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

170 and G–27). A stable population of 

50 birds had an extinction probability of 

59 percent within the next 50 years; a 

stable population of 25 birds had an 

extinction probability of 86 percent 

within the next 50 years. The analysis 

also found that the probability of 

extinction was higher yet for declining 

populations of this size (GSRSC 2005, p. 

G–27). However, the model found that 

augmentation of birds (approximately 

10 birds every five years) would 

considerably reduce the probability of 

extinction (to near zero) for these 

smaller populations (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

176–179). 

Based on the RCP PVA (GSRSC 2005, 

Appendix G), in the absence of 

intervention such as translocating of 

birds, the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa (74 birds) and Dove Creek (24 

birds) populations are currently at high 

risk of extirpation (GSRSC 2005, pp. 

168–179). Likewise, the Poncha Pass 

population has remained below 50 birds 

since 1999, and has generally declined 

over this period (Figure 3), indicating 

this population is also at high risk of 

extirpation, based on this PVA. Zero 

birds were counted at leks in the spring 

of 2013 for the Poncha Pass population. 

However, 17 birds were translocated 

into the population in the fall of 2013, 

with 16 surviving in the spring of 2014 

and 10 more birds were translocated in 

the spring of 2014 (see Scientific 

Research and Related Conservation 

Efforts in Factor B). Considerable 

translocation efforts from 2010 to 2013 

have likely contributed to increased 

population estimates in the Crawford 

and Pin ̃ on Mesa populations (see 

Current Distribution and Population 

Estimates and Trends; and Scientific 

Research and Related Conservation 

Efforts). Without the recent increases in 

bird numbers, Crawford and Pin ̃ on Mesa 

population would also likely be at 

serious risk of population extinction 

(i.e., around 50 birds and a 59 percent 

or greater probability of extinction), 

based on this PVA. 

Garton Population Viability Analysis 

To estimate population viability, 

Garton (2005, entire) analyzed trends in 

abundance for Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations and the species rangewide 

using male lek count data from the 

preceding 50 years from CPW and the 

UDWR. Due to inconsistencies in data 

collection over time, the analysis was 

conducted for two time periods—longterm lek data collected since 1957 for 

CPW, and since 1976 for UDWR, 

through 2005; and short-term lek data 

from 1995–2005 when sampling 

methodologies were standardized and 

became more consistent. Relative 

population size from past years was 

calculated by setting the most recent 

population estimate at the time (in 

2005) to 100 and calculating the 

previous years’ population size relative 

to that, so that it could be viewed as a 

percentage of the 2005 population level. 

Garton’s (2005, pp. 3–4) analysis 

indicated that the rangewide population 

varied between a low of 40 percent of 

the 2005 lek count in 1991 and 1993; to 

a high of 140 percent of the 2005 lek 

count in 1969. He suggested that 

unusual counts, which represented at 

least a 50 percent change in abundance, 

were preceded or followed by more 

typical count indices, and that these 

outlier data probably reflect 

measurement errors rather than actual 

changes population size. For instance, 

lek count data collected for 2005 show 

a considerable increase in the number of 

males attending leks, with an 

approximate 50 percent increase from 

2004 estimates of rangewide abundance. 

This aberration is thought to be the 

result of unusual weather conditions 

during that period and, consequently, 

possible double- or triple-counting of 

males across multiple lek sites at 

various elevations (Garton 2005, pp. 2– 

3, and references therein). Because of 

this, the analyses were conducted both 

with and without 2005 data. Including 

the 2005 data in the long-term analysis 

(since 1957) resulted in a slightly 

increasing population trend; without the 

2005 count data, the analysis showed a 

slightly decreasing population trend, 

which Garton (2005, p. 4) suggested was 

a better descriptor of observed trends in 

population estimates. Statistical 

analyses of the Cerro Summit-CimarronSims Mesa and Dove Creek populations 

could not be completed due to low lek 

counts and inconsistencies in sampling 

over time. Likewise, the small Poncha 

Pass population was not analyzed 

because it had been surveyed for only 6 

years and the population was 

augmented with birds from Gunnison 

Basin during that time. 

The long-term analysis (1957–2005) 

by Garton (2005, entire) found that the 

rangewide population of Gunnison sagegrouse was stable, neither increasing nor 

decreasing, during that time period. 

Annual rates of change were highly 

variable, with some of that variability 

likely attributed to different sampling 

methods rather than actual population 

change. The shorter analysis period 

(1995–2005) yielded the same results, 

although the variability was reduced, 

likely due to more consistent data 

collection methods. Individual 

populations reflected the trends in the 

rangewide analysis, in that some 

populations were slightly increasing 

and some were slightly decreasing. 

As observed in similar analyses 

conducted for the greater sage-grouse 

(Connelly et al. 2004, entire), densitydependent models appeared to more 

accurately describe observed population 

trends in Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Garton’s study suggested an apparent 

inverse density-dependent pattern of 

population change in Gunnison sagegrouse, resulting in a low probability 

(less than 1 percent) that the population 

will decline to low abundances (below 

25 percent of the 2005 population 

index), provided environmental factors 

(e.g., catastrophic drought, disease, 

continuing habitat loss) do not reduce 

equilibrium population size or increase 

the variability in population change 

(Garton 2005, pp. 4–5). 

Of the populations studied, Gunnison 

Basin and Pin ̃ on Mesa showed slightly 

increasing trends in abundance of 

Gunnison sage-grouse; San Miguel 

Basin, Crawford, and Monticello 

showed slightly decreasing trends in 

abundance from 1995 to 2005 (Table 13 

below). The short-term analysis (1995– 

2005) indicated that the San Miguel 

Basin population was declining rapidly, 

as much as a 10 percent decline per 

year, though there was uncertainty in 

this prediction due to possible sampling 

errors. Declines were also evident in the 

Monticello population. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF POPULATION

TRENDS FOR THE GUNNISON SAGEGROUSE FROM 1995 TO 2005 

(GARTON 2005, ENTIRE) 

[Values are the finite rate of change in the 

population, where 1 is no change, numbers 

less than 1 indicate a decline, and numbers 

greater than 1 indicate an increase] 

Population 

Finite rate 

of change 

1995–2005 

Gunnison Basin .................. 1.05 

Pin ̃on Mesa ......................... 1.09 

San Miguel Basin ............... 0.902 

Crawford ............................. 0.999 

Monticello ............................ 0.99 

Rangewide .......................... 1.049 

Six peer reviewers evaluated the 

report by Garton (2005, entire). We 

received comments from five of the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewers, three generally favorable 

towards the report and its conclusions 

and two expressing concerns regarding 

limitations in the data sets, 

assumptions, and/or analyses. For 

example, one would have to assume that 

habitat availability over time would 

remain stable in order to conclude that 

Gunnison sage-grouse numbers are 

unlikely to experience a decline in the 

future. Also, while the conclusions 

showed that the number of males per 

lek remained relatively stable over time, 

the proportion of leks on which males 

were counted appeared to have 

declined, which could be indicative of 

population declines. Peer reviewers also 

recommended that more appropriate 

statistical tests would need to be 

applied to come to any conclusion about 

potential population trends and that 

emphasis should be on an independent 

analysis of each geographically isolated 

population because each population 

exhibits independent population 

dynamics. Population trend analyses 

were conducted on a population basis as 

well as rangewide. There was concern 

expressed that habitat loss over time 

was not accounted for, that population 

declines would go unnoticed, and that 

population trends would appear far too 

optimistic. 

Davis Demographic Study and 

Population Viability Analysis 

The Davis PVA (2012, entire) utilized 

demographic data specific to Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations and 

incorporated other variables such as 

extreme weather, fire, disease, and 

predation known to affect survival and 

reproduction rates in Gunnison sagegrouse. This is in contrast to the RCP 

PVA (GSRSC 2005, Appendix G) which 

combined greater and Gunnison sagegrouse demographic data and did not 

account for environmental variation 

(fire, disease, predation) other than 

simulating a 3-year drought resulting in 

increased mortality; and the Garton PVA 

(Garton 2005, entire) which only 

examined lek count-based population 

estimates and trends to estimate 

viability. To estimate and project 

Gunnison sage-grouse population 

trends, Davis (2012, pp. 1, 18) 

conducted a demographic study of the 

Gunnison Basin and San Miguel 

populations, the two largest 

populations. CPW acknowledged that 

this study represents the most current 

and longest set of demographic data 

collected for Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Phillips 2013, p. 2). Demographic 

parameters (survival and reproduction 

rates) from both populations collected 

from 2005 to 2010 were used to estimate 

population size and viability over the 

next 30 years (Davis 2012, p. 79). These 

demographic data were combined with 

longer-term lek count data from 1996 to 

2011 (lek count protocols were 

standardized in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 

46)) in the Gunnison Basin to model 

that population. The purpose of the 

model (i.e., an integrated model that 

combined the two datasets) was to 

reduce potential weaknesses and biases 

in both datasets—high variability and 

uncertainty with the lek count data, and 

the small sample size of the shorter-term 

demographic data—thereby statistically 

improving estimates and predictions 

(Davis 2012, pp. 125–126). Key methods 

and findings of this study are 

summarized below. 

The demographic component of the 

study found no apparent difference in 

nest success rates or adult survival 

between the San Miguel and Gunnison 

Basin populations (Davis 2012, p. 37). 

However, the results may be due in part 

to the limited duration and small 

sample size of the study, especially in 

the San Miguel population (Davis 2012, 

p. 92). Nest success from 2005 to 2011 

varied widely between 21 and 60 

percent, with an average of 39 percent 

(Davis 2012, p. 9). Contrary to 

expectations, 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, and 

the longer that incubation occurred, the 

greater the risk of nest failure (Davis 

2012, p. 1). No yearlings were observed 

in the San Miguel population during the 

study (Davis 2012, p. 12). 

Juvenile recruitment was also 

evaluated within and between the two 

populations (Davis 2012, p. 27). Chick 

survival (hatching to 30 days of age) was 

higher in the Gunnison Basin than the 

San Miguel population (Davis 2012, p. 

44). Although sample size in the San 

Miguel Basin was small (eight chicks 

were studied), none survived to 30 days 

of age, meaning no recruitment (survival 

of bird from hatching to breeding age) 

occurred over a 4-year period (Davis 

2012, p. 37). Of 282 chicks studied in 

the Gunnison Basin, 124 (44 percent) 

survived to 30 days of age (Davis 2012, 

pp. 37–38). A slight negative trend in 

chick survival and stronger negative 

trend in juvenile survival in the 

Gunnison Basin population occurred 

from 2005 to 2010 (Davis 2012, p. 27). 

Juvenile recruitment declined from 26 

percent in 2005 to 5 percent in 2010. 

These results indicate that lower 

juvenile recruitment may be 

contributing to the study’s observed 

population declines in the Gunnison 

Basin (birds from the San Miguel 

population were not included in the 

juvenile survival analysis, as none 

survived to 31 days), and that the 

population may not be as stable as has 

been suggested. However, study results 

may be due to the limited sample size 

(duration) of the study, and a longer 

study may indicate that declines 

observed are fluctuations within a larger 

cyclical time series (Davis 2012, p. 38). 

Adult and yearling survival rates were 

also analyzed within and between the 

two populations. The effect of harsh 

winter conditions on these demographic 

rates was also studied. Male survival 

rates were lower during the lekking 

season (March—April), and female 

survival rates were lower during the 

nesting and chick rearing season (MayAugust) (Davis 2012, p. 55). Harsh 

winters (as indicated by above normal 

snow depth), which occurred during 

2007 and 2008 in the Gunnison Basin, 

and during 2009 and 2010 in the San 

Miguel Basin, had minimal effect on 

Gunnison sage-grouse survival (Davis 

2012, pp. 55, 65). The study found no 

differences in adult and yearling 

survival between the San Miguel and 

Gunnison Basin populations. This was 

surprising, given the apparent decline in 

bird numbers in the San Miguel 

population based on lek count 

estimates, suggesting declines are likely 

due to reduced recruitment and juvenile 

survival rates rather than reduced adult 

survival (Davis 2012, p. 66). 

The Davis PVA applied the derived 

baseline demographic data for survival 

and reproduction rates to estimate 

population growth of Gunnison sagegrouse, including an analysis of viability 

and extinction risk. The study also 

evaluated the effects of bird 

translocation efforts on the survival of 

the San Miguel (destination) population 

and the Gunnison Basin (source) 

population (Davis 2012, p. 79, 87). 

Based on the six years of demographic 

data collected from 2005 to 2010 in the 

Gunnison Basin, and four years of 

demographic data collected from 2007 

to 2010 in the San Miguel population, 

deterministic population models 

indicated that both the Gunnison Basin 

and San Miguel populations were 

declining during those time periods, 

with more pronounced declines in the 

latter (Davis 2012, p. 87). For the four 

years when data was collected in both 

populations (2007–2010), population 

growth rates (l) ranged from 0.65 to 0.91 

in the Gunnison Basin, and 0.52 to 0.68 

in the San Miguel population (Davis 

2012, pp. 87–88). A l value of 1.0 

indicates a stable population; values 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69293 

less than 1.0 indicate a declining 

population; and values greater than 1.0 

indicate an increasing population. Of 

the six years of study (2005–2010) in the 

two populations combined, population 

growth rates ranged from 0.65 in 2010, 

to 1.14 in 2006 (Davis 2012, p. 134). Of 

the six years of study in the Gunnison 

Basin alone (from 2005 to 2010), four of 

these years indicated population 

declines and two years indicated 

population growth (Davis 2012, p. 87). 

Incorporating environmental 

stochasticity (variability in population 

growth rates due to external factors such 

as weather, fire, disease, and predation) 

and demographic stochasticity 

(variability in population growth rates 

due to survival and reproduction rates), 

model simulations also predicted 

population declines in the future (Davis 

2012, pp. 105–106). Combining the six 

years of demographic data (2005 to 

2010) from both populations, 

environmental stochastic simulations 

resulted in a minimum extinction time 

of 31 years for both populations. 

Minimum extinction time is the earliest 

time at which population extinction 

occurred among the various modeled 

simulations in this study. This is in 

contrast to the mean extinction time, the 

average time of all modeled simulations 

at which population extinction 

occurred. Mean or expected extinction 

time in this PVA for the Gunnison Basin 

population is 58 years (Davis 2012, p. 

137). Davis also (2012, p. 92) noted, 

however that if the study had been 

conducted just a few years earlier or 

later, a different trend across time could 

have resulted, because it was based on 

a 6-year period of time when the 

population was experiencing a slight 

decline. 

Assuming and incorporating an 

additional year of increasing, constant, 

or declining population growth into 

these simulations to model demographic 

stochasticity resulted in minimum 

extinction times of 41, 29, and 20 years, 

respectively for both populations 

combined (Davis 2012, p. 88). 

Additionally, the extinction risk (i.e., 

proportion of simulations that went 

extinct within 30 years) was 

substantially larger for San Miguel than 

for Gunnison Basin (0.53 for San 

Miguel, 0 for Gunnison Basin) (Davis 

2012, p. 88). Demographic stochastic 

simulations for the Gunnison Basin 

population approached extinction, but 

none went extinct over the 30-year 

period. Therefore, the estimated 

extinction risk was 0.00 for the 

Gunnison Basin population over this 

period, indicating a low probability of 

extinction over the next 30 years due to 

demographic stochasticity alone (Davis 

2012, pp. 88, 106). However, looking 

further out, demographic stochastic 

simulations resulted in mean extinction 

time of 58 years for the Gunnison Basin 

population, without removing any birds 

for translocation efforts (removal of 

birds decreased the mean extinction 

time) (Davis 2012, pp. 111, 137). These 

demographic projections indicate the 

Gunnison Basin population is relatively 

stable, but may be in decline (Davis 

2012, p. 137–138). However, see 

discussion involving the integrated 

model below. Additionally, Davis also 

(2012, p. 92) noted that if the study had 

been conducted just a few years earlier 

or later, a different trend across time 

could have resulted, because it was 

based on a 6-year period of time when 

the population was experiencing a slight 

decline. 

Davis (2012, p. 96) also examined the 

periodic removal of birds from the 

Gunnison Basin and whether a longterm translocation effort would be 

sustainable since it could negatively 

affect the viability of that population 

depending upon the number of birds 

translocated each time and the 

frequency of translocations. Results 

indicated that, in general, more frequent 

removal of birds from the source 

population had a greater effect than 

removing a larger number less 

frequently. 

If trends observed during the study 

continue into the future, declines in 

both the San Miguel and Gunnison 

Basin populations are expected to occur 

over the next 30 years (i.e., by 2042). 

However, the results may be due in part 

to the limited duration and small 

sample size of the study (Davis 2012, p. 

92) (see also discussion involving the 

integrated model below.) Davis (2012, 

pp. 89, 93) indicated that adult survival 

may be the most important vital rate for 

steeply declining populations, such as 

the San Miguel population, while 

juvenile survival is most important for 

increasing or slightly declining 

populations, such as the Gunnison 

Basin population. 

An evaluation of translocation efforts 

indicated that more frequent 

translocations would increase 

population persistence in the San 

Miguel population, but with negative 

effects on the Gunnison Basin, or 

source, population (decreased mean and 

minimum extinction times) (Davis 2012, 

p. 91). Frequent translocations would 

avoid extinction of the San Miguel 

population, based on the population 

models, although this would mean 

maintaining a population of 

translocated birds (Davis 2012, p. 96). 

Furthermore, juvenile recruitment in 

that population would need to be 

improved for the population to persist 

on its own (Davis 2012, p. 97). 

To further evaluate population 

viability, Davis (2012, pp. 125–126) 

combined baseline demographic data 

and lek count data from the Gunnison 

Basin in a separate, integrated 

population model. Short-term 

demographic data were combined with 

long-term lek count data from 1996 to 

2011 (16 years) to reduce potential 

weaknesses in both datasets—high 

variability and uncertainty with the lek 

count data and small sample size of the 

demographic data—with the goal of 

statistically improving estimates and 

predictions (Davis 2012, pp. 125–126). 

Lek count protocols were standardized 

in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 46); prior to 

that time, data showed high variability 

and uncertainty and, therefore, were not 

included in the analysis (Davis 2012, 

pp. 139, 143). The analysis indicated 

that the Gunnison Basin population has 

declined slightly over the past 16 years, 

with a mean annual population growth 

rate of 0.94, with a 95 percent 

confidence interval of 0.83 to 1.04. This 

growth range was found to be narrower 

(more accurate) than growth estimates 

based on lek count data alone (0.79– 

1.92, with a mean of 1.04) or 

demographic data alone (0.65–1.14, 

with a mean of 0.89) (Davis 2012, p. 

134). On average, the population 

appeared to be relatively stable over the 

16-year period, but the end of the time 

series showed a slight decline (Davis 

2012, p. 138). However, it was noted 

that results of the study are preliminary, 

and further testing is needed to validate 

the model (Davis 2012, p. 140). 

More recently, incorporating an 

additional year of lek count data into 

their integrated model (1996–2012), 

Davis et al. (in press) states that the 

Gunnison Basin population is ‘‘slightly 

declining’’ and the growth rate of this 

population has been variable, but is 

‘‘near stable.’’ The updated growth rate 

was calculated to be 0.988, with the 95 

percent confidence interval also 

including stable and slightly increasing 

growth rates (0.893 to 1.079). 

Davis (2012, p. 139) cautioned against 

making conclusions and population 

estimates based on lek count data 

collected prior to 1996, due to the data’s 

high variability and uncertainty. The 

number of lek areas surveyed in 

Colorado increased beginning in 1996, 

when lek count protocols were 

standardized (GSRSC 2005, p. 46), 

indicating increases in abundance that 

may not be accurate (Davis 2012, p. 

143). Even standardized lek counts 

show high variability and uncertainty 

and, therefore, should not be used alone 

to estimate or project Gunnison sageVerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2

rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

grouse populations (Davis 2012, p. 165). 

Demographic data showed consistently 

lower population growth rates than 

indicated by standardized lek count 

data, suggesting an imperfect 

relationship between the two data types. 

Lek count data sometimes resulted in 

extremely high values of population 

growth that were not realistic based on 

demographic analyses (Davis 2012, pp. 

134, 136). 

Discussion of All Population Viability 

Analyses 

The most current and comprehensive 

demographic study and population 

viability analysis for Gunnison sagegrouse (Davis PVA) indicated that the 

San Miguel population is showing a 

decline, and the Gunnison Basin 

population has been relatively stable 

over the past 16 years (up to 2011), with 

a slight decline towards the end of the 

study period (Davis 2012, entire). 

Incorporating environmental and 

demographic stochasticity into the 

models also predicted declines in both 

of these populations in the future (Davis 

2012, pp. 105–106). Combining 

demographic data from both 

populations, environmental stochastic 

simulations resulted in a minimum 

extinction time of 31 years (i.e., 2043) 

for the two populations combined 

(Davis 2012, p. 88). For the San Miguel 

population, demographic stochastic 

simulations indicated a high probability 

(0.53) of extinction over the next 30 

years (2042) (Davis 2012, p. 88). 

Demographic stochastic simulations for 

the Gunnison Basin population 

approached extinction over this period, 

but none went extinct over the 30-year 

period (extinction risk of 0.00) (Davis 

2012, pp. 88, 106). However, looking 

further out, demographic simulations 

resulted in a mean extinction time of 58 

years for the Gunnison Basin population 

(without removing any birds for 

translocation efforts) (Davis 2012, pp. 

111, 137), or by about 2070. Davis (2012, 

p. 92) noted, however, that if the study 

had been conducted just a few years 

earlier or later, a different trend across 

time could have resulted, because it was 

based on a 6-year period of time when 

the population was experiencing a slight 

decline. 

The Davis PVA also suggested that the 

Gunnison Basin population may not be 

as stable as previously thought (Davis 

2012, p. 38). Based on an integrated 

analysis of 16 years of lek count and 

demographic data, the Gunnison Basin 

population may be declining slightly 

(Davis 2012, p. 137). Further, based on 

Davis’s findings, we infer that the 

Gunnison Basin population may not be 

as large as lek count-based estimates 

suggest. Davis (2012, pp. 134, 136) 

found that lek count data resulted in 

extremely high values of population 

growth that were not realistic based on 

demographic data for the Gunnison 

Basin population. Davis 2012 (p. 138) 

and Davis et al. in press state, however, 

that the Gunnison Basin population has 

shown only a slight decline since 1996, 

which they also describe as currently 

being ‘‘relatively stable’’ and ‘‘nearstable.’’ 

In contrast, the earliest population 

viability analysis for Gunnison sagegrouse from the RCP (GSRSC 2005, 

Appendix G) indicated a low probability 

of extinction (less than 1 percent) for the 

Gunnison Basin population (with 

approximately 3,000 birds at the time); 

and a low extinction risk (less than 5 

percent) for smaller populations (more 

than 500 birds) over the next 50 years 

(i.e., to 2055) (GSRSC 2005, p. G–21). 

This model concluded that the 

Gunnison Basin population, and 

therefore the species, is likely to survive 

over the long term (GSRSC 2005, p. 

179). We are concerned, however, with 

the reliability of the estimated 

extinction probabilities and conclusions 

from this study, for reasons noted above 

and as follows. Applying the extinction 

probabilities from this study, some 

satellite populations would have been 

considered relatively secure in recent 

years based on estimated abundance. 

For example, the San Miguel and 

Monticello populations, with 

approximately 200 to 400 birds or more 

in recent years (see Figure 3), would 

have had a relatively low risk of 

extinction over the 50 years ending in 

2055 according to the RCP PVA. 

However, these populations have 

declined since 2005 (Figure 3; also see 

Relevant Species Information in this 

section) to a point that their survival 

and long-term viability is currently at 

risk. This suggests that the extinction 

risk for individual Gunnison sagegrouse populations, including the 

Gunnison Basin, and the entire species 

is higher than was estimated in this 

study (i.e., the study may have 

overestimated the viability of Gunnison 

sage-grouse). This PVA combined 

greater and Gunnison sage-grouse 

demographic data and did not account 

for environmental variation (such as 

fire, disease, and predation), in contrast 

to the Davis PVA. 

Long-term (1957–2005) and shortterm analyses (1996–2005) from Garton 

(2005, entire) found that the rangewide 

population of Gunnison sage-grouse was 

generally stable, neither increasing nor 

decreasing during that time period. 

Accordingly, some populations were 

declining and some were increasing. 

The study did not estimate extinction 

probabilities. We are concerned with the 

current relevance of the Garton (2005, 

entire) study, however, as nine 

additional years of lek count data have 

become available since the study was 

conducted. These new lek count data, 

combined with other data from 1996 to 

2010 (per Davis 2012, entire), provide a 

more precise estimate of population 

levels and trends than from information 

that was available in 2005. As discussed 

earlier, lek count protocols were first 

standardized in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 

46), and lek count data collected prior 

to that year were prone to high 

variability and uncertainty (Davis 2012, 

p. 139). Based on lek count population 

estimates, relatively stable trends in the 

Gunnison Basin population 1996 to 

2014 match that of the findings in 

Garton (2005, entire). However, a 

relatively stable rangewide population, 

as indicated by Garton (2005, entire), is 

not supported by recent declines in 

several of the satellite populations from 

1996 to 2014 (Figure 3; also see Relevant 

Species Information above). The 

apparent rangewide stability of 

Gunnison sage-grouse under the 2005 

Garton PVA is influenced primarily by 

the largest population (the Gunnison 

Basin—about 63 percent of the species’ 

range) (Figure 2). However, based on 

overall declining trends in several of the 

satellite populations (encompassing 

about 37 percent of the species’ 

occupied range; and 16 percent of the 

known birds), as well as the questions 

raised by the Davis PVA regarding the 

long-term stability of the Gunnison 

Basin population, we do not agree that 

the species is stable rangewide. Finally, 

in contrast to the Davis PVA, the Garton 

PVA only examined lek count-based 

population estimates and trends to 

estimate viability, and did not consider 

demographic or environmental factors 

or stochasticity. 

Each of these population viability 

models has its own limitations and 

weaknesses, as described above. Again, 

a PVA does not predict the real or 

absolute risk of extinction for a species 

or population, only their relative 

extinction risk under various scenarios, 

and thus should be interpreted and 

applied with caution. Further, the 

available PVAs for Gunnison sagegrouse have resulted in somewhat 

disparate findings. The two earlier PVAs 

(GSRSC 2005, entire; Garton 2005, 

entire) collectively suggest most 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations are 

relatively stable and that the species is 

likely to persist into the future, 

attributable primarily to the large size 

and apparently stable trend of the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69295 

Gunnison Basin population. On the 

other hand, the Davis model (2012, 

entire) showed that the second largest 

population, the San Miguel population, 

is at risk of extinction, with 53 percent 

of model simulations reaching 

extinction in the next 30 years (by 2042) 

(Davis 2012, p. 88), and that even the 

largest Gunnison Basin population is 

declining with a mean extinction time 

of 58 years from now, or by about 2070, 

due to demographic stochasticity alone 

(Davis 2012, pp. 111, 137). Davis (2012, 

p. 92) noted, however, that if the study 

had been conducted just a few years 

earlier or later, a different trend across 

time could have resulted, because it was 

based on a 6-year period of time when 

the population was experiencing a slight 

decline. Based on recent population 

trend data and related information, we 

identified concerns with the two earliest 

PVAs and their current relevance and 

reliability for assessing the status of 

Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the 

future. 

For the reasons stated above and here, 

we find that Davis (2012, entire) and 

Davis et al. (in press) represent the most 

current and best available scientific 

information regarding the viability of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. We recognize 

that absolute extinction probabilities 

provided in the Davis PVA are 

uncertain. However, based on that study 

(Davis 2012, entire), the survival and 

persistence of the San Miguel 

population appears to be at risk, with a 

53 percent chance of extinction by about 

2042. Based on this finding, it is 

reasonable to assume that the viability 

of the remaining satellite populations is 

also at similar risk due to their small 

size, though we recognize that 

environmental, demographic, genetic, 

and other factors likely vary between 

populations, and that these differences 

will influence survival and viability 

rates. Due to demographic fluctuations 

alone, the Davis PVA also indicated that 

the Gunnison Basin population’s 

viability is at risk in the future, with a 

mean extinction time of 58 years, or by 

about 2070. 

Resiliency, Redundancy, and 

Representation 

In this section, we synthesize the 

information above to evaluate 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation as they relate to the 

viability of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Resiliency refers to the capacity of an 

ecosystem, population, or organism to 

recover quickly from disturbance by 

tolerating or adapting to changes or 

effects caused by a disturbance or a 

combination of disturbances. 

Redundancy, in this context, refers to 

the ability of a species to compensate for 

fluctuations in or loss of populations 

across the species’ range such that the 

loss of a single population has little or 

no lasting effect on the structure and 

functioning of the species as a whole. 

Representation refers to the 

conservation of the diversity of a 

species, including genetic makeup. 

Small population sizes, declining 

population trends, low genetic diversity, 

geographic isolation, and overall low 

viability (see preceding discussions in 

this section) indicate that long-term 

persistence and evolutionary or 

adaptive potential are compromised in 

the six satellite populations. This, in 

turn, suggests that resiliency is very low 

in the satellite populations, meaning 

they are less likely to tolerate or adapt 

to the changes and effects from current 

and future threats (see discussions in 

Factors A through C, and E). For 

example, drought conditions from 1999 

through about 2003 (with residual 

effects lasting through about 2005) were 

closely associated with reductions in 

the sizes of all Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations (CDOW 2009b, entire; CPW 

2013c, p. 9) (Figures 2 and 3) and lower 

nest success (CPW 2013c, p. 2). To date, 

most of the smaller satellite populations 

have not rebounded from declines 

around that time (Figure 3) (see Drought 

and Extreme Weather in this Factor E 

discussion below). 

In contrast, resilience currently 

appears to be relatively high in the 

Gunnison Basin population, likely due 

to a large effective population. For 

instance, drought has coincided with 

declines in the Gunnison Basin 

population (CDOW 2009b, entire; Figure 

2), including declines at many of the lek 

complex areas (USFWS 2013c, pp. 1–2), 

but the population has since rebounded 

to pre-drought levels (see Drought and 

Extreme Weather in this section below 

for a detailed discussion). However, as 

the effects from drought, climate 

change, disease, and other substantial 

threats increase in the future, it is 

uncertain whether resilience in this 

population will be sufficient to offset 

declines (see Drought and Extreme 

Weather (Factor E discussion below), 

Climate Change (Factor A), and Disease 

(Factor C)). As discussed earlier, model 

simulations of environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (natural 

fluctuations) resulted in extinction of 

the Gunnison Basin population in 31 

years (minimum extinction time) and 58 

years (mean extinction time), 

respectively. This analysis suggested the 

Gunnison Basin population may not be 

as stable (i.e., resilient) as previously 

thought (Davis 2012, entire) (see Davis 

Population Viability Analysis in this 

Factor E analysis). Davis also (2012, p. 

92) noted, however, that if the study had 

been conducted just a few years earlier 

or later, a different trend across time 

could have resulted, because it was 

based on a 6-year period of time when 

the population was experiencing a slight 

decline. 

While population redundancy 

currently exists across the species’ 

range, the best available information 

indicates the six satellite populations 

are at risk of extirpation in 

approximately 30 years (see preceding 

discussions in this section). Maintaining 

multiple satellite populations is 

important to the long-term 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) provide 

additional genetic diversity not found in 

the Gunnison Basin (GSRSC 2005, p. 

199). With the loss of any population, 

population redundancy will be lowered, 

thereby decreasing the species’ chances 

of survival in the face of environmental, 

demographic, and genetic stochastic 

factors and catastrophic events (extreme 

drought, fire, disease, etc.). Therefore, 

multiple populations across a broad 

geographic area are required to provide 

insurance against catastrophic events, 

and the aggregate number of individuals 

across multiple populations increases 

the probability of demographic 

persistence and preservation of overall 

genetic diversity by providing an 

important genetic reservoir 

(representation) (GSRSC 2005, p. 179). 

Five physiographic zones or divisions 

are recognized in the Gunnison Basin 

population area for the purposes of 

monitoring and management actions 

(CSGWG 1997, pp. 6–7). It has been 

suggested that these zones represent 

subpopulations, or relatively discrete 

breeding populations, and that they 

provide adequate population 

redundancy and insurance against 

environmental disturbances such as 

drought (CPW 2013c, pp. 2, 9–10; 

Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 137–138; 

169–170; Gunnison County 2013b, p. 

43). In this rule (see Drought and 

Extreme Weather in this Factor E 

analysis), we present information which 

indicates that, while some local 

redundancy may exist in the Gunnison 

Basin population, it is not at a large 

enough scale to withstand 

environmental pressures. While 

geographic and microclimatic variation 

in the Gunnison Basin likely provide 

some degree of local variation and, 

perhaps, local population redundancy 

to resist environmental pressures, past 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

drought has had apparently extensive 

impacts on this population, as indicated 

by concurrent negative trends in the 

majority of lek complexes (see Drought 

and Extreme Weather in this Factor E 

analysis). This information suggests that 

population redundancy in the Gunnison 

Basin is limited, and is inadequate at 

the landscape scale necessary to 

withstand more environmental 

pressures than those experienced to 

date, such as prolonged drought, climate 

change effects, disease, or any 

combination of those threats. 

As discussed above, representation 

across the species’ range is currently 

low due to apparently isolated 

populations and limited gene flow. 

Genetic diversity is highest in the 

Gunnison Basin population, but low in 

the studied satellite populations (OylerMcCance et al. 2005, entire). If 

population sizes continue declining, 

genetic diversity will likely decrease as 

well (see Genetic Risks above in this 

Factor E analysis). 

Based on the information above, we 

find that resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation in Gunnison sage-grouse 

are inadequate overall to ensure the 

species’ long-term viability. In 

particular, the best available 

information indicates population 

redundancy will be more limited in the 

near future, due to the extirpation of one 

or more satellite populations, thereby 

decreasing the species’ chances of 

survival in the face of limiting factors. 

Current and future threats to the 

Gunnison Basin population (in 

particular, see Drought and Extreme 

Weather (Factor E discussion below), 

Climate Change (Factor A), and Disease 

(Factor C)) combined with the probable 

loss of one or more satellite populations 

and overall reduction of range indicate 

the long-term persistence of Gunnison 

sage-grouse is at risk. 

Summary of Small Population Size and 

Structure 

Negative effects on population 

viability, such as reduced reproductive 

success or loss of genetic variation and 

diversity are a concern as populations 

decline and become smaller or more 

isolated. Small population size and 

population structure occur in all of the 

six satellite populations, or across 

approximately 37 percent of occupied 

range for the species (see Relevant 

Species Information in this section). Lek 

count data for the last 19 years (1996 to 

2014) as a whole indicate that several 

satellite populations are in decline 

(despite increases in numbers in some 

populations in the last several years 

Figure 3). Integrating lek count data and 

demographic data, the Gunnison Basin 

population, the largest population, may 

be declining slightly and may not be 

quite as stable as previously thought 

(Davis et al. in press; Davis 2012, pp. 

134, 38). Furthermore, because lek 

count data tend to overestimate 

populations (Davis 2012, pp. 134, 136) 

the Gunnison Basin population may not 

be large as has been estimated. 

Based on small effective population 

sizes, the satellite populations are at risk 

of inbreeding depression and could be 

losing evolutionary or adaptive 

potential (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 479). 

Lower levels of genetic diversity were 

apparent in studied satellite populations 

of Gunnison sage-grouse, thought to be 

the result of small population sizes and 

a high degree of geographic isolation 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, entire). All 

satellite populations sampled were 

found to be genetically discrete units 

(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635), so 

their loss would result in a decrease in 

genetic diversity of the species. The 

only population currently providing 

individuals for translocation is the 

Gunnison Basin population; however, 

we believe care should be taken to 

ensure that this population can sustain 

the loss of individuals required by a 

long-term translocation program to other 

populations. 

Historically, the satellite populations 

were larger and better connected 

through more contiguous areas of 

sagebrush habitat. The loss and 

fragmentation of sagebrush habitat 

between the late 1950’s and the early 

1990’s led to the current isolation of 

these populations, as indicated by the 

low amounts of gene flow and isolation 

by distance (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, 

p. 635). Genetic information suggests 

gene flow is limited between all 

populations (Oyler-MCance et al. 2005, 

entire) (see Genetics discussion above in 

this section). 

Available PVAs for Gunnison sagegrouse have resulted in somewhat 

disparate findings, each with their own 

limitations or weaknesses. We found 

that Davis (2012, entire) represents the 

best available scientific information 

regarding the viability of Gunnison sagegrouse. This represents the longest and 

most current demographic study and 

population viability analysis for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on that 

study, the Gunnison Basin and San 

Miguel populations, the two largest 

populations, are declining, with more 

pronounced declines in the latter (Davis 

2012, p. 87). The survival and 

persistence of the San Miguel 

population, and likely the smaller 

satellite populations as well, appear to 

be at risk in the near future. Though we 

expect the Gunnison Basin population 

will persist longer than the satellite 

populations, Davis (2012, entire) 

indicated that its future viability is also 

at risk due to natural environmental and 

demographic fluctuations. 

Small population size, declining 

population trends, and apparent 

isolation indicate long-term population 

persistence and evolutionary potential 

(i.e., resiliency) are compromised in the 

satellite populations. In general, while 

various natural factors would not limit 

sage-grouse populations across large 

geographic scales under historical 

conditions or in larger populations, they 

may contribute to local population 

declines or extirpations when 

populations are small or when weather 

patterns, habitats, or mortality rates are 

altered. Multiple populations across a 

broad geographic area provide insurance 

against catastrophic events (population 

redundancy), such as prolonged 

drought, and the aggregate number of 

individuals across all populations 

increases the probability of 

demographic persistence and 

preservation of overall genetic diversity 

by providing an important genetic 

reservoir (representation) (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 179). As discussed above, the best 

available information indicates the 

viability of the six satellite populations 

is currently at risk due to small 

population size and structure, and those 

cover 37 percent of the species occupied 

range. Loss of as much as 37 percent of 

the species’ occupied range would 

impact the species’ overall viability. The 

cumulative effects of ongoing and future 

threats, such as habitat loss (Factor A) 

and drought (discussed below), will 

further contribute to declining and 

increasingly isolated populations and, 

ultimately, smaller population size and 

structure. 

Based on the best available 

information, we determined that 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation in Gunnison sage-grouse 

are inadequate, or will be inadequate in 

the near term, to ensure the species’ 

long-term viability. The best available 

information indicates population 

redundancy, in particular, will be 

limited or compromised in the near 

term, due to the probable extirpation of 

one or more satellite populations, 

thereby decreasing the species’ chances 

of survival in the face of limiting factors. 

The rangewide cumulative effects of 

ongoing and future threats (Factors A 

through C, and E) will further 

compromise resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation of the species. 

Current and future threats to the 

Gunnison Basin population (in 

particular, see Drought (Factor E 

discussion below), Climate Change 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69297 

(Factor A), and Disease (Factor C)) 

combined with the probable loss of 

satellite populations and overall 

reduction of range indicate the longterm persistence of Gunnison sagegrouse is at risk. 

Drought and Extreme Weather 

Drought and extreme weather such as 

severe winters have the potential to 

impact the survival and, therefore, 

persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Drought is a common occurrence 

throughout the range of the Gunnison 

and greater sage-grouse (Braun 1998, p. 

148) and is considered a universal 

ecological driver across the Great Plains 

region (Knopf 1996, p. 147). Infrequent, 

severe drought may cause local 

extinctions of annual forbs and grasses 

that have invaded stands of perennial 

species, and recolonization of these 

areas by native species may be slow 

(Tilman and El Haddi 1992, p. 263). 

Drought reduces vegetation cover 

(Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7–18), potentially resulting in 

increased soil erosion and subsequent 

reduced soil depths, decreased water 

infiltration, and reduced water storage 

capacity. Drought also can exacerbate 

other natural events such as defoliation 

of sagebrush by insects. For example, 

approximately 2,544 km2 (982 mi2) of 

sagebrush shrublands died in Utah in 

2003 as a result of drought and 

infestations with the Aroga (webworm) 

moth (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5–11). 

Sage-grouse are affected by drought 

through the loss of vegetative habitat 

components, reduced insect production 

(Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 9), and 

increased risk of West Nile virus 

infections as described in the Factor C 

discussion above. These habitat 

component losses can result in 

declining sage-grouse populations due 

to increased nest predation and early 

brood mortality associated with 

decreased nest cover and food 

availability (Braun 1998, p. 149; 

Moynahan et al. 2007, p. 1781). 

Greater sage-grouse populations 

declined during the 1930s period of 

drought (Patterson 1952, p. 68; Braun 

1998, p. 148). Drought conditions in the 

late 1980s and early 1990s also 

coincided with a period when sagegrouse populations were at historically 

low levels (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 

8). Although drought has been a 

consistent and natural part of the 

sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, drought 

impacts on sage-grouse can be 

exacerbated when combined with other 

habitat impacts, such as human 

developments, that reduce cover and 

food (Braun 1998). 

Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) found 

that the number of severe droughts from 

1950 to 2003 had a weak negative effect 

on patterns of greater sage-grouse 

persistence. However, they cautioned 

that drought may have a greater 

influence on future sage-grouse 

populations as temperatures rise over 

the next 50 years, and synergistic effects 

of other threats affect habitat quality 

(Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 992). Drought 

has also been shown to have a negative 

effect on chick survival rates in greater 

sage-grouse (Aldridge 2005, entire), a 

key factor in sage-grouse population 

reproduction, survival, and persistence 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 173). Populations on 

the periphery of the range may suffer 

extirpation during a severe and 

prolonged drought (Wisdom et al. 2011, 

pp. 468–469). In eastern Nevada, annual 

recruitment of greater sage-grouse was 

higher in years with higher 

precipitation, based on annual 

precipitation, annual rainfall, and 

average winter snow depth. Likewise, 

greater sage-grouse population growth 

was positively correlated with annual 

rainfall and mean monthly winter 

snowpack in the study area. Annual 

survival of adult male greater sagegrouse was negatively affected by high 

summertime temperatures (i.e., higher 

survival rates occurred in years with 

relatively low maximum temperatures) 

(Blomberg et al. 2012, pp. 7, 9). In 

contrast, adult survival rates of 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison 

Basin were not apparently influenced by 

drought conditions in 2005 (CPW 2013c, 

p. 9; Davis 2012, p. 55). 

Drought conditions from 1999 

through about 2003 (with residual 

effects lasting through about 2005) were 

closely associated with reductions in 

the sizes of all populations of Gunnison 

sage-grouse (CDOW 2009b, entire; CPW 

2013c, p. 9) (Figures 2 and 3) and lower 

nest success (CPW 2013c, p. 2). The 

driest summer on record in the 

Gunnison Basin occurred in 2002 

(Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 112, 141). 

Based on population trends from lek 

count data, the Gunnison Basin 

population declined by about 30 percent 

from 2001 to 2003, but has since 

rebounded to pre-drought numbers 

(USFWS 2013c, p. 1; Figure 2). 

Therefore, larger populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse may be capable of 

enduring moderate or severe, but 

relatively short-term, drought. However, 

to date, most of the smaller satellite 

populations have not rebounded from 

declines around that time (Figure 3). 

This information highlights the 

potential significance of drought and its 

influence on Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations. It also indicates that 

resiliency is currently limited in the 

satellite populations (see Resiliency, 

Redundancy, and Representation). The 

small sizes of the satellite populations 

of Gunnison sage-grouse make them 

particularly sensitive to stochastic and 

demographic fluctuations, and this 

vulnerability is intensified by drought 

(GSRSC 2005, p. G–22). 

Overall, habitat appeared to be 

negatively affected by drought 

conditions across a broad area of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse’s range from 1999 

through about 2003, though those effects 

varied by population area (see our April 

18, 2006, finding (71 FR 19954) for a 

detailed discussion). Defoliation and 

mortality of sagebrush plants, and the 

loss of grass and forb understories, was 

reported in 2003 across the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. 

143, and references therein), and in 

2013 in the Gunnison Basin and Dry 

Creek Basin area of the San Miguel 

population (CPW 2013c, p. 10, and 

references therein). However, the 

reduction of sagebrush density, allowing 

for greater herbaceous growth and 

stimulating the onset of sagebrush seed 

crops, may have been beneficial to 

sagebrush habitats in certain areas over 

the long term (GSRSC 2005, p.143; CPW 

2013c, p. 10). Nonetheless, as indicated 

by declining Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations during and following 

drought periods, the negative impacts of 

drought appear to outweigh any positive 

effects. 

The above information indicates that 

regional drought has operated at large 

enough scales to impact all populations 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. Furthermore, 

it appears that past drought has had 

broad-scale, measurable impacts on 

even the Gunnison Basin population, 

despite its larger geographic area and 

population size. Figure 4 below shows 

changes in high male sage-grouse counts 

at lek complexes in the Gunnison Basin 

from 2001 to 2003. Based on lek count 

data, the largest declines in the 

Gunnison Basin occurred during this 

time (Figure 2). Of 25 total lek 

complexes in the Gunnison Basin (not 

including leks where no birds were 

observed or where counts did not 

occur), approximately 68 percent 

declined from 2001 to 2003, including 

many of the larger complex areas with 

typically more birds. The largest lek 

complex in the Gunnison Basin, Ohio 

Creek, declined by about 34 percent, 

from 530 birds in 2001 to 348 birds in 

2003 (USFWS 2013c, pp. 1–2). The eight 

lek complexes that remained stable or 

increased during this period (32 percent 

of total lek complexes) were typically 

smaller lek complexes with fewer birds 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Figure 4. Change in High Male Counts at Lek Complexes a in the Gunnison Basin From 2001 to 2003 (USFWS 2013c, pp. 1–2) b


ER20NO14.003</GPH>rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

..r:::. QJ c ..r:::. ro c c ..r:::. c ..lo<: ro ..lo<: QJ QJ ..r:::. ..r:::. QJ c ..lo<: QJ ro ..r:::. 

 u D.O ·v; u QJ 0 ·v; 0 u QJ Ill QJ ""C E .... .... QJ D.O .... u 

:; ""C :; 3: > :; -;:: QJ QJ ·s: L. ::I -;:: QJ ro :; 

ro - ro ro L. QJ L. 0 0 0 ro L. c 

(!) C2 CD (!) QJ CD c (!) Cl.. u u i:S Cl z Cl.. u ::I (!) 

ro Vl X > 

QJ ""C Vl L. u .... Vi .... ro 

QJ c ......... Ill ro c ..r:::. 0 ..lo<: ..lo<: L. 0 0 ..r:::. 

u ti"o 0 ro QJ N .... 0 .... QJ 0 QJ 0 L. L. .... ro ..r:::. ""C c (!) E ·c.. QJ Ill Ill L. ..r:::. QJ N N QJ QJ ::I D.O u 0 ro ro 0 c 0 0 L. ro QJ ro c c 0 ::I UJ 0 .... a. :..:: z 0::: .... Vl .E ..r:::. .... --' 0 u u 0::: ·c.. ·c.. Vl u ro :r: QJ .... ro ro 0 :r: c 0 Vl Vl Ii:i: N ro 

0::: 

k areas, are comprised of several geographically grouped or proximate leks. 

ude lek complexes where no counts occurred or where zero birds were observed from 2001 to 2003. These include Cochetopa Dome, 

le Creek, Ninemile, and Willow Creek lek areas. 
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69299 

While geographic and microclimatic 

variation in the Gunnison Basin likely 

provides a degree of local variation and, 

perhaps, local population redundancy 

to resist environmental pressures, past 

drought had apparent widespread 

impacts on this population, as indicated 

by negative trends in the majority of lek 

complexes during that time. This 

suggests that population redundancy in 

the Gunnison Basin is limited, and is 

inadequate at the landscape scale 

necessary to withstand more substantial 

environmental pressures such as 

prolonged drought, climate change 

effects, disease, or a combination of 

those threats. The drought from 2001 to 

2003 was severe but relatively short in 

duration. More severe, prolonged, or 

frequent drought would likely have 

more serious impacts. The species’ 

apparent sensitivity to drought effects in 

all populations, including the Gunnison 

Basin and across most lek complexes in 

that population, suggests the species 

would have limited capacity to 

withstand or adapt to more significant 

drought and the interacting effects of 

climate change, disease, and other 

threats. Drought is also discussed under 

the Climate Change (Factor A); and 

Resiliency, Redundancy, and 

Representation (Factor E) sections. 

Harsh or severe winters appear to 

have minimal influence on Gunnison 

sage-grouse survival. Davis (2012, p. 55) 

evaluated the effect of harsh winter 

conditions (as indicated by above 

normal snow depth) on adult and 

yearling survival rates in the Gunnison 

Basin and San Miguel populations. The 

winter of 2007 to 2008 was one of the 

most severe winters on record in the 

Gunnison Basin, with snow depths that 

exceeded records for all but 2 winters in 

the last 50 years (CPW 2013c, p. 2; 

Gunnison County 2013a, p. 112). Severe 

winter conditions during 2007 and 2008 

in the Gunnison Basin, and during 2009 

and 2010 in the San Miguel Basin, had 

minimal effect on Gunnison sage-grouse 

survival in both populations; and, in the 

Gunnison Basin, the highest nesting 

success during the study was observed 

the following spring (Davis (2012, p. 55; 

CPW 2013c, p. 2). 

Data are not available to evaluate 

whether the observed population 

declines are due to drought alone. 

Drought likely intensifies other stressors 

such as predation (Factor C), invasive 

plants (Factor A), and fire (Factor A). 

However, based on the best available 

information, drought has contributed to 

substantial declines in all Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations. Therefore, we 

conclude that drought is a substantial 

threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

rangewide, both now and into the 

future. 

Recreation 

Nonconsumptive recreational 

activities can degrade wildlife 

resources, water, and the land by 

distributing refuse, disturbing and 

displacing wildlife, increasing animal 

mortality, and simplifying plant 

communities (Boyle and Samson 1985, 

pp. 110–112). Sage-grouse response to 

disturbance may be influenced by the 

type of activity, recreationist behavior, 

predictability of activity, frequency and 

magnitude, timing, and activity location 

(Knight and Cole 1995, p. 71). We do 

not have any published literature 

concerning measured direct effects of 

recreational activities on Gunnison or 

greater sage-grouse, but can infer 

potential impacts on Gunnison sagegrouse from studies on related species 

and from research on nonrecreational 

activities. Displacement of male sharptailed grouse has been reported at leks 

due to human presence, resulting in loss 

of reproductive opportunity during the 

time of disturbance (Baydack and Hein 

1987, p. 537). Female sharp-tailed 

grouse were observed at undisturbed 

leks while absent from disturbed leks 

during the same time period (Baydack 

and Hein 1987, p. 537). Disturbance of 

incubating female sage-grouse could 

cause displacement from nests, 

increased predator risk, or loss of nests. 

Disruption of sage-grouse during 

vulnerable periods at leks, or during 

nesting or early brood-rearing could 

affect reproduction or survival (Baydack 

and Hein 1987, pp. 537–538). 

Recreational use of off-highway 

vehicles (OHVs) is one of the fastestgrowing outdoor activities. In the 

western United States, greater than 27 

percent of the human population used 

OHVs for recreational activities between 

1999 and 2004 (Knick et al. 2011, p. 

217). Knick et al. (2011, p. 219) reported 

that widespread motorized access for 

recreation facilitated the spread of 

predators adapted to humans and the 

spread of invasive plants. Any highfrequency human activity along 

established corridors can affect wildlife 

through habitat loss and fragmentation 

(Knick et al. 2011, p. 219). The effects 

of OHV use on sagebrush and sagegrouse have not been directly studied 

(Knick et al. 2011, p. 216). However, 

Gunnison sage-grouse local working 

groups and conservation plans 

considered recreational uses, such as 

off-road vehicle use and biking, to be a 

risk factor in many areas (see Factor D 

discussion, Multi-County and 

Rangewide Efforts). 

Recreation from OHVs, hikers, 

mountain bikes, campers, snowmobiles, 

bird watchers, and other sources has 

affected many parts of the range, 

especially portions of the Gunnison 

Basin and Pin ̃ on Mesa population areas 

(BLM 2005a, p. 14; BLM 2005d, p. 4; 

BLM 2009a, p. 36). These activities can 

result in abandonment of lekking 

activities and nest sites by Gunnison 

sage-grouse, energy expenditure 

reducing survival, and greater exposure 

to predators (GSRSC 2005). 

Recreation is a significant use on 

lands managed by BLM (Connelly et al. 

2004, p. 7–26). For example, 

recreational activities within the 

Gunnison Basin are widespread, occur 

during all seasons of the year, and have 

expanded as more people move to the 

area or travel there to recreate (BLM 

2009a, pp. 36–37). Four wheel drive, 

OHV, motorcycle, and other 

mechanized travel has been increasing 

rapidly. The number of annual OHV 

registrations in Colorado increased from 

12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 in 2007 (BLM 

2009a, p. 37). Recreational activities can 

have direct and indirect impacts to the 

Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat 

(BLM 2009a, p. 36). The Grand Mesa, 

Uncompaghre, and Gunnison (GMUG) 

National Forest is the fourth most 

visited National Forest in the Rocky 

Mountain Region of the USFS (Region 

2), and is the second most heavily 

visited National Forest on the western 

slope of Colorado (DEIS Gunnison Basin 

Federal Lands Travel Management 2009, 

p. 137). However, it is unknown what 

percentage of the visits occurs within 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on the 

Gunnison Ranger District (DEIS 

Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel 

Management 2009, p. 137). With human 

populations expected to increase in 

towns and cities within and adjacent to 

the Gunnison Basin and nearby 

populations (see Factor A analysis), the 

impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse from 

recreational use will continue to 

increase. 

The BLM, USFS, CPW, and Gunnison 

County currently close 36 roads at 47 

closure points in the Gunnison Basin to 

all motorized traffic from March 15 to 

May 15 to minimize impacts during the 

breeding season. Six road closures by 

the USFS extend to June 15 to protect 

nesting Gunnison sage-grouse. These 

closures limit motorized access to all 

known leks and adjacent habitats on 

public lands in the Gunnison Basin 

(Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 78, 127). 

While road closures may be violated in 

a small number of situations, road 

closures are having a beneficial effect on 

Gunnison sage-grouse through 

avoidance or minimization of impacts 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

during the breeding season. 

Conservation measures from the CCA 

(BLM 2013b, entire), including road 

closure and reclamation, seasonal road 

closures, and over-snow travel area 

closures during severe winters, are 

expected to ameliorate impacts from 

some recreational activities on Federal 

lands in the Gunnison Basin (see 

Conservation Programs and Efforts 

Related to Habitat Conservation section 

in Factor A for more details). 

Dispersed camping occurs at a low 

level on public lands in all of the 

population areas, particularly during the 

hunting seasons for other species. 

However, we have no information 

indicating that these camping activities 

are impacting Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Domestic dogs accompanying 

recreationists or associated with 

residences can disturb, harass, displace, 

or kill Gunnison sage-grouse. Dogs, 

whether under control, on leash, or 

loose, have been shown to result in 

significant disturbance responses by 

various wildlife species (Sime 1999, 

entire, and references therein). The 

primary consequence of dogs being off 

leash is harassment, which can lead to 

physiological stress as well as the 

separation of adult and young birds, or 

flushing incubating birds from their 

nest. However, we have no data 

indicating that this activity is impacting 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

Recreational activities as discussed 

above do not singularly pose a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. However, there 

may be certain situations where 

recreational activities are impacting 

local concentrations of Gunnison sagegrouse, especially in areas where habitat 

is already fragmented such as in the six 

satellite populations and in certain areas 

within the Gunnison Basin. 

Pesticides and Herbicides 

Insects are an important component of 

sage-grouse chick and juvenile diets 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 132 and references 

therein). Insects, especially ants 

(Hymenoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera), 

can comprise a major proportion of the 

diet of juvenile sage-grouse and are 

important components of early broodrearing habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. 132 

and references therein). Most pesticide 

applications are not directed at control 

of ants and beetles. Insecticides are used 

primarily to control insects causing 

damage to cultivated crops on private 

lands and to control grasshoppers 

(Orthoptera) and Mormon crickets 

(Mormonius sp.) on public lands. 

Few studies have examined the effects 

of pesticides to sage-grouse, but at least 

two pesticides have caused direct 

mortality of greater sage-grouse as a 

result of ingestion of alfalfa sprayed 

with organophosphorus insecticides 

(Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Blus and 

Connelly 1998, p. 23). In one case, a 

field of alfalfa was sprayed with 

methamidophos and dimethoate when 

approximately 200 greater sage-grouse 

were present; 63 of these sage-grouse 

were later found dead, presumably as a 

result of insecticide exposure (Blus et 

al. 1989; p. 1142, Blus and Connelly 

1998, p. 23). Both methamidophos and 

dimethoate remain registered for use in 

the United States (Christiansen and Tate 

2011, p. 125), but we found no further 

records of sage-grouse mortalities from 

their use. In another case in 1950, 

rangelands treated with toxaphene and 

chlordane bait to control grasshoppers 

in Wyoming resulted in game bird 

mortality of 23.4 percent (Christiansen 

and Tate 2011, p. 125). Forty-five greater 

sage-grouse deaths were recorded, 11 of 

which were most likely related to the 

insecticide (Christiansen and Tate 2011, 

p. 125, and references therein). Greater 

sage-grouse who succumbed to vehicle 

collisions and mowing machines in the 

same area also were likely compromised 

from insecticide ingestion (Christiansen 

and Tate 2011, p. 125). Neither 

toxaphene nor chlordane has been 

registered for grasshopper control since 

the early 1980’s (Christiansen and Tate 

2011, p. 125, and references therein) 

and thus they are not a threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Infestations of Russian wheat aphids 

(Diuraphis noxia) have occurred in 

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range in 

Colorado and Utah (GSRSC 2005, p. 

132). Disulfoton, a systemic 

organophosphate that is extremely toxic 

to wildlife, was routinely applied to 

over a million acres of winter wheat 

crops to control the aphids during the 

late 1980s. We have no data indicating 

there were any adverse effects to 

Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. 

132). More recently, an infestation of 

army cutworms (Euxoa auxiliaries) 

occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat along the Utah-Colorado State 

line. Thousands of acres of winter wheat 

and alfalfa fields were sprayed with 

insecticides such as permethrin, a 

chemical that is toxic to wildlife, by 

private landowners to control them 

(GSRSC 2005, p. 132), but again, we 

have no data indicating any adverse 

effects to Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Game birds that ingested sublethal 

levels of insecticides have been 

observed exhibiting abnormal behavior 

that may lead to a greater risk of 

predation (Dahlen and Haugen 1954, p. 

477; McEwen and Brown 1966, p. 609; 

Blus et al. 1989, p. 1141). Wild sharptailed grouse poisoned by malathion 

and dieldrin exhibited depression, 

dullness, slowed reactions, irregular 

flight, and uncoordinated walking 

(McEwen and Brown 1966, p. 689). 

Although no research has explicitly 

studied the indirect levels of mortality 

from sublethal doses of insecticides 

(e.g., predation of impaired birds), it 

was inferred to be the cause of mortality 

among some study birds (McEwen and 

Brown 1966 p. 609; Blus et al. 1989, p. 

1142; Connelly and Blus 1991, p. 4). 

Both Post (1951, p. 383) and Blus et al. 

(1989, p. 1142) located depredated sagegrouse carcasses in areas that had been 

treated with insecticides. Exposure to 

these insecticides may have predisposed 

sage-grouse to predation. Sage-grouse 

mortalities also were documented in a 

study where they were exposed to 

strychnine bait used to control small 

mammals (Ward et al. 1942 as cited in 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). While we 

do not have specific information on 

these effects occurring in Gunnison 

sage-grouse, the effects observed in 

greater sage-grouse can be expected if 

similar situations arise within Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat. 

Cropland spraying may affect 

populations that are not adjacent to 

agricultural areas, given the distances 

traveled by females with broods from 

nesting areas to late brood-rearing areas 

(Knick et al. 2011, p. 211). The actual 

footprint of this effect cannot be 

estimated, because the distances sagegrouse travel to get to irrigated and 

sprayed fields is unknown (Knick et al. 

2011, p. 211). Similarly, actual 

mortalities from insecticides may be 

underestimated if sage-grouse disperse 

from agricultural areas after exposure. 

Much of the research related to 

pesticides that had either lethal or 

sublethal effects on greater sage-grouse 

was conducted on pesticides that have 

been banned or have had their use 

restricted for more than 20 years due to 

their toxic effects on the environment 

(e.g., dieldrin). We currently do not 

have any information to show that the 

banned pesticides are having negative 

impacts to sage-grouse populations 

through either illegal use or residues in 

the environment. For example, sagegrouse mortalities were documented in 

a study where they were exposed to 

strychnine bait used to control small 

mammals (Ward et al. 1942 as cited in 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). According 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), above-ground uses of the 

rodenticide strychnine were prohibited 

in 1988 and those uses remain 

temporarily cancelled today. We do not 

know when, or if, above-ground uses 

will be permitted to resume. Currently, 

strychnine is registered for use only 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69301 

below-ground as a bait application to 

control pocket gophers (Thomomys sp.; 

EPA 1996, p. 4). Therefore, the current 

legal use of strychnine baits is unlikely 

to present much of an exposure risk to 

sage-grouse. No information on illegal 

use, if it occurs, is available. We have 

no other information regarding 

mortalities or sublethal effects of 

strychnine or other banned pesticides 

on sage-grouse. 

Although a reduction in insect 

population levels resulting from 

insecticide application can potentially 

affect nesting sage-grouse females and 

chicks (Willis et al. 1993, p. 40; 

Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16), there is no 

information as to whether insecticides 

are impacting survivorship or 

productivity of the Gunnison sagegrouse. 

Use of insecticides to control 

mosquitoes is infrequent and probably 

does not have detrimental effects on 

sage-grouse. Available insecticides that 

kill adult mosquitoes include synthetic 

pyrethroids such as permethrin, which 

are applied at very low concentrations 

and have very low vertebrate toxicity 

(Rose 2004). Organophosphates such as 

malathion have been used at very low 

rates to kill adult mosquitoes for 

decades, and are judged relatively safe 

for vertebrates (Rose 2004). 

Herbicide applications can kill 

sagebrush and forbs important as food 

sources for sage-grouse (Carr 1968 in 

Call and Maser 1985, p. 14). The greatest 

impact resulting from a reduction of 

either forbs or insect populations is to 

nesting females and chicks due to the 

loss of potential protein sources that are 

critical for successful egg production 

and chick nutrition (Johnson and Boyce 

1991, p. 90; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 

16). A comparison of applied levels of 

herbicides with toxicity studies of 

grouse, chickens, and other gamebirds 

(Carr 1968, in Call and Maser 1985, p. 

15) concluded that herbicides applied at 

recommended rates should not result in 

sage-grouse poisonings. 

In summary, historically insecticides 

have been shown to result in direct 

mortality of individuals, and also can 

reduce the availability of food sources, 

which in turn could contribute to 

mortality of sage-grouse. Despite the 

potential effects of pesticides, we could 

find no information to indicate that the 

use of these chemicals, at current levels, 

negatively affects Gunnison sage-grouse 

population numbers. Schroeder et al.’s 

(1999, p. 16) literature review found that 

the loss of insects can have significant 

impacts on nesting females and chicks, 

but those impacts were not detailed. 

Many of the pesticides that have been 

shown to have an effect on sage-grouse 

have been banned in the United States 

for more than 20 years. We currently do 

not have any information to show that 

either the illegal use of banned 

pesticides or residues in the 

environment are presently having 

negative impacts to Gunnison sagegrouse populations. While the reduction 

in insect availability via insecticide 

application has not been documented to 

affect overall population numbers in 

sage-grouse, it appears that insect 

reduction, because of its importance to 

chick production and survival, could be 

having as yet undetected negative 

impacts in populations with low 

population numbers. At present, 

however, there is no information 

available to indicate that either 

herbicide or insecticide applications 

pose a threat to the species. 

Contaminants 

Gunnison sage-grouse exposure to 

various types of environmental 

contaminants may potentially occur as a 

result of agricultural and rangeland 

management practices, mining, energy 

development and pipeline operations, 

and transportation of materials along 

highways and railroads. 

We expect that the number of sagegrouse occurring in the immediate 

vicinity of wastewater pits associated 

with energy development would be 

small due to the small amount of energy 

development within the species’ range, 

the typically intense human activity in 

these areas, the lack of cover around the 

pits, and the fact that sage-grouse do not 

require free standing water. Most bird 

mortalities recorded in association with 

wastewater pits are water-dependent 

species (e.g., waterfowl), whereas dead 

ground-dwelling birds (such as the sagegrouse) are rarely found at such sites 

(Domenici 2008, pers. comm.). 

However, if the wastewater pits are not 

appropriately screened, sage-grouse may 

have access to them and could ingest 

water and/or become oiled while 

pursuing insects. If these birds then 

return to sagebrush cover and die, their 

carcasses are unlikely to be found as 

only the pits are surveyed. 

A few gas and oil pipelines occur 

within the San Miguel population. 

Exposure to oil or gas from pipeline 

spills or leaks could cause mortalities or 

morbidity to Gunnison sage-grouse. 

Similarly, given the network of 

highways and railroad lines that occur 

throughout the range of the Gunnison 

sage-grouse, there is some potential for 

exposure to contaminants resulting from 

spills or leaks of hazardous materials 

being conveyed along these 

transportation corridors. We found no 

documented occurrences of impacts to 

Gunnison sage-grouse from such spills, 

and we do not expect they are a 

significant source of mortality or threat 

to the species because these types of 

spills occur infrequently and may 

involve only a small area within the 

occupied range of the species. 

Summary of Factor E: Other Natural or 

Manmade Factors 

Based on the information above, we 

find that small population size and 

structure is a threat to the six satellite 

populations of Gunnison sage-grouse, 

both now and into the future. Although 

genetic consequences of low Gunnison 

sage-grouse population numbers have 

not been definitively detected to date, 

the results from Stiver et al. (2008, p. 

479) suggest that six of the seven 

populations may have effective sizes 

low enough to induce genetic 

deterioration, and that all seven could 

be losing adaptive potential. While 

some of these consequences may be 

ameliorated by translocations, 

information indicates the long-term 

viability of Gunnison sage-grouse is 

compromised by this situation, 

particularly when combined with 

threats discussed in other Factors. 

Therefore, we have determined that 

genetics risks related to the small 

population size of Gunnison sage-grouse 

are a threat to the species. 

Available PVAs for Gunnison sagegrouse have resulted in somewhat 

disparate findings, each with their own 

limitations or weaknesses. We found 

that Davis (2012, entire) represents the 

best available scientific information 

regarding the viability of Gunnison sagegrouse. This represents the longest and 

most current demographic study and 

population viability analysis for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on that 

study, the Gunnison Basin and San 

Miguel populations, the two largest 

populations, are declining, with more 

pronounced declines in the latter (Davis 

2012, p. 87). The survival and 

persistence of the San Miguel 

population, and likely the smaller 

satellite populations as well, appear to 

be at risk in the near future. Though we 

expect the Gunnison Basin population 

will persist longer than the satellite 

populations, Davis (2012, entire) 

indicated that its future viability is also 

at risk due to natural environmental and 

demographic fluctuations. 

Small population size, declining 

population trends, and apparent 

isolation indicate long-term population 

persistence and evolutionary potential 

(i.e., resiliency) are compromised in the 

satellite populations. In general, while 

various natural factors would not limit 

sage-grouse populations across large 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

geographic scales under historical 

conditions or in larger populations, they 

may contribute to local population 

declines or extirpations when 

populations are small or when weather 

patterns, habitats, or mortality rates are 

altered. Multiple populations across a 

broad geographic area (population 

redundancy) provide insurance against 

catastrophic events, such as prolonged 

drought, and the aggregate number of 

individuals across all populations 

increases the probability of 

demographic persistence and 

preservation of overall genetic diversity 

by providing an important genetic 

reservoir (representation) (GSRSC 2005, 

p. 179). As discussed, viability of the six 

satellite populations is currently at risk, 

and those cover 37 percent of the 

species occupied range. Loss of as much 

as 37 percent of the species’ occupied 

range would impact the species’ overall 

viability. The cumulative effects of 

ongoing and future threats, such as 

habitat loss (Factor A) and drought 

(discussed above), will further 

contribute to declining and increasingly 

isolated populations and, ultimately, 

smaller population size and structure. 

Based on the best available 

information, we determined that 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation in Gunnison sage-grouse 

are inadequate, or will be inadequate in 

the future, to ensure the species’ longterm viability. The best available 

information indicates population 

redundancy, in particular, will be 

limited or compromised in the future, 

due to the probable extirpation of one or 

more satellite populations, thereby 

decreasing the species’ chances of 

survival in the face of limiting factors. 

The rangewide cumulative effects of 

ongoing and future threats (see 

discussions in Factors A through C, and 

E) will further compromise resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation of the 

species. Current and future threats to 

the Gunnison Basin population (in 

particular, see Drought, Climate Change, 

and Disease sections) combined with 

the probable loss of one or more satellite 

populations and overall reduction of 

range indicate the long-term persistence 

of Gunnison sage-grouse is at risk. 

While sage-grouse have evolved with 

drought, population trends suggest that 

drought is at least correlated with, and 

likely an underlying cause of, observed 

declines. We found that drought is a 

current and future threat to Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Based on the best available 

information, pesticides are being used 

infrequently enough and in accordance 

with manufacturer labeling such that 

they are not adversely affecting 

populations of the Gunnison sagegrouse. The most likely impact of 

insecticides on Gunnison sage-grouse is 

the reduction of insect prey items. 

However, we could find no information 

to indicate that use of insecticides, in 

accordance with their label instructions, 

is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. We 

similarly do not have information 

indicating that contaminants, as 

described above, are a threat to the 

species. 

Cumulative Effects From Factors A 

through E 

Many of the threats described in this 

finding may cumulatively or 

synergistically impact Gunnison sagegrouse beyond the scope of each 

individual threat. For example, grazing 

practices inconsistent with local 

ecological conditions alone may only 

affect portions of Gunnison sage-grouse 

habitat. However, grazing practices 

inconsistent with local ecological 

conditions, combined with invasive 

plants, drought, and recreational 

activities may collectively result in 

substantial habitat decline across large 

portions of the species’ range. In turn, 

climate change may exacerbate those 

effects, further diminishing habitat and 

increasing the isolation of already 

declining populations, making them 

more susceptible to genetic 

deterioration, disease, or catastrophic 

events such as drought and fire. 

Drought, a substantial threat to 

Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, likely 

intensifies other threats such as 

predation, invasive plants, habitat loss, 

and fire. The impact of residential 

development is increased by the 

additional disturbance footprint and 

area of species’ avoidance of other 

infrastructure such as roads, powerlines, 

and fences. Further, predation on 

Gunnison sage-grouse may increase as a 

result of the increase in human 

disturbance and development. The 

impact of residential development can 

be increased by other anthropogenic 

stressors resulting in habitat loss and 

decline, such as powerlines, roads, and 

other infrastructure. Numerous threats 

are likely acting cumulatively to further 

increase the likelihood that the species 

will become extinct in the future. The 

cumulative effects of ongoing and future 

threats (Factors A through E), and small 

and declining population size and 

structure, in particular, are likely to 

further reduce resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation of the species. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the Gunnison sagegrouse. We consider the five factors 

identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in 

determining whether the Gunnison 

sage-grouse meets the Act’s definition of 

an endangered species (section 3(6)) or 

a threatened species (section 3(20)). 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and defines a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ as ‘‘any species which is likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ 

Although these statutory definitions are 

similar, there is a crucial temporal 

distinction between them. The statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species,’’ a 

species that ‘‘is in danger of extinction,’’ 

connotes an established, present 

condition. The statutory definition of a 

‘‘threatened species,’’ a species that is 

‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future,’’ 

connotes a predicted or expected future 

condition. Thus, a key statutory 

difference between a threatened and 

endangered species is the time of when 

a species may be in danger of extinction, 

either now (endangered) or in the 

foreseeable future (threatened). 

As a result of new information and 

comments received on the proposed 

rule, we have reconsidered our prior 

determination that the Gunnison sagegrouse is currently in danger of 

extinction and therefore meets the 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ 

under the Act. This reconsideration 

focuses on the principal threat relied 

upon in the proposed rule, the threat to 

the species posed by current residential 

development and associated 

infrastructure, especially in the critical 

Gunnison Basin population area. 

In the proposed rule, we reported that 

the results of a GIS analysis of parcel 

ownership and development in 

occupied habitat in Gunnison County 

indicated that the current level of 

residential development in this habitat 

was strongly decreasing the likelihood 

of Gunnison sage-grouse using 49 

percent of this land area as nesting 

habitat. This analysis was based on a 

model indicating Gunnison sage-grouse 

tend to select nest sites in larger 

landscapes (1.5 km [0.9 mi] radii) with 

a low density of residential 

development (Aldridge 2012, p. 10). We 

considered the results of applying this 

modeling to the current level of 

residential development to be 

particularly concerning given the close 

link of nesting habitat to early brood 

rearing habitat and the sensitivity of the 

species population dynamics during 

these life history stages. In assessing the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69303 

risk posed by current levels of 

residential development, we also noted 

that the GSRSC (2005, pp. 160–61) 

hypothesized that residential density in 

excess of one housing unit per 1.3 km2

(0.5 mi2) could cause declines in 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations, and 

that under this hypothesis residential 

development is limiting the species in 

approximately 18 percent of its habitat 

in Gunnison County. 

Since our proposed listing rule, we 

reevaluated residential development 

and found it to be a current threat to the 

species as a whole, but that it is a lower 

magnitude threat to the Gunnison Basin 

population than we previously thought. 

Our reevaluation of residential 

development in the Gunnison Basin 

(Factor A above) found that human 

developments in occupied Gunnison 

sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison County 

occur and have increased over time. Our 

overall conclusion, however, was that 

current development in the Gunnison 

Basin population area is a threat of low 

magnitude to the persistence of this 

Gunnison sage-grouse population. The 

Gunnison Basin population is currently 

relatively stable, based on population 

trends since 1996. It is also 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 occurring in 

Gunnison Basin. Thus the current level 

of threat of residential development in 

the Gunnison Basin is not causing the 

rangewide population to trend towards 

extinction. 

Based on the factors presented in the 

Residential Development Section above 

(Factor A), outside of the Gunnison 

Basin, residential development is likely 

to have the greatest impact on the San 

Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. For the 

remaining three Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations, we found that current 

residential development may impact 

individual birds or areas of habitat, but 

is a threat of low magnitude at the 

population level at the present time. 

Although residential development is a 

current and future threat to the San 

Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims 

Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations, we 

do not believe that it is a significant 

threat to the species rangewide such 

that it meets the definition of an 

endangered species. 

We find that the other factors that we 

identified as threats in the proposed 

rule (inadequate regulatory 

mechanisms, genetic issues and small 

population sizes, predation, improper 

grazing management, and the 

interaction among climate change, 

invasive plants and drought/weather) 

are still current threats to the species, 

but when considered individually and 

cumulatively with other current threats 

(including the lower level of the threat 

of development to the Gunnison Basin 

population), they do not support a 

finding that the species is currently in 

danger of extinction. Based on the 

preceding analysis, we have determined 

that Gunnison sage-grouse is not an 

endangered species as defined in the 

Act. 

However, considering both our 

analysis of the species’ status here and 

in the proposed listing rule, and new 

information and comments received 

following publication of the proposed 

rule, we find that Gunnison sage-grouse 

qualifies as a threatened species under 

the Act because it is likely to become in 

danger of extinction throughout all of its 

range in the foreseeable future. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future.’’ In a general sense, 

the foreseeable future is the period of 

time over which events can reasonably 

be anticipated. In the context of the 

definition of ‘‘threatened species,’’ the 

Service interprets the foreseeable future 

as the extent of time over which the 

Secretary can reasonably rely on 

predictions about the future in making 

determinations about the future 

conservation status of the species. It is 

important to note that references to 

‘‘reliable predictions’’ are not meant to 

refer to reliability in a statistical sense 

of confidence or significance; rather the 

words ‘‘rely’’ and ‘‘reliable’’ are 

intended to be used according to their 

common, non-technical meanings in 

ordinary usage. In other words, we 

consider a prediction to be reliable if it 

is reasonable to depend upon it in 

making decisions, and if that prediction 

does not extend past the support of 

scientific data or reason so as to venture 

into the realm of speculation. 

In considering threats to the species 

and whether they rise to the level such 

that listing the species as a threatened 

or endangered species is warranted, we 

assess factors such as the imminence of 

the threat (is it currently affecting the 

species or, if not, when do we expect 

the effect from the threat to commence, 

and whether it is reasonable to expect 

the threat to continue into the future), 

the scope or extent of the threat, the 

severity of the threat, and the synergistic 

effects of all threats combined. If we 

determine that the species is not 

currently in danger of extinction, then 

we must determine whether, based 

upon the nature of the threats, it is 

reasonable to anticipate that the species 

may become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future. As noted 

in the 2009 Department of the Interior 

Solicitor’s opinion on foreseeable 

future, ‘‘in some cases, quantifying the 

foreseeable future in terms of years may 

add rigor and transparency to the 

Secretary’s analysis if such information 

is available. Such definitive 

quantification, however, is rarely 

possible and not required for a 

foreseeable future analysis’’ (M–37021, 

January 16, 2009; p. 9). In some specific 

cases where extensive data are available 

to allow for the modeling of extinction 

probability over various time periods 

(e.g., the PVAs performed on the 

Gunnison sage-grouse), the Service has 

provided quantitative estimates of what 

may be considered to constitute the 

foreseeable future. 

We consider foreseeable future in this 

final rule to be 40–60 years based on the 

following: 

(1) The most current and 

comprehensive demographic study and 

population viability analysis (Davis 

2012). In contrast to the RCP PVA 

described below, this study exclusively 

used demographic information from 

Gunnison sage-grouse and included 

environmental stochastic factors such as 

fire, disease, and drought. This analysis 

was done for the Gunnison Basin (2005– 

2010) and the San Miguel populations 

(2007–2010), the two largest 

populations (Davis 2012, entire). The 

study concluded that the small San 

Miguel Basin population had a high 

probability (53 percent chance) of going 

extinct in the next 30 years. For the 

Gunnison Basin population, the model 

found a minimum extinction time of 31 

years and a mean extinction time of 58 

years, based on a six-year data set 

during a period with a slightly declining 

population. However, because the study 

occurred during a drought period and 

the overall population declined during 

this period, which is inconsistent with 

the long-term record of stability for this 

population, we are also utilizing the 

RCP PVA in our consideration of the 

foreseeable future. 

(2) A second population viability 

analysis done in conjunction with the 

RCP. This PVA found that small 

populations of birds (< 25 and 25 to 50 

birds) are at a high risk of extinction 

within the next 50 years (2055) with an 

86 percent and 59 percent chance of 

extinction respectively (GSRSC 2005, 

pp. 170 and G–27). For the Gunnison 

Basin population, this PVA found the 

probability of extinction in the next 50 

years was less than 1 percent (GSRSC 

2005, p. G–21). 

(3) The Gunnison Basin Climate 

Change Vulnerability Assessment (The 

Nature Conservancy (TNC) et al. 2011, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

p. 4), which uses a timeframe of 50 

years to project the likely effects of 

climate change in the Gunnison Basin. 

As noted in the proposed listing rule, 

we anticipate that current threats to the 

species will increase over time 

throughout the species’ range. Based on 

the analysis of the listing Factors A–E 

described above, we now find that the 

Gunnison sage-grouse is ‘‘likely to 

become endangered throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future’’ based on the 

following continuing, new, and 

increasing threats, which are acting on 

the species individually and 

cumulatively, contributing to the 

challenges faced by Gunnison sagegrouse in the foreseeable future: 

(1) Small population size and 

population structure (Factor E) occur in 

all of the six satellite populations, or 

across approximately 37 percent of 

occupied range for the species. Without 

concerted management effort, one or 

more of the satellite populations are 

likely to go extinct in the next 50 years. 

Satellite populations are isolated and 

small, with generally declining trends, 

low resilience, and low genetic 

diversity. The small sizes of the satellite 

populations of Gunnison sage-grouse 

make them particularly sensitive to 

stochastic and demographic 

fluctuations, and this vulnerability is 

exacerbated by other threats such as 

drought. Having multiple populations 

across a broad geographic area 

(population redundancy) is needed to 

provide insurance against such 

catastrophic events. 

(2) Gunnison sage-grouse require large 

areas of sagebrush for long-term 

persistence, and thus are affected by 

factors that occur at the landscape scale. 

Habitat decline, including habitat loss, 

degradation, and fragmentation of 

sagebrush habitats (Factor A), is a 

primary cause of the decline of 

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

Habitat loss due to residential and 

infrastructural development (including 

roads, powerlines, and fences) is a 

significant threat to Gunnison sagegrouse across its range. Due to habitat 

decline, the seven individual 

populations are now mostly isolated, 

with limited migration and gene flow 

among populations, increasing the 

likelihood of population extirpations. 

a. Thirty-two percent of occupied 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat rangewide 

is at risk of residential development 

(Factor A). Residential development is a 

substantial risk to the San Miguel, 

Poncha Pass, and Cerro-Cimarron-Sims 

populations, and the effects of 

residential development will likely 

reduce connectivity among satellite 

populations and potential connectivity 

between the Gunnison Basin and 

satellite populations to the west. 

Although our reevaluation found the 

threat of current residential 

development in the Gunnison Basin to 

be of a lower magnitude than previously 

thought, we believe that the level of 

impact and threat from residential 

development will increase in the 

Gunnison Basin population in the 

future. 

The collective influences of 

fragmentation and disturbance from 

roads (Factor A) reduce the amount of 

effective habitat, as roads are largely 

avoided by sage-grouse. Powerlines and 

fences (Factor A) also fragment habitat 

and are avoided by sage-grouse. They 

are also sources of direct mortality 

through strikes, electrocution, and by 

attracting and increasing the predator 

population. 

(3) Drought (Factor E) has contributed 

to substantial declines in all Gunnison 

sage-grouse populations. Drought likely 

intensifies other stressors such as 

predation, invasive plants, and fire. 

Based on the best available information, 

we concluded that drought is a 

substantial threat to Gunnison sagegrouse rangewide, both now and into 

the future. 

(4) Warming is occurring more rapidly 

in the southwestern region of the United 

States, including western Colorado, than 

elsewhere in the country. Based on the 

best available information on climate 

change projections over the next 35 

years or so, climate change (Factor A) 

has the potential to alter important 

seasonal habitats and food resources of 

Gunnison sage-grouse, the distribution 

and extent of sagebrush, and the 

occurrence of invasive weeds and 

associated fire frequencies. Climate 

change effects, including increased 

drought, are predicted in all 

populations. 

(5) West Nile virus (Factor C) is 

present throughout most of the range of 

Gunnison sage-grouse. Although the 

disease has not yet been documented in 

any Gunnison sage-grouse, it has caused 

large mortality events and has also 

caused the deaths of other gallinaceous 

birds including greater sage-grouse. The 

effects of drought and increased 

temperatures will contribute to the 

prevalence and spread of West Nile 

virus and, therefore, the exposure of 

Gunnison sage-grouse to this disease. 

We concluded that West Nile virus is a 

future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse 

rangewide. 

(6) The Davis PVA (2012) is the most 

current and comprehensive 

demographic study and population 

viability analysis. This study 

exclusively used demographic 

information from Gunnison sage-grouse 

and incorporated environmental 

stochasticity (variability in population 

growth rates due to external factors such 

as weather, fire, disease, and predation) 

and demographic stochasticity 

(variability in population growth rates 

due to survival and reproduction rates). 

Model simulations predicted population 

declines in the future (Davis 2012, pp. 

105–106). Combining the six years of 

demographic data (2005 to 2010) from 

both populations, environmental 

stochastic simulations resulted in a 

minimum extinction time of 31 years 

and a mean or expected extinction time 

in this PVA of 58 years. Although this 

model shows that the extinction 

probability for the Gunnison Basin 

population is farther into the future, it 

still supports a determination that the 

species is likely to become endangered 

in the foreseeable future. 

(7) We have found the above-listed 

factors to be significant threats that are 

acting on Gunnison sage-grouse 

populations rangewide and collectively 

are likely to increase over time. We 

further examined whether these threats 

to the Gunnison sage-grouse are 

adequately addressed by existing 

regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). We 

evaluated the adequacy of existing local, 

State, and Federal plans, laws, and 

regulations currently in place across the 

range of the species and determined that 

while they will help to reduce the 

negative effects of human development 

and infrastructure on Gunnison sagegrouse in some respects, and that 

continuation of these efforts across the 

species’ range will be necessary for 

conservation of the species, 

cumulatively the existing regulatory 

mechanisms are not being appropriately 

implemented such that land-use 

practices result in habitat conditions 

that adequately support the life-history 

needs of the species. Existing plans, 

laws, and regulations are not effective at 

ameliorating the threats resulting from 

small population size and structure, 

habitat decline, drought, climate 

change, and disease as discussed above. 

Further, while these regulatory 

mechanisms may help reduce current 

threats to the species, they are 

insufficient to fully reduce or eliminate 

the increase in threats that may act on 

the species in the future. 

(8) Other current and future threats to 

the species identified in this final rule, 

including grazing management 

inconsistent with local ecological 

conditions, fences, invasive plants, fire, 

mineral development, pin ̃ on-juniper 

encroachment, large scale water 

development (all in Factor A); predation 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69305 

(primarily associated with 

anthropogenic disturbance and habitat 

decline)(Factor C); and recreation 

(Factor E) are acting at a more localized 

level, and while individually may affect 

some populations more than others, 

they do not individually or 

cumulatively rise to the level of a 

significant rangewide threat. However, 

the current impacts of these threats do 

contribute to the overall status of the 

species as ‘‘likely to become endangered 

in the foreseeable future’’. As discussed 

under the Threat Factors sections above, 

we also expect that many of these 

threats will increase in the future. 

Summary of the Threatened 

Determination 

In summary, multiple threats affecting 

Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat are 

occurring and interacting 

synergistically, resulting in increasingly 

fragmented habitat and other threats. 

We expect all of these threats to increase 

in the future. The components of human 

infrastructure, once present on the 

landscape, become virtually permanent 

features, fragmenting sagebrush habitats, 

and resulting in the reduction or 

elimination of proactive and effective 

management alternatives. We anticipate 

other threats such as drought, climate 

change, invasive species, and fire 

frequency to increase in the future and 

to act synergistically to become greater 

threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. We 

anticipate renewable energy 

development, particularly geothermal 

and wind energy development, to 

increase in some population areas. 

Taken cumulatively, the ongoing and 

future habitat-based impacts in all 

populations will likely act to fragment 

and further isolate populations of the 

Gunnison sage-grouse. As these threats 

increase, one or more of the satellite 

populations are likely to go extinct due 

to small population size, genetic factors, 

and stochastic environmental events 

and the remaining populations will 

become in danger of extinction. 

Therefore, we find that Gunnison 

sage-grouse is likely to become 

endangered throughout all of its range 

in the foreseeable future, and thus is a 

threatened species as defined by the 

Act. 

As noted above, in determining that 

Gunnison sage-grouse is a threatened 

species, we also considered ongoing 

conservation efforts and existing 

regulatory mechanisms. Based on the 

best available information (Factor A and 

Factor D), such conservation efforts are 

not currently adequate to address the 

full scope of threats to Gunnison sagegrouse, particularly habitat loss and 

decline, small population size and 

structure, drought, climate change, and 

disease. While some efforts have 

provided conservation benefits at the 

rangewide scale, such as the CCAA and 

CEs, these and other conservation efforts 

are limited in scope and therefore 

limited in their ability to effectively 

reduce or remove the threats to the 

species and its habitat across its range. 

Thus, although ongoing conservation 

efforts are a positive step toward 

conserving Gunnison sage-grouse, and 

some have undoubtedly reduced the 

severity of certain threats to the species, 

on the whole we find that current 

conservation efforts are not sufficient to 

offset the full scope of threats to 

Gunnison sage-grouse or prevent the 

increase in threats that result in the 

species likely becoming in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, we cannot conclude that the 

species is not warranted for listing. 

Therefore, on the basis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we are listing Gunnison 

sage-grouse as threatened in accordance 

with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. 

The Gunnison sage grouse is 

restricted in its range and the threats 

occur throughout its range. Therefore, 

we assessed the status of the species 

throughout its entire range. Under the 

Act and our implementing regulations, 

a species may warrant listing if it is 

endangered or threatened throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range. 

Because we have determined that 

Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened 

throughout all of its range, no portion of 

its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for 

purposes of the definitions of 

‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ See the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37577). 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition, recovery actions, 

requirements for Federal protection, and 

prohibitions against certain practices. 

Recognition through listing results in 

public awareness and conservation by 

Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and 

individuals. The Act encourages 

cooperation with the States and requires 

that recovery actions be carried out for 

all listed species. The protection 

required by Federal agencies and the 

prohibitions against certain activities 

are discussed, in part, below. 

The primary purpose of the Act is the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species and the ecosystems 

upon which they depend. The ultimate 

goal of such conservation efforts is the 

recovery of these listed species, so that 

they no longer need the protective 

measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of 

the Act requires the Service to develop 

and implement recovery plans for the 

conservation of endangered and 

threatened species. The recovery 

planning process involves the 

identification of actions that are 

necessary to halt or reverse the species’ 

decline by addressing the threats to its 

survival and recovery. The goal of this 

process is to restore listed species to a 

point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 

Recovery planning includes the 

development of a recovery outline 

shortly after a species is listed, and 

preparation of a draft and final recovery 

plan. The recovery outline guides the 

immediate implementation of urgent 

recovery actions and describes the 

process to be used to develop a recovery 

plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that set a 

trigger for a review of the five factors 

that control whether a species remains 

endangered or threatened or may be 

downlisted or delisted, and methods for 

monitoring recovery progress. Revisions 

of the plan may be made to address 

continuing or new threats to the species, 

as new substantive information becomes 

available. Incorporating or adapting 

components of the Gunnison sagegrouse RCP for a recovery outline will 

be considered. Recovery plans also 

establish a framework for agencies to 

coordinate their recovery efforts and 

provide estimates of the cost of 

implementing recovery tasks. Recovery 

teams (composed of species experts, 

Federal and State agencies, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

stakeholders) are often established to 

develop recovery plans. When 

completed, the recovery outline, draft 

recovery plan, and the final recovery 

plan will be available on our Web site 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or 

from our Western Colorado Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Implementation of recovery actions 

generally requires the participation of a 

broad range of partners, including other 

Federal agencies, States, Tribes, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

businesses, and private landowners. 

Examples of recovery actions include 

habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of 

native vegetation), research, captive 

propagation and reintroduction, and 

outreach and education. The recovery of 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

many listed species cannot be 

accomplished solely on Federal lands 

because their range may occur primarily 

or solely on non-Federal lands. To 

achieve recovery of these species 

requires cooperative conservation efforts 

on private, State, and Tribal lands. 

Funding for recovery actions may be 

available from a variety of sources, 

including Federal budgets, State 

programs, and cost share grants for nonFederal landowners, the academic 

community, and nongovernmental 

organizations. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6 of the Act, the States of 

Colorado and Utah will be eligible for 

Federal funds to implement 

management actions that promote the 

protection and recovery of the Gunnison 

sage-grouse. Information on our grant 

programs that are available to aid 

species recovery can be found at: http:// 

www.fws.gov/grants. 

Please let us know if you are 

interested in participating in recovery 

efforts for this species. Additionally, we 

invite you to submit any new 

information on this species whenever it 

becomes available and any information 

you may have for recovery planning 

purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Section 7(a) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to any species that 

is proposed or listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is designated. 

Regulations implementing this 

interagency cooperation provision of the 

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 

When a species is listed, section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act requires Federal agencies to 

ensure that activities they authorize, 

fund, or carry out are not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the species or destroy or adversely 

modify its critical habitat. If a Federal 

action may affect a listed species or its 

critical habitat, the responsible Federal 

agency must enter into consultation 

with the Service. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species’ habitat that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include 

management and any other landscapealtering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, and 

National Park Service; issuance of 

section 404 Clean Water Act permits by 

the Army Corps of Engineers; 

construction and management of gas 

pipeline and power line rights-of-way 

by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission; and construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered and threatened 

wildlife. The prohibitions of section 

9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 

17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, 

make it illegal for any person subject to 

the jurisdiction of the United States to 

take (includes harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import, export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. Under the Lacey Act (18 

U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), it 

is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally. 

Certain exceptions apply to agents of the 

Service and State conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving endangered and threatened 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 

endangered species, and at 17.32 for 

threatened species. With regard to 

endangered wildlife, a permit must be 

issued for the following purposes: for 

scientific purposes, to enhance the 

propagation or survival of the species, 

and for incidental take in connection 

with otherwise lawful activities. 

It is our policy, as published in the 

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34272), to identify to the maximum 

extent practicable at the time a species 

is listed, those activities that would or 

would not constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 

policy is to increase public awareness of 

the effect of a listing on proposed and 

ongoing activities within the range of 

listed species. The following activities 

could potentially result in a violation of 

section 9 of the Act; this list is not 

comprehensive: 

(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, 

possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, 

or transporting of the species, including 

import or export across State lines and 

international boundaries, except for 

properly documented antique 

specimens of these taxa at least 100 

years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) 

of the Act. 

(2) Actions 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 of sagebrush 

habitat to agricultural land use; habitat 

improvement or restoration projects 

involving mowing, brush-beating, Dixie 

harrowing, disking, plowing, 

Tebuthiuron (Spike) and other herbicide 

applications, or prescribed burning; and 

fire suppression activities. 

(3) Actions 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. 

(4) Actions 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, 

buildings; motorized and non-motorized 

recreational use; and activities such as 

well drilling, operation, and 

maintenance, which would entail 

significant human presence, noise, and 

infrastructure. 

Questions regarding whether specific 

activities would constitute a violation of 

section 9 of the Act should be directed 

to the Western Colorado Field Office 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Requests for copies of the regulations 

concerning listed animals and general 

inquiries regarding prohibitions and 

permits may be addressed to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered 

Species Permits, Denver Federal Center, 

P.O. Box 25486, Denver, Colorado, 

80225–0489 (telephone (303) 236–4256; 

facsimile (303) 236–0027). 

Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the 

Secretary has discretion to issue such 

regulations as he deems necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of threatened species. Our 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 

17.31) for threatened wildlife generally 

incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 

of the Act for endangered wildlife, 

except when a ‘‘special rule’’ 

promulgated pursuant to section 4(d) of 

the Act has been issued with respect to 

a particular threatened species. In such 

a case, the general prohibitions in 50 

CFR 17.31 would not apply to that 

species, and instead, the special rule 

would define the specific take 

prohibitions and exceptions that would 

apply for that particular threatened 

species, which we consider necessary 

and advisable to conserve the species. 

The Secretary also has the discretion to 

prohibit by regulation with respect to a 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69307 

threatened species any act prohibited by 

section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. Exercising 

this discretion, which has been 

delegated to the Service by the 

Secretary, the Service has developed 

general prohibitions that are appropriate 

for most threatened species in 50 CFR 

17.31 and exceptions to those 

prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.32. We 

continue to evaluate the appropriateness 

of issuing a special rule for the 

Gunnison sage-grouse in the future. 

Conservation Measures for Gunnison 

Sage-Grouse Recovery 

We want to work cooperatively with 

and to support the ongoing conservation 

efforts of the many public and private 

partners across the range. Our desire is 

to build on the important existing 

conservation efforts of many partners to 

bring the species to a point where listing 

will no longer be necessary. 

In 2005, the Gunnison sage-grouse 

Range-wide Conservation Plan (RCP) 

(Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide 

Steering Committee 2005) identified 

conservation actions for the Gunnison 

sage-grouse. In 2013, the counties 

belonging to the County Coalition for 

Gunnison sage-grouse indicated that 

they would work with Colorado Parks & 

Wildlife (CPW) to update and revise the 

RCP in the near future to better reflect 

best available science and conservation 

progress made to date. Our partners, the 

counties, and the public asked the 

Service for our perspective on what 

conservation actions would be 

necessary to conserve the Gunnison 

sage-grouse. In advance of the revision 

of the RCP, and in advance of recovery 

planning for the species, the Service 

gathered the best available information 

and conferred with our partners to 

outline conservation recommendations 

that, if achieved, would improve the 

Service’s confidence in the conservation 

of Gunnison sage-grouse. The 

conservation recommendations 

identified here are intended to update, 

modify, and build on the conservation 

strategies in the 2005 RCP and to be 

discussed in the context of an upcoming 

revision to the RCP. The approach and 

actions identified in this section, if 

completed, would help increase the 

satellite populations’ redundancy to the 

Gunnison Basin population, thereby 

increasing the resiliency of the species. 

The Service further recommends that a 

recovery strategy include population 

and habitat targets for the Gunnison 

Basin and the satellite populations 

using a scientifically defensible, peerreviewed approach. 

Targeting Satellite Populations for 

Conservation Efforts 

The Gunnison Basin is the largest 

population (approximately 3,978 birds 

in 2014) and, while showing variation 

from 1996 to 2014, has been relatively 

stable. However, redundancy to the 

Gunnison Basin population is a 

necessary element to have confidence in 

the conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. Confidence in redundancy 

provided by a satellite population is 

based on whether the satellite 

population is able to withstand 

perturbations and recover and persist. 

We recommend developing a recovery 

strategy that will be built around the 

resilience of multiple satellite 

populations to provide redundancy to 

the Gunnison Basin population. 

The total abundance of Gunnison 

sage-grouse is an important indicator of 

species-level resiliency. Of the six 

satellite populations, Poncha Pass and 

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 

have very low population numbers to 

the extent that their potential to provide 

redundancy would be very limited 

without extraordinary conservation 

actions taking place over a long period 

of time. Therefore, to maximize the 

potential to achieve resilience in the 

satellite populations that would provide 

redundancy to the Gunnison Basin 

population, our initial 

recommendations for conservation 

measures focus on the Pin ̃ on Mesa, 

Crawford, San Miguel, and Dove CreekMonticello satellite populations. In 

addition, the Service agrees with the 

RCP assertion that the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa area is needed for 

the conservation of Gunnison sagegrouse, as it has and should continue to 

provide an important habitat linkage to 

the other satellite populations. 

However, the Service recommends 

focusing limited conservation resources 

on the four larger satellite populations 

while still protecting the Cerro SummitCimarron-Sims Mesa area. This 

approach should yield the quickest 

conservation results and improve the 

resilience of the species as a whole. 

Summary of Service Recommendations 

As soon as possible, we want to work 

with CPW and UDWR to convene 

science experts to identify targets for 

population numbers, habitat acreage, 

sagebrush cover, and limiting factors for 

the above-identified satellite 

populations. Development of the targets 

will guide recovery efforts and improve 

confidence in the conservation of the 

species as they are achieved. 

Overarching Conservation Objectives 

We recommend protections that 

should apply rangewide and could be 

achieved on Federal and non-Federal 

lands. 

Protection of Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

Habitat That Is Currently Occupied, or 

That Becomes Occupied Through 

Future Expansion 

Any further loss of habitat quality or 

quantity of habitat will decrease the 

long-term viability of Gunnison sagegrouse. In addition, current occupied 

habitat is not of sufficient quality or 

quantity to provide confidence in 

conservation of the Gunnison sagegrouse. Therefore the goal should be to 

protect all habitat that is occupied or 

that becomes occupied through future 

expansion from future loss and/or 

degradation, including temporary 

degradation related to indirect impacts 

of surface occupancy and/or disruptive 

activities. 

A 4-mile restriction on surface 

disturbance (e.g. No Surface Occupancy) 

for all surface-disturbing activities 

around a lek should be enforced. If there 

are circumstances that preclude No 

Surface Occupancy within 4 miles 

around a lek, such as existing 

disturbances, disruptive activities, or 

valid existing fluid or locatable mineral 

rights in occupied habitat, permitted 

activities should follow the mitigation 

hierarchy of avoiding impact to the 

degree possible, minimizing impact, and 

providing compensatory mitigation to 

offset any unavoidable impacts. In 

addition, for those areas where No 

Surface Occupancy is precluded, the 

following recommendations apply: 

• Limit permitted surface 

disturbances to 1 per section with no 

more than 3 percent surface 

disturbance, factoring in existing and 

new impacts, in that section. 

Protect breeding habitat and leks from 

future loss and/or degradation, 

including temporary degradation related 

to indirect impacts of surface occupancy 

and/or disruptive activities. 

• Leks and the area within 0.6 miles 

must be avoided and protected from 

surface occupancy and disruptive 

activities. 

Æ If avoidance and/or disturbance 

is not possible due to pre-existing valid 

rights, adjacent development, or split 

estate issues, development and/or 

disruptive activities should only be 

allowed in non-habitat areas with an 

adequate buffer to preclude impacts to 

sage-grouse habitat from noise and other 

human activities. 

Protect nesting habitat from any 

future loss and/or degradation, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

including temporary degradation related 

to indirect impacts of surface occupancy 

and/or disruptive activities. 

• The area from 1 to 6.5 km (0.6 to 

4.0 mi) around a lek must be protected 

between March 1st and July 15th. 

Outside of this period, some disturbance 

may occur, but only if the disturbance 

does not exceed the disturbance cap, all 

feasible measures are taken to minimize 

impacts, and it is determined that the 

cumulative impact does not negatively 

affect reproductive success or reduce an 

individual’s physiological ability to 

cope with environmental stress, and 

will not in the future. 

Protect winter habitat from any future 

loss and/or degradation, including 

temporary degradation related to 

indirect impacts of surface occupancy 

and/or disruptive activities. 

• Winter habitats need to be 

identified by CPW or UDWR and 

protected from October 1st to March 1st. 

If winter habitat and winter refuge areas 

are not identified, all potential winter 

habitat must be protected from October 

1st to March 1st. Outside of this period, 

some disturbance may occur, but only if 

the disturbance does not exceed the 

disturbance cap, all feasible measures 

are taken to minimize impacts, and if it 

is determined that the cumulative 

impact does not remove or negatively 

impact the stands of sage-brush 

necessary for Gunnison sage-grouse 

winter survival. 

Maintain summer brood-rearing 

habitat. In grazed areas, require grazing 

management appropriate to local 

ecological conditions to promote and 

achieve habitat characteristics 

representative of healthy sagebrush 

ecosystems and sage-grouse habitat. 

• Areas within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of 

known late summer/brood-rearing 

habitat must be maintained or enhanced 

to represent habitat characteristics 

representative of brood-rearing habitats 

described in the RCP. 

Prevent noise disturbance during the 

breeding season. 

• Do not allow any disruptive 

activities or surface occupancy that will 

increase noise levels 10 dBa above 

ambient noise level measured at sunrise 

at the perimeter of leks during the 

breeding season (March 1st to May 

31st). 

Increase Occupied Habitat 

Reclaim and restore degraded habitat 

to meet characteristics of functional, 

seasonal sage-grouse habitats. 

• Existing disturbances should meet 

reclamation standards that are aimed at 

restoring disturbances to functional 

sage-grouse habitat as described in the 

RCP and are representative of the predisturbance habitat type. 

Range-Wide Mitigation Strategy 

In the Gunnison Basin and the 

satellite populations, any development 

and/or disruptive activities in occupied 

habitat will impact Gunnison sagegrouse. We recommend the 

development of land-use regulations 

that prescribe the following mitigation 

hierarchy of avoid, minimize, and 

compensate for unavoidable impacts, at 

the State or local level. 

If avoidance of surface disturbance 

and disruptive activities around leks 

cannot be achieved, efforts to minimize 

and compensate for impacts will not 

offset impacts. Avoidance of direct and/ 

or indirect disturbance of the area 

within 0.6 miles of existing leks is 

critical, due to sage-grouse site fidelity 

(Connelly 2000). 

If land use regulations quantify the 

negative impacts of surface disturbance 

and disruptive activities on Gunnison 

sage-grouse and then require an offset 

that provides a net conservation benefit, 

that would help ensure that negative 

impacts do not overshadow 

conservation efforts. To be effective, 

mitigation policy must require 

avoidance of impacts as the highest 

priority, then minimization of impacts 

and finally offset of unavoidable 

impacts through conservation actions. 

The San Miguel and Dove CreekMonticello satellite populations may be 

impacted by oil and gas development. 

To manage the potential impact of oil 

and gas development, mitigation policy 

should specify best management 

practices and conservation measures to 

minimize impacts of oil and gas 

development to Gunnison sage-grouse 

and their habitat. 

Conservation Actions Recommended 

for San Miguel, Dove Creek-Monticello, 

Crawford, and Pin ̃ on Mesa Satellite 

Populations 

The following are near-term highpriority recommendations for four of the 

satellite populations. 

Assess Existing Habitat Availability and 

Quality 

Habitat loss and degradation are 

recognized as causes of the decline in 

abundance and distribution of Gunnison 

sage-grouse. The Service agrees with the 

2005 RCP recommendation that 

Gunnison sage-grouse seasonal habitat 

should be identified, habitat quality 

assessed, and changes in habitat 

monitored over time. If CPW and UDWR 

identify seasonal habitat types and 

assess habitat quality, it will improve 

their ability to identify potential 

limiting habitat types and prioritize 

habitat restoration efforts. The Gunnison 

Basin Sage-Grouse Habitat Prioritization 

Tool (HPT) identifies sage-grouse 

habitat and then discounts the value of 

the habitat based on distance to 

structures, roads, and power lines. 

However, the HPT covers only the 

Gunnison Basin and does not possess 

the functionality to determine habitat 

quality. A tool should be developed for 

all of the populations to monitor and 

detect changes to habitat quality and 

seasonal habitat availability. A habitat 

mapping tool could help identify where 

and how to improve habitat quality, 

prioritize habitat improvement projects, 

evaluate development threats and 

protection needs, and adaptively 

manage Gunnison sage-grouse for the 

satellite populations. 

Reduce Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment 

Pinyon-juniper encroachment 

degrades and, if untreated, eliminates 

sage-grouse habitat. Treatment of phase 

I and phase II encroachment levels of 

pinyon-juniper adjacent to occupied 

habitat is often the quickest and least 

expensive method to restore sagebrush 

habitat for sage-grouse. Under the 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS) Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI), a 

geo-spatial analysis of potential pinyonjuniper removal is being completed for 

each of the Western Association of Fish 

& Wildlife Association (WAFWA) sagegrouse Management Zones (MZ). The 

range of the Gunnison sage-grouse is in 

MZ VII. Once the analysis is completed 

for MZ VII, phase I and II encroaching 

pinyon-juniper should be removed, 

starting within 6.5 km (4 mi) of 

occupied habitat and expanding out by 

6.5 km (4 mi) as restored habitat is 

occupied until habitat targets are 

achieved for each satellite population. 

Road Closures 

Disturbance from roads and vehicular 

traffic near leks during the breeding 

season must be reduced and/or 

minimized. Road closures, seasonal 

timing restrictions, and proper siting of 

new roads should be used to eliminate 

or minimize disturbance. In the Pin ̃ on 

Mesa population, a seasonal closure and 

time of day restrictions for the section 

of MS County Road that is directly 

adjacent to one of the leks will remove 

a significant source of potential 

disturbance to that population. 

Grazing Management Appropriate to 

Ecological Conditions 

Overgrazing that is not appropriate for 

ecological conditions on the range can 

lead to habitat degradation. Continued 

enrollment of ranchers into the NRCS 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69309 

SGI will improve grazing management. 

Landowners and land managers who 

manage cattle on both private and 

public lands should be encouraged to 

manage across ownerships for sagegrouse conservation. The Service will 

consider lands already enrolled in the 

Candidate Conservation Agreement with 

Assurances, implementation of NRCS 

practices on private rangelands that 

follow Conference Opinion guidance, 

and lands subject to other programs that 

require signed commitments to manage 

grazing appropriate to ecological 

conditions when assessing the acreage 

being grazed in a manner appropriate to 

ecological conditions in a satellite 

population. 

Prioritize Translocations 

The small population size and 

structure of the six satellite populations 

of Gunnison sage-grouse raises concerns 

about the probability of extirpation of 

the satellite populations and extinction 

of the species due to demographic and/ 

or environmental stochasticity. 

Colorado Parks & Wildlife has indicated 

that recent translocations have had a 

positive influence on the population 

counts seen in 2012–2013. In order to 

maximize the population augmentation 

benefits of translocation, the Colorado 

Parks & Wildlife Trap and Transplant 

Committee should revise the 

translocation strategy to allow for 

prioritization of the Pin ̃on Mesa, 

Crawford, San Miguel, and Dove Creek– 

Monticello satellite populations. The 

revision should address how timing 

(spring and/or fall), age class (adult or 

yearling), gender, and quantity of 

transplants can increase the resilience of 

the Pin ̃ on Mesa, Crawford, San Miguel, 

and Dove Creek–Monticello satellite 

populations. CPW should also continue 

to evaluate the effectiveness of 

translocation strategies to maximize 

their effectiveness. 

Protection of Targeted Occupied Habitat 

The Service agrees with the RCP 

recommendation that 90 percent of 

habitats currently occupied, or that 

become occupied through future 

expansion should be protected through 

a combination of voluntary agreements, 

land use planning, conservation 

easements, fee-title acquisition, or land 

trades. We would consider a variety of 

conservation efforts as providing 

protection of occupied habitat. For 

example: 

BLM Lands With an RMP That Protects 

Gunnison Sage-Grouse 

BLM lands that will be managed 

under the new range-wide Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) amendment for 

Gunnison sage-grouse with sufficient 

protections can be considered as 

providing habitat protection. 

Candidate Conservation Agreement 

With Assurances (CCAA) 

Private lands already enrolled under 

the Candidate Conservation Agreement 

for Gunnison sage-grouse that is 

administered by Colorado Parks & 

Wildlife will be considered as providing 

habitat protection. 

Enrollment in the Sage-Grouse Initiative 

(SGI) 

Private lands managed under 

Conservation Plans that follow the 

guidance of the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service’s Sage-Grouse 

Initiative (SGI) will be considered as 

providing habitat protection. 

Enrollment in the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP) 

The Service will consider private 

lands enrolled in the Farm Service 

Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) within the Dove Creek– 

Monticello satellite population as 

providing habitat protection based on its 

assessment of the quality of habitat 

provided by CRP practices. 

The CRP State Acres for Wildlife 

Enhancement (SAFE) program allows 

continuous sign-up and is designed to 

address State and regional high-priority 

wildlife objectives. Producers within a 

SAFE area can submit offers to 

voluntarily enroll acres in CRP contracts 

for 10–15 years. In exchange, producers 

receive annual CRP rental payments, 

incentives, and cost-share assistance to 

establish, improve, connect, or create 

higher quality habitat. In Colorado, the 

goal of the Colorado Western Slope 

Grouse CRP SAFE project is to restore 

and enhance habitat for the Columbian 

sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, 

and Gunnison sage-grouse. The project 

seeks to enroll 12,600 acres in CRP. 

Enrollment in CRP is limited by FSA 

to 25 percent of cropland in a county, 

unless a waiver is granted. The 

enrollment caps for the Dove Creek– 

Monticello satellite population counties 

are: San Juan County, Utah 33,550 acres; 

Dolores County, Colorado, 22,152 acres; 

and San Miguel County, Colorado, 5,404 

acres. 

Current enrollment in San Juan 

County is 33,654 acres. Three additions 

could be made in San Juan County, 

Utah, to increase the Gunnison sagegrouse conservation value of the CRP 

program: (1) The addition of a CRP 

SAFE program targeting Gunnison sagegrouse would make continuous signup 

available and could also provide 

additional incentives for landowners; 

(2) A waiver to exceed the 25 percent 

cropland limit to allow increased CRP 

enrollment and incentive to create 

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat; and (3) 

The addition of sagebrush and more 

forbs to the CRP seed mix would 

improve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 

more quickly than relying on natural 

reestablishment. 

In Dolores County, Colorado, 6,431 

acres of occupied habitat and 10,869 

acres of potentially suitable habitat are 

currently enrolled in CRP. In San 

Miguel County, Colorado, 303 acres of 

occupied habitat and 4,742 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat are currently 

enrolled in CRP. The 2005 RCP 

identified the lack of sagebrush as an 

issue and recommends that CRP target 

establishment of 5,000 acres of 

sagebrush within 3 miles of leks in Utah 

and 3,000 acres of sagebrush within 6.5 

km (4 mi) of leks in Colorado. 

Protection Under Conservation 

Easements 

Conservation easements with 

provisions that protect Gunnison sagegrouse habitat will be considered as 

providing habitat protection on private 

lands. The Service recommends that 

efforts to increase acreage under 

conservation easements first prioritize 

areas closest to active leks. 

In San Miguel County and Montrose 

County, new conservation easements 

should focus on the Miramonte Basin, 

Iron Mesa, and Gurley Basin. 

In the Dove Creek–Monticello 

population, the majority of occupied 

habitat is privately owned (87 percent in 

Dove Creek; 95 percent in Monticello). 

Conservation easements in the Dove 

Creek–Monticello population should 

prioritize landowners participating in 

the Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP), if the habitat is recognized as 

already providing a high conservation 

value for the population. 

Targeted opportunities under the 

NRCS Agricultural Conservation 

Easement Program (ACEP) could play a 

major role in restoring sagebrush and 

understory grasses and forbs to provide 

the protection levels needed for the 

population persistence. 

Summary 

An updated conservation strategy for 

the Gunnison sage-grouse should reflect 

the complexity of the species’ biology, 

the distribution of the species across the 

landscape, and the diverse stakeholders 

who are critical to success. The Service 

will assess not only population and 

habitat status and trends, but also the 

degree to which current and projected 

threats are addressed when determining 

the confidence in the long-term 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
69310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse. 

The status and trend of the total 

population size of Gunnison sage-grouse 

as well as the status and trend of the 

Gunnison Basin and satellite 

populations influence confidence in the 

resilience and redundancy evaluation. 

The Service also needs to know that 

sage-grouse habitat for the satellite 

populations are of sufficient quality and 

quantity to support populations with a 

high likelihood of persistence. 

Sufficient habitat quality and quantity 

combined with resilient population 

levels could provide confidence that the 

relative extinction risk in the future for 

the satellite populations is sufficiently 

low. Finally, an assessment of habitat 

quality and quantity for all the 

populations will highlight potential 

limiting habitat factors and target 

conservation to efforts that should yield 

the highest and most expedient impact 

on Gunnison sage-grouse populations. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that 

environmental assessments and 

environmental impact statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not 

be prepared in connection with listing 

a species as an endangered or 

threatened species under the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

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. 

The Service consulted with the Ute 

Mountain Ute Tribe (Tribe) on March 

26, 2014, regarding the proposed listing 

of Gunnison sage-grouse and proposed 

critical habitat designation, and 

potential impacts to Tribal activities on 

Pinecrest Ranch (USFWS 2014d, entire). 

Owned by the Tribe under restricted fee 

status, Pinecrest Ranch includes 18,749 

ac of land in the Gunnison Basin 

population area west of Gunnison, 

Colorado, including approximately 

12,000 ac of occupied habitat for 

Gunnison sage-grouse. The consultation 

was focused primarily on potential 

exemptions from take of Gunnison sagegrouse on the ranch and exclusion of the 

ranch from critical habitat designation. 

In consideration of the information 

provided by the Tribe and Tribal 

conservation efforts for Gunnison sagegrouse (see discussion in Factor D), the 

Service is excluding the ranch from the 

critical habitat designation (published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register). 

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. 

Final Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

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. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an 

entry for ‘‘Sage-grouse, Gunnison’’ to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife in alphabetical order under 

‘‘Birds’’ to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate 

population 

where 

endangered or 

threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

*******

BIRDS

* * * * * * * 

Sage-grouse, Gunnison.Centrocercus minimus.U.S.A. (AZ, CO, 

NM, UT).

Entire ...................... T 854 17.95(b) NA 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * Dated: November 7, 2014. 

Daniel M. Ashe, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27109 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2