Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for Petitions To List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered, 2244-2282 [05-583]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2244-2282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-583]



[[Page 2243]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for 
Petitions To List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered; 
Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70 , No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2244]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
for Petitions To List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or 
Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of a 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding for three petitions to list the greater sage-grouse 
(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After reviewing the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing 
is not warranted. We ask the public to submit to us any new information 
that becomes available concerning the status of or threats to the 
species. This information will help us monitor and encourage the 
conservation of this species.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on January 6, 
2005. Although further listing action will not result from this 
finding, we request that you submit new information concerning the 
status of or threats to this species whenever it becomes available.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this 12-month finding, will be 
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours 
at the Wyoming Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. Submit new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species 
to the Service at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Wyoming Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section above), by telephone at (307) 772-2374, by facsimile 
at (307) 772-2358, or by electronic mail at fw6_sagegrouse@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition 
to revise the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants 
that contains substantial scientific or commercial information that the 
action may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date 
of the receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned action is: (a) 
Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded by other 
pending proposals. Such 12-month findings are to be published promptly 
in the Federal Register.
    On July 2, 2002, we received a petition from Craig C. Dremann 
requesting that we list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 
urophasianus) as endangered across its entire range. We received a 
second petition from the Institute for Wildlife Protection on March 24, 
2003 (Webb 2002) requesting that the greater sage-grouse be listed 
rangewide. On December 29, 2003, we received a third petition from the 
American Lands Alliance and 20 additional conservation organizations 
(American Lands Alliance et al.) to list the greater sage-grouse as 
threatened or endangered rangewide. On April 21, 2004, we announced our 
90-day petition finding in the Federal Register (69 FR 21484) that 
these petitions taken collectively, as well as information in our 
files, presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned 
actions may be warranted. In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 
Act, we have now completed a status review of the best available 
scientific and commercial information on the species, and have reached 
a determination regarding the petitioned action.
    This status review of the greater sage-grouse does not address our 
prior finding with regard to the Columbia Basin distinct population 
segment (DPS). On May 7, 2001, we published a 12-month finding on a 
petition to list the Washington population of the western subspecies of 
the greater sage-grouse as a distinct population segment (DPS) (66 FR 
22984). Our finding included a summary of the historic distribution of 
what we then considered to be the western subspecies of the greater 
sage-grouse (see ``Species Information'' below regarding taxonomy). In 
our finding we determined that the population segment that remains in 
central Washington met the requirements of our policy for recognition 
as a distinct population segment (61 FR 4722) and that listing the DPS 
was warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing actions. 
Because the population in central Washington occurs entirely within the 
historic distribution of sage-grouse within the Columbia Basin 
ecosystem, we referred to it as the Columbia Basin DPS (66 FR 22984; 
May 7, 2001). In subsequent candidate notices of review (CNORs), 
including the most recent one published in the Federal Register on May 
4, 2004 (69 FR 24875), we found that a listing proposal for this DPS 
was still warranted but precluded by higher priorities. Since that time 
new information has become available through this status review of the 
greater sage-grouse. We will use the best scientific and commercial 
information available (including, but not limited to information that 
became available during this rangewide status review) to reevaluate 
whether the Columbia Basin population still qualifies as a DPS under 
our DPS policy, and if it does, whether the DPS still warrants a 
listing proposal. Once that evaluation is completed, we will publish an 
updated finding for the Columbia Basin population in the Federal 
Register either in the next CNOR or in a separate notice.

Responses to Comments Received

    We received 889 responses to our request for additional information 
in our 90-day finding for the greater sage-grouse (69 FR 21484). Those 
responses which contained new, updated, or additional information were 
thoroughly considered in this 12-month finding. We received a large 
number of identical or similar comments. We consolidated the comments 
into several categories, and provide responses as follows.
    Comment 1: It is premature for the Service to consider listing the 
sage-grouse until the impact of local and State conservation efforts 
are realized.
    Response 1: The Service is required under section 4 of the Act to 
determine whether or not listing is warranted within 12 months of 
receiving a petition to list a species. By publishing a positive 90-day 
finding in April, 2004 (69 FR 21484), we were required by the Act to 
immediately proceed with the completion of a 12-month finding. We have 
examined ongoing and future conservation efforts in our status review. 
This included using our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts 
When Making Listing Decisions (``PECE'') (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) 
to evaluate conservation efforts by State and local governments and 
other entities that have been planned but have not been implemented, or 
have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness, to 
determine which such efforts met the standard in PECE for contributing 
to our finding. Our analysis of the best available scientific data 
revealed that the greater sage-grouse is not a threatened species, and 
in making this finding it was not necessary to rely on the 
contributions of any of the local, State, or other planned conservation 
efforts that met the standard in PECE. A

[[Page 2245]]

summary of our process with regard to PECE is provided in the section 
``Status Review Process,'' below.
    Comment 2: Listing the sage-grouse could have a negative impact on 
the conservation efforts being implemented by States for this species.
    Response 2: We appreciate the fact that prior to acceptance of the 
listing petitions, States within the range of the greater sage-grouse 
are fully engaged in developing and implementing conservation efforts 
for this species, and we encourage them to continue these efforts. 
Conservation actions which have already been implemented have been 
considered in this decision. However, our determination regarding 
whether or not this species warrants listing under the Act must be 
based on our assessment of population status and threats to the 
species, the species' population status, and the status and trend of 
the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the decision.
    Comment 3: The facts do not support the need for listing this 
species.
    Response 3: The Service has considered all factors potentially 
affecting the greater sage-grouse in our decision and agree that the 
listing is not warranted. We have made our decision based on the best 
available scientific and commercial data, as required by the Act.
    Comment 4: In most western states, sage-grouse populations have 
been fairly steady and in some cases, increasing over the past decade.
    Response 4: The Service has considered population trends in all 
States and Provinces, and across the entire range of the species in our 
status review, including localized increases.
    Comment 5: Locally managed efforts are best suited to preserve and 
protect the greater sage-grouse.
    Response 5: We acknowledge that local conservation efforts for this 
species are important to long-term conservation, particularly given the 
widespread distribution and the variety of habitats and threats. 
However, most of these efforts have not yet been implemented, or have 
not been demonstrated to be effective. Conservation actions that have 
already been implemented and for which effectiveness is known have been 
considered in this decision. Our determination of whether or not this 
species warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment 
of the threats to the species, the species' population status, and the 
status and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time 
of the decision. There is no one best strategy for sage-grouse 
conservation and we encourage the continuation of all conservation 
efforts to conserve the greater sage-grouse. The Service continues to 
support the development of a Conservation Strategy for the Greater 
Sage-grouse by Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
(WAFWA), and supports voluntary conservation as the most effective 
method to protect species and their habitats.
    Comment 6: The recovery process under the Endangered Species Act 
has a very low success rate.
    Response 6: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is a 
listing, not a recovery decision. Our determination regarding whether 
or not this species warrants listing under the Act must be based on our 
assessment of the threats to the species, the species' population 
status, and the status and trend of the species' habitat as they are 
known at the time of the decision, not its potential for recovery under 
the Act. Therefore, this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 7: If the greater sage-grouse is listed there will be a 
reduction of freedom and private property rights and public land use, 
and therefore a negative impact on the country. Listing the grouse will 
also result in economic damage to many entities.
    Response 7: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is based 
on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required by 
the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing must be based on our assessment of the threats to the 
species, the species' population status, and the status and trend of 
the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the decision, not 
the potential social or economic implications of listing. Therefore, 
this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 8: There will be a loss of management options for the 
greater sage-grouse if this species is listed.
    Response 8: We are not aware of any management options that are 
beneficial to the greater sage-grouse that would need to be eliminated 
if this species is listed under the Act-an action we believe to be not 
warranted at this time.
    Comment 9: Listing the greater sage-grouse will divide and polarize 
local communities.
    Response 9: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is based 
on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required by 
the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential socio-political implications of listing. 
Therefore, this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 10: Listing the greater sage-grouse will increase the 
workload for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    Response 10: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential increase in workload for the Service. 
Therefore, this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 11: Listing the greater sage-grouse will result in Federal 
budget limitations for other Federal agencies and projects.
    Response 11: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential implications for the Federal budget of 
listing. Therefore, this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 12: Conservation planning efforts and current Federal 
agency actions are sufficient to conserve the greater sage-grouse.
    Response 12: We acknowledge that many Federal agencies are 
implementing conservation measures for the greater sage-grouse, and 
that several conservation efforts for this species are underway. 
Current federal conservation efforts have been reviewed and considered 
in our analysis. We evaluated planned conservation efforts under PECE 
(see Response 1); most of the planned conservation efforts for the 
greater sage-grouse have not yet been implemented. However, because our 
analysis of the best available scientific and commercial data revealed 
that the greater sage-grouse is not warranted for listing under the 
ESA, it was not necessary to evaluate whether the planned conservation 
efforts that met PECE reduced the threats to the species.
    Comment 13: The petition was subjected to an independent analysis 
and serious problems were found with the science.

[[Page 2246]]

    Response 13: Our 90-day finding was based on the determination that 
the three petitions submitted met the ``substantial information'' 
threshold as defined under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act. At the time 
of the 90-day finding, we did acknowledge that two of the three 
petitions contained some misstatements (69 FR 21484). However, the 
petitions were only one information source of many we used in our 
review for the 90-day finding. For the current 12-month finding, we 
conducted an exhaustive review of the scientific literature, and 
included State, industry, and Federal agency data. This finding does 
not rely on the petitions, but rather the best scientific and 
commercial data available, as required by the Act.
    Comment 14: The Western Governor's Association report provides 
additional information which should be considered.
    Response 14: The Western Governor's Association report was 
considered in this finding.
    Comment 15: Many private sector groups are taking steps to protect 
sage-grouse habitat.
    Response 15: We acknowledge that local conservation efforts for 
this species are important to long-term conservation and strongly 
support the continuation of these efforts. Most of the planned 
conservation efforts for the greater sage-grouse have not yet been 
implemented. As explained above, in making this finding it was not 
necessary to rely on the contributions of any of the local, State, or 
other planned conservation efforts that met the standard in PECE (see 
Response 1).
    Comment 16: Scientific reports detailing the sage-grouse's decline 
consistently declare more work is necessary to adequately assess the 
status of sage-grouse populations.
    Response 16: We agree that additional information on populations 
would be useful. However, as required by the Act, the Service must use 
the best scientific and commercial information available when making a 
12-month finding. The law does not provide a mechanism for the Service 
to improve the available information.
    Comment 17: Hunting is allowed in most states and provides a 
benefit to hunters and state wildlife programs without a negative 
impact on sage-grouse populations.
    Response 17: At this time, it is unclear what area-specific impacts 
sage-grouse hunting has on sage-grouse populations. Most States are 
currently managing their populations in conformance with the WAFWA 
guidelines, which contain the most up-to-date guidelines for sage-
grouse management. Our review indicated that regulated hunting of sage-
grouse does not pose a threat that would lead to the likely 
endangerment of the species in the foreseeable future.
    Comment 18: Now that there is a coordinated effort to further 
protect the species, there is no reason to suspect that this progress 
will not continue.
    Response 18: We acknowledge that many Federal, State, and local 
working groups are implementing protective measures for the greater 
sage-grouse, and that several conservation efforts for this species are 
underway, have been planned, or are in the process of being planned. 
Most of the planned conservation efforts for the greater sage-grouse 
have not yet been implemented. As explained above, in making this 
finding it was not necessary to rely on the contributions of any of the 
local, State, or other planned conservation efforts that met the 
standard in PECE (see Response 1). We strongly encourage continued 
efforts to preserve and protect the greater sage-grouse and its 
habitat.
    Comment 19: The Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and 
Sagebrush Habitats provides additional information which should be 
considered.
    Response 19: The Conservation Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and 
Sagebrush Habitats report was considered in this finding.
    Comment 20: The worst possible outcome is to list the sage-grouse.
    Response 20: Our determination of whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision. We strongly encourage all efforts to conserve the greater 
sage-grouse and its habitat.
    Comment 21: Predators are causing the decline of sage-grouse.
    Response 21: We have considered the effects of predators and 
predator control in our sage-grouse analysis.
    Comment 22: We need to consider the effects of hunting on sage-
grouse.
    Response 22: We have considered the effects of hunting in our sage-
grouse analysis.
    Comment 23: Sage-grouse are doing well in some areas and therefore, 
they should not be listed in those areas. Also, the Service should 
consider the need to list sage-grouse on a state-by-state basis.
    Response 23: The petitions requested that we determine if the 
species needed to be listed across its entire range. Therefore, we have 
to consider the sage-grouse population range-wide. Additionally, our 
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Populations (61 
FR 4722) requires that in order to consider separate populations within 
a species for listing under the Act, such populations must (1) be 
discrete in relation to the remainder of the species to which it 
belongs, and (2) have biological and ecological significance for the 
taxon. We have received no information that suggests any population of 
the greater sage-grouse is isolated from conspecific populations, with 
the exception of the Columbia Basin population in central Washington. 
As described above, we previously determined that a proposal to list 
the Columbia Basin distinct population segment is warranted but 
precluded by other higher priority listing actions (66 FR 22984), and 
in the near future we will reevaluate that determination to consider 
new information, including (but not limited to) information available 
as a result of this status review and finding on petitions to list the 
greater sage-grouse.
    Comment 24: Drought and other weather conditions have had a major 
effect on sage-grouse populations.
    Response 24: We acknowledge that drought and other weather 
conditions are a natural occurrence in the west and we have considered 
the effects of drought in our sage-grouse analysis.
    Comment 25: It was interesting to see flocks of dozens of grouse 
near fences, since conventional wisdom sees fences as perches for 
raptors and hence areas of avoidance for raptor-wary grouse.
    Response 25: We acknowledge that raptors do use fences as perch 
sites. Sage-grouse tend to avoid perch sites like fences but threats of 
raptors do not totally exclude sage-grouse use of habitat near fences.
    Comment 26: The size of sage-grouse populations can be affected by 
habitat condition.
    Response 26: We acknowledge that habitat conditions can affect 
local sage-grouse numbers. We have considered this information in the 
finding.
    Comment 27: Disease is a natural event that may be negatively 
affecting sage-grouse.
    Response 27: We have considered the effects of disease on greater 
sage-grouse in this finding. As identified in the Act, it is one of the 
threat factors we are required to consider in our status review.
    Comment 28: Listing the greater sage-grouse will remove the 
flexibility of local planning efforts.
    Response 28: We recognize that listing may affect local planning 
efforts, due to its effect on voluntary conservation efforts. However, 
we may not consider those effects under this status review.

[[Page 2247]]

    Comment 29: Maintaining and improving habitat is the answer to 
increasing sage-grouse numbers.
    Response 29: We concur that maintaining habitat is important for 
the long-term conservation of the greater sage-grouse. We strongly 
encourage efforts to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat.
    Comment 30: Greater sage-grouse numbers and distribution have 
significantly declined since 1900.
    Response 30: The information pertaining to the status and 
distribution of the greater sage-grouse has been reviewed and 
incorporated in our analysis. Sage-grouse abundance has been 
scientifically documented as declining since the 1950s, but the rate of 
decline has decreased since the 1980s and in some places has 
stabilized, or even increased.
    Comment 31: Destructive land use practices and management on public 
and private lands are negatively affecting the greater sage-grouse.
    Response 31: We have considered the effects of various uses of 
private and public lands on the status of the greater sage-grouse in 
this finding.
    Comment 32: Negative impacts to the greater sage-grouse continue 
irrespective of efforts by State and local working groups.
    Response 32: Most State and local working group conservation 
efforts for the greater sage-grouse have not yet been implemented, and 
the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of such efforts is 
unclear. However, we have considered all conservation efforts which 
have been implemented and shown to be effective. As explained above, in 
making this finding it was not necessary to rely on the contributions 
of any of the local, state, or other planned conservation efforts that 
met the standard in PECE (see Response 1).
    Comment 33: Listing the sage-grouse would affect much-needed land 
management reform.
    Response 33: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential land management implications of listing. 
Therefore, this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 34: The ESA requires that listing decisions be based solely 
on the best science and biological information about the species and 
its habitats.
    Response 34: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act.
    Comment 35: Meaningful regulatory mechanisms are non-existent and 
existing management is inadequate to conserve the bird.
    Response 35: We have considered existing regulatory mechanisms and 
management activities in this finding.
    Comment 36: Only listing the greater sage-grouse under the 
Endangered Species Act will save the birds and its habitat.
    Response 36: Our determination of whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision. We strongly encourage all efforts to conserve the greater 
sage-grouse and its habitat.
    Comment 37: Listing the greater sage-grouse would benefit a variety 
of other sagebrush obligates and sagebrush-dependent species.
    Response 37: This finding is for the greater sage-grouse only. 
Therefore, we cannot consider the potential impact of listing the 
greater sage-grouse on the status of other sagebrush-dependent species 
in our decision.
    Comment 38: The WAFWA Conservation Assessment is disturbing in that 
its findings show a wide discrepancy in how States monitor greater 
sage-grouse.
    Response 38: The WAFWA Conservation Assessment represents one 
component of the best available scientific and commercial data that we 
used in our analysis, as required by the Act. The fact that the States 
vary somewhat in how they conduct monitoring of this species was 
considered in this finding.
    Comment 39: The loss of small populations of sage-grouse increases 
the species' risk of extinction when the species occurs primarily in 
spread out, island-like patches of habitat.
    Response 39: We have considered the effects of small population 
sizes and isolated populations in our finding.
    Comment 40: Current regulatory frameworks are sufficient to protect 
the greater sage-grouse.
    Response 40: We have considered existing regulatory mechanisms and 
management activities in this finding and determined that existing 
regulatory protections in combination with the existing threats do not 
warrant listing the greater sage-grouse range-wide.
    Comment 41: Grazing is good for sage-grouse. Improvements to 
grazing practices have been positive for sage-grouse.
    Response 41: We have considered all aspects of grazing impacts on 
the greater sage-grouse in our finding.
    Comment 42: Listing the greater sage-grouse will curtail energy 
development.
    Response 42: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential land management implications of listing. We 
did evaluate the threat of energy development to greater sage-grouse in 
this finding.
    Comment 43: ESA is prohibitively expensive to implement.
    Response 43: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential cost of listing. Therefore, this comment 
may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 44: There is adequate funding available for future 
conservation efforts for the greater sage-grouse.
    Response 44: We evaluated the certainty of funding for future 
conservation efforts as part of our evaluation of efforts that were 
subject to PECE. We encourage the continued implementation of 
conservation efforts for the greater sage-grouse.
    Comment 45: We have additional information for your analysis.
    Response 45: All relevant additional, new, or updated information 
received in comments submitted was thoroughly considered in this 12-
month finding.
    Comment 46: We have information regarding proposed actions for your 
analysis.
    Response 46: We have examined proposed actions, consistent with 
PECE (68 FR 15100) in our status review. Our analysis of the best 
available scientific and commercial data revealed that listing the 
greater sage-grouse as threatened or endangered is not warranted, and 
in making this finding it was not necessary to rely on the

[[Page 2248]]

contribution of any of the local, State, or other planned conservation 
efforts that met the standard in PECE (see Response 1).
    Comment 47: The Service's 90-day finding did not consider all 
available information.
    Response 47: For a 90-day finding, we are required to review the 
information in the petition(s), our files, and any information provided 
by States and Tribes. Based upon this information, the Service 
determines whether there is substantial information indicating that 
further review is necessary. We are required to consider the best 
available scientific and commercial data in our 12-month status review. 
This finding represents our conclusions based on that information.
    Comment 48: Falconers take very few sage-grouse. They are a 
preferred species for only one extremely specialized form of falconry.
    Response 48: We have considered this information in our analysis.
    Comment 49: If the Service determines that listing the sage-grouse 
is appropriate, they will have to designate critical habitat.
    Response 49: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision. We designate critical habitat for listed species as required 
by the Act.
    Comment 50: The Service must consider the status of the sage-grouse 
across the entirety of its range.
    Response 50: We have considered the status of the greater sage-
grouse across the entirety of its range, as petitioned.
    Comment 51: We do not believe that the designation of the 
Washington population of sage-grouse as a Distinct Population Segment 
(DPS) is appropriate.
    Response 51: This status review of the greater sage-grouse does not 
address our prior finding with regard to the Columbia Basin distinct 
population segment (DPS). New information which has become available 
through this status review of the greater sage-grouse will be 
considered when we re-evaluate the status of the Columbia Basin 
population, either through an updated finding or in the next Candidate 
Notice of Review.
    Comment 52: Managing agencies lack Best Management Practices due to 
the lack of support, manpower, and funding.
    Response 52: We acknowledge that the extent of support, manpower, 
and funding may influence some aspects of the implementation of Best 
Management Practices (BMPs) for sage-grouse. As currently described, 
most BMPs are very broadly stated mitigation measures that involve 
incorporating project design features when various resource management 
activities are planned, in order to reduce or avoid impacts to species.
    Comment 53: Industry has implemented many mitigation and protection 
measures for sage-grouse.
    Response 53: We acknowledge that industries are implementing some 
mitigation and protective measures for sage-grouse. We evaluated all 
such information that was available to us. We strongly encourage the 
continuation of all efforts to conserve the greater sage-grouse and its 
habitat.
    Comment 54: Listing the sage-grouse could have profound impacts on 
a number of military facilities.
    Response 54: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, not the potential impact of listing on military facilities. 
Therefore, this comment may not be considered in this finding.
    Comment 55: Loss of habitat to cheatgrass and juniper invasion are 
major threats to sage-grouse habitat. The technologies and know-how 
exist to eliminate or reduce the cheatgrass and juniper invasion 
trends.
    Response 55: We acknowledge that cheatgrass and juniper invasions 
are threats to sage-grouse habitats. Currently, technologies have been 
developed or are being developed to treat problems of cheatgrass and 
juniper invasions. Our review found mixed results in the current 
technologies' ability to treat cheatgrass and juniper problems.
    Comment 56: Historic declines and habitat loss are not relevant to 
the current listing decision.
    Response 56: Our decision regarding the greater sage-grouse is 
based on the best available scientific and commercial data, as required 
by the Act. Our determination regarding whether or not this species 
warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment of the 
threats to the species, the species' population status, and the status 
and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time of the 
decision, including information on historic declines and habitat loss 
to the extent that they contribute to current threats.
    Comment 57: There is no peer-reviewed science to support a listing.
    Response 57: We have reviewed scientific, peer-reviewed literature 
in our analysis, as well as commercial and unpublished data. The 
cumulative review of this information was used to determine if the 
greater sage-grouse warrants listing under the Endangered Species Act.
    Comment 58: Most sage-grouse habitat loss due to agriculture (i.e., 
conversion to cropland, seeding to crested wheatgrass, etc.) has been 
eliminated or greatly reduced. Large-scale conversions to agriculture 
are decreasing.
    Response 58: We acknowledge that there have been changes in the 
rate of loss of sage-grouse habitat due to various agricultural 
conversions. We have considered this information in our analysis.
    Comment 59: The Service must consider all listing factors when 
making a determination.
    Response 59: Our determination regarding whether or not this 
species warrants listing under the Act must be based on our assessment 
of the threats to the species, the species' population status, and the 
status and trend of the species' habitat as they are known at the time 
of the decision. We consider the effects of all threats on the status 
of the species when we make our determination.
    Comment 60: Present habitat provides the necessary elements to 
sustain a highly viable sage-grouse population.
    Response 60: We have considered existing habitat conditions for the 
greater sage-grouse throughout its range in this finding.
    Comment 61: There is insufficient funding available to adequately 
fund existing and proposed conservation plans for the greater sage-
grouse.
    Response 61: We have examined ongoing and future conservation 
efforts in our status review. We have examined proposed actions, 
consistent with PECE (68 FR 15100), in our status review, and this 
included consideration of funding, consistent with one of the criteria 
in PECE. (See also Response 1, above).
    Comment 62: Wildfire is a threat to sage-grouse habitat and can 
result in habitat elimination across the species' range.
    Response 62: We have considered the effects of wildfire on sage-
grouse habitat in this finding.

[[Page 2249]]

Information Quality Act

    In addition to the comments received, two Information Quality Act 
challenges were submitted. The challenge received from the Partnership 
for the West was addressed through a response directly to that 
organization. The second challenge from the Owyhee County Commissioners 
(Idaho) primarily stated that we failed to conduct an exhaustive search 
of all scientific literature, and other information in the completion 
of our 90-day finding. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act only requires that 
the petitions present ``substantial scientific or commercial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.'' 
The Act does not require an exhaustive search of all available 
information at that time. Other concerns identified in the Owyhee 
County Commissioner's challenge are addressed in our comment responses 
above, and an overall summary regarding the steps we have taken to 
ensure conformance with our Information Quality Guidelines is provided 
below.
    The Service's Information Quality Guidelines define quality as an 
encompassing term that includes utility, objectivity, and integrity. 
Utility refers to the usefulness of the information to its intended 
users, including the public. Objectivity includes disseminating 
information in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner and 
ensuring accurate, reliable, and unbiased information. If data and 
analytic results have been subjected to formal, independent, external 
peer review, we generally will presume that the information is of 
acceptable objectivity. Integrity refers to the security of 
information--protection of the information from unauthorized access or 
revision, to ensure that the information is not compromised through 
corruption or falsification.
    The Service conducted a thorough pre-dissemination review of the 
data it is relying on to make this 12-month finding. In particular, the 
Service used the information in the WAWFA Conservation Assessment, 
which is a peer-reviewed science document. The WAWFA assessment was 
based on data provided by the states, provinces, land management 
agencies, as well as data in published, peer-reviewed manuscripts and 
other verified sources available to the authors of the assessment. The 
draft final assessment was reviewed by State agency wildlife biologists 
to ensure that data submitted by each State were presented accurately 
and completely. The assessment also was peer reviewed by an independent 
group of scientists selected by the Ecological Society of America. 
These reviewers were experts from academia, government, and non-
governmental organizations, and included researchers as well as 
wildlife managers.
    The WAWFA Conservation Assessment assembles in one place almost all 
of the available pertinent data that addresses the current biological 
and ecological condition of the sage-grouse and its habitat. This 
compilation of material allows the public to see a large body of 
information all in one document, making the information more useful 
than the many separate sources of information would be. Since the 
document has been subject to an independent, external peer review, the 
Service believes it is of acceptable objectivity. For these reasons the 
Service believes this information meets our Information Quality 
Guidelines.

Status Review Process

    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to consider the best 
scientific and commercial data available as well as efforts being made 
by States or other entities to protect a species when making a listing 
decision. To meet this standard we systematically collected information 
on the greater sage-grouse, its habitats, and environmental factors 
affecting the species, from a wide array of sources. The scientific 
literature on greater sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats is extensive. 
In addition we received a substantial amount of unpublished information 
from other Federal agencies, States, private industry and individuals. 
We also solicited information on all Federal, State, or local 
conservation efforts currently in operation or planned for either the 
greater sage-grouse or its habitats.
    The current distribution of greater sage-grouse and sagebrush 
habitat encompasses parts of 11 states in the western United States and 
2 Canadian provinces (Figure 1). This large geographical scale combined 
with major ecological differences in sagebrush habitat and myriad of 
activities occurring across this large area required that the Service 
employ a structured analysis approach. Given the very large body of 
information available to us for our decision, structuring our analysis 
ensured we could explicitly assess the relative risk of changes 
occurring across the range of the sage-grouse, and integrate those 
individual assessments, be they regional or rangewide in nature, into 
an estimate of the probability that sage-grouse would go extinct at 
defined timeframes in the future. Using such extinction risk analysis 
to frame listing decisions under the Act has been recommended (National 
Research Council 1995), and was adopted by the Service as an important 
component of a structured analysis of the status review of the greater 
sage-grouse.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 2250]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12JA05.015

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 2251]]

    As part of the structuring of this status review, the Service 
compiled from the best scientific and commercial data available a 
summary of the changes or impacts occurring to the sagebrush ecosystem 
that could potentially affect the sage-grouse directly or indirectly. 
This summary, or synthesis of biological information, was one of many 
sources of information provided to a panel of seven experts, who, 
through a two-day facilitated process discussed threats to the species 
and each generated an estimate of extinction risk for the greater sage-
grouse at different timeframes in the future. This information and all 
other available information were then considered by Service biologists 
and managers to frame a listing recommendation, and ultimately the 
decision reported in this finding.
    Expert panels are not a required component of structured analysis 
but are used to help inform decision makers when there is uncertainty 
(National Research Council 1995). Typically, this uncertainty is due to 
a lack of information. While the scientific information on greater 
sage-grouse and their habitats is extensive, substantial gaps and 
uncertainty remain in the scientific community's knowledge of all the 
factors that may affect sage-grouse populations across such a wide 
geographical range encompassing major ecological differences in 
sagebrush habitats. Further, scientific knowledge of how the species 
may respond to those factors over time is incomplete. For these 
reasons, we requested input from scientific experts outside the Service 
to help us make a reasonable projection of the species' potential 
extinction risk. The panel consisted of experts in sage-grouse biology 
and ecology, sagebrush community ecology, and range ecology and 
management.
    The organization of this finding reflects this basic approach. We 
first describe in more detail the structured process; present a summary 
of the threats to the species organized according to the 5 listing 
factors in the Act; then we present results from the facilitated expert 
panel process, including estimates of extinction risk; and finally 
present how a team of Service biologists and managers interpreted the 
extinction risk analysis, the threat ranking of the expert panelists, 
and other available information in the context of a listing decision 
under the Act. In order to ensure that the process we used to reach our 
finding is transparent, discussion of the biological significance of 
each threat listed under the 5 listing factors, and the geographical 
scale at which they affect sage-grouse is based on results of the 
expert panel and decision support team process. A thorough description 
of this process and its results is presented later in the finding along 
with the decision support team's evaluation of the threats in the 
context of a listing decision under the Act. However, we felt it was 
important to include a brief discussion of the spatial and biological 
significance of each threat as they are presented by listing factor.
    Following compilation of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, which is summarized in other sections of this 
finding and available in full in our administrative record, we 
conducted three phases of information synthesis and evaluation. First, 
the information on individual planned conservation efforts was 
evaluated under PECE to determine which efforts met the following 
standard in PECE: ``To consider that a formalized conservation 
effort(s) 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) analysis'' (see 68 FR 15115). Second, we completed a 
structured analysis of greater sage-grouse extinction risk including 
the evaluation of all factors that may be contributing to the species' 
population trends and the likelihood of the species' extinction at 
various timeframes into the future. Finally, we evaluated whether the 
available information on status, trends, ongoing conservation efforts, 
and potential extinction risk indicate that the greater sage-grouse 
should be listed as a threatened or endangered species. We further 
structured these three phases by differentiating two distinct stages of 
the status review: (1) A risk analysis phase which consisted of 
compiling biological information, conducting the PECE analysis, and 
assessing the risk of extinction of greater sage-grouse, and (2) a risk 
management phase where a decision support team of senior Service 
biologists and managers evaluated whether or not the potential threats 
identified as part of our section 4(a)(1) analysis, and summarized in 
this finding, are significant enough to qualify the greater sage-grouse 
as a threatened or endangered species under the Act.
    For the PECE analysis, we received and reviewed 27 plans, or 
conservation strategies, outlining more than 300 individual efforts. 
Most of the plans were from States, but we also received information 
from the Department of Energy (DOE), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Department of Defense (DOD), Natural 
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Western Governor's Association 
(WGA), and the North American Grouse Partnership (NAGP).
    Each effort within each plan was evaluated under PECE, which 
provides a framework and criteria for evaluating conservation efforts 
that have not yet been implemented or have not yet demonstrated whether 
they are effective at the time of a listing decision. Recognizing that 
the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of various efforts 
within a conservation plan, strategy, or agreement may vary, PECE 
requires that we evaluate each effort individually, and the policy 
provides criteria to direct our analysis. PECE specifies that ``Those 
conservation efforts that are not sufficiently certain to be 
implemented and effective cannot contribute to a determination that 
listing is unnecessary or a determination to list as threatened rather 
than endangered'' (see 68 FR 15115). As described above, when 
determining whether or not a species warrants listing, with regard to 
conservation efforts that are subject to PECE we may only consider 
those efforts that we are sufficiently certain to be implemented and 
effective so as to have contributed to the elimination or reduction of 
one or more threats to the species. Using the criteria provided in 
PECE, we determined that 20 of the individual efforts we evaluated met 
the standard for being sufficiently certain to be implemented and 
effective in reducing threats. Hence, we included those 20 efforts in 
the information used for the extinction risk evaluation.
    The expert panelists participated together in a series of 
facilitated exercises and discussions addressing first the species' 
inherent biological vulnerability and resilience, then the potential, 
relative influence of extrinsic or environmental factors on 
populations, and finally the experts' projections of extinction risk at 
different geographical scales both with and without the 20 planned 
conservation efforts from the PECE analysis. The Service would only 
consider the effect of the conservation efforts that met PECE in our 
decision if our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
data revealed that listing the greater sage-grouse under the Act was 
warranted. The experts participated only in the assessment of 
biological and environmental factors and related extinction risk 
without any consideration or discussion of the petition or regulatory 
classification of

[[Page 2252]]

the species. Structuring of the assessment facilitated thorough and 
careful deliberation by the experts and observing Service biologists 
and managers on the decision support team, including clarification of 
what information was critical to forming the experts' views of, where 
knowledge gaps and areas of uncertainty exist, and confidence experts 
felt in the biological judgments they expressed. Structuring also 
facilitated independent contributions from the experts.
    In the final status review stage, following the compilation of 
biological information, PECE analysis of conservation efforts, and the 
facilitated extinction risk assessment by the expert panel, Service 
biologists and managers met and conducted a separate facilitated 
process to assess whether or not the threats to the greater sage-grouse 
described in this finding were significant enough at this time to meet 
the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the Act. 
Specific results from both the facilitated risk analysis stage of the 
status review and the facilitated risk management stage of the status 
review are presented later in the finding to clarify how the Service 
reached its decision. The Service's finding considered all of the 
available information on record.

Species Information

    The sage-grouse is the largest North American grouse species. Adult 
males range in length from 66 to 76 centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 inches 
(in)) and weigh between 2 and 3 kilograms (kg) (4 and 7 pounds (lb)). 
Adult females range in length from 48 to 58 cm (19 to 23 in) and weigh 
between 1 and 2 kg (2 and 4 lb). Males and females have dark grayish-
brown body plumage with many small gray and white speckles, fleshy 
yellow combs over the eyes, long pointed tails, and dark green toes. 
Males also have blackish chin and throat feathers, conspicuous 
phylloplumes (specialized erectile feathers) at the back of the head 
and neck, and white feathers forming a ruff around the neck and upper 
belly. During breeding displays, males exhibit olive-green apteria 
(fleshy bare patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999).
    In 2000, the species was separated into 2 distinct species, the 
greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus) and the Gunnison sage-grouse (C. 
minimus) based on genetic, morphological and behavioral differences 
(Young et al. 2000). This finding only addresses the greater sage-
grouse.
    Although the American Ornithological Union (AOU) recognizes two 
subspecies of the greater sage-grouse, the eastern (C. u. urophasianus) 
and western (C. u. phaios), based on research by Aldrich (1946), recent 
genetic analyses do not support this delineation (Benedict et al. 2003; 
Oyler-McCance et al. in press). There are no known delimiting 
differences in habitat use, natural history, or behavior between the 
two subspecies. Therefore, the Service no longer acknowledges the 
subspecies designation (68 FR 6500; February 7, 2003; 69 FR 933; 
January 7, 2004).
    Sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout 
their life cycle, and are considered obligate users of several species 
of sagebrush (e.g., Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata 
wyomingensis), mountain big sagebrush (A. t. vaseyana), and basin big 
sagebrush (A. t. tridentata) (Patterson 1952; Braun et al. 1976; 
Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004)). Sage-grouse also use 
other sagebrush species such as low sagebrush (A. arbuscula), black 
sagebrush (A. nova), fringed sagebrush (A. frigida) and silver 
sagebrush (A. cana) (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2004). 
Thus, sage-grouse distribution is strongly correlated with the 
distribution of sagebrush habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004). While sage-
grouse are dependent on large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush 
(Patterson 1952; Connelly et al. 2004), information is not available 
regarding minimum sagebrush patch sizes required to support populations 
of sage-grouse. Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity (loyalty to a 
particular area) for breeding and nesting areas (Connelly et al. 2004).
    During the spring breeding season, male sage-grouse gather together 
to perform courtship displays on display areas called leks. Areas of 
bare soil, short-grass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed knolls, or 
other relatively open sites may serve as leks (Patterson 1952; Connelly 
et al. 2004 and references therein). Leks are often surrounded by 
denser shrub-steppe cover, which is used for escape, thermal and 
feeding cover. Leks can be formed opportunistically at any appropriate 
site within or adjacent to nesting habitat (Connelly et al. 2000a), and 
therefore lek habitat availability is not considered to be a limiting 
factor for sage-grouse (Schroeder 1997). Leks range in size from less 
than 0.04 hectare (ha) (0.1 acre (ac)) to over 36 ha (90 ac) (Connelly 
et al. 2004) and can host from several to hundreds of males (Johnsgard 
2002). Males defend individual territories within leks and perform 
elaborate displays with their specialized plumage and vocalizations to 
attract females for mating. A relatively small number of dominant males 
accounts for the majority of breeding on each lek (Schroeder et al. 
1999).
    Sage-grouse typically select nest sites under sagebrush cover, 
although other shrub or bunchgrass species are sometimes used (Klebenow 
1969; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004). The sagebrush 
understory of productive nesting areas contains native grasses and 
forbs, with horizontal and vertical structural diversity that provides 
an insect prey base, herbaceous forage for pre-laying and nesting hens, 
and cover for the hen while she is incubating (Gregg 1991; Schroeder et 
al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a; Connelly et al. 2004). Shrub canopy 
and grass cover provide concealment for sage-grouse nests and young, 
and are critical for reproductive success (Barnett and Crawford 1994; 
Gregg et al. 1994; DeLong et al.1995; Connelly et al. 2004). Vegetation 
characteristics of nest sites, as reported in the scientific literature 
have been summarized by Connelly et al. (2000a). Females have been 
documented to travel more than 20 km (12.5 mi) to their nest site after 
mating (Connelly et al. 2000a), but distances between a nest site and 
the lek on which breeding occurred is variable (Connelly et al. 2004). 
While earlier studies indicated that most hens nest within 3.2 km (2 
mi) of a lek, more recent research indicates that many hens actually 
move much further from leks to nest based on nesting habitat quality 
(Connelly et al. 2004). Research by Bradbury et al. (1989) and Wakkinen 
et al. (1992) demonstrated that nest sites are selected independent of 
lek locations.
    Sage-grouse clutch size ranges from 6 to 13 eggs (Schroeder et al. 
2000). Nest success (one or more eggs hatching from a nest), as 
reported in the scientific literature, ranges from 15 to 86 percent of 
initiated nests (Schroeder et al. 1999), and is typically lower than 
other prairie grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000a) and therefore 
indicative of a lower intrinsic (potential) population growth rate than 
in most game bird species (Schroeder et al. 1999). Renesting rates 
following nest loss range from 5 to 41 percent (Schroeder 1997).
    Hens rear their broods in the vicinity of the nest site for the 
first 2 to 3 weeks following hatching (Connelly et al. 2004). Forbs and 
insects are essential nutritional components for chicks (Klebenow and 
Gray 1968; Johnson and Boyce 1991; Connelly et al. 2004). Therefore, 
early 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. 2004).

[[Page 2253]]

    Sage-grouse move from sagebrush uplands to more mesic areas during 
the late brood-rearing period (3 weeks post-hatch) in response to 
summer desiccation of herbaceous vegetation (Connelly et al. 2000a). 
Summer use areas can include sagebrush habitats as well as riparian 
areas, wet meadows and alfalfa fields (Schroeder et al. 1999). These 
areas provide an abundance of forbs and insects for both hens and 
chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999; Connelly et al. 2000a). Sage-grouse will 
use free water although they do not require it since they obtain their 
water needs from the food they eat. However, natural water bodies and 
reservoirs can provide mesic areas for succulent forb and insect 
production, thereby attracting sage-grouse hens with broods (Connelly 
et al. 2004). Broodless hens and cocks will also use more mesic areas 
in close proximity to sagebrush cover during the late summer (Connelly 
et al. 2004).
    As vegetation continues to desiccate through the late summer and 
fall, sage-grouse shift their diet entirely to sagebrush (Schroeder et 
al. 1999). Sage-grouse depend entirely on sagebrush throughout the 
winter for both food and cover. Sagebrush stand selection is influenced 
by snow depth (Patterson 1952; Connelly 1982 as cited in Connelly et 
al. 2000a), and, in some areas, topography (Beck 1977; Crawford et al. 
2004).
    Many populations of sage-grouse migrate between seasonal ranges in 
response to habitat distribution (Connelly et al. 2004). Migration can 
occur between winter and breeding/summer areas, between breeding, 
summer and winter areas, or not at all. Migration distances of up to 
161 kilometers (km) (100 mi) have been recorded (Patterson 1952); 
however, average individual movements are generally less than 34 km (21 
mi) (Schroeder et al. 1999). Migration distances for female sage-grouse 
generally are less than for males (Connelly et al. 2004). Almost no 
information is available regarding the distribution and characteristics 
of migration corridors for sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004). Sage-
grouse dispersal (permanent moves to other areas) is poorly understood 
(Connelly et al. 2004) and appears to be sporadic (Dunn and Braun 
1986).
    Sage-grouse typically live between 1 and 4 years, but individuals 
up to 10 years of age have been recorded in the wild (Schroeder et al. 
1999). Juvenile survival (from hatch to first breeding season) is 
affected by food availability, habitat quality, harvest, and weather. 
Documented juvenile survival rates have ranged between 7 and 60 percent 
in a review of many field studies (Crawford et al. 2004). The average 
annual survival rate for male sage-grouse (all ages combined) 
documented in various studies ranged from 38 to 60 percent (Schroeder 
et al. 1999), and for females 55 to 75 percent (Schroeder 1997; 
Schroeder et al. 1999). Survival rates are high compared with other 
prairie grouse species (Schroeder et al. 1999). Higher female survival 
rates account for a female-biased sex ratio in adult birds (Schroeder 
1997; Johnsgard 2002). Although seasonal patterns of mortality have not 
been thoroughly examined, over-winter mortality is low (Connelly et al. 
2004).

Range and Distribution

    Prior to settlement of the western North America by European 
immigrants in the 19th century, greater sage-grouse lived in 13 States 
and 3 Canadian provinces--Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, 
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, 
Nebraska, Arizona, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan 
(Schroeder et al. 1999; Young et al. 2000; Schroeder et al. 2004). 
Sagebrush habitats that potentially supported sage-grouse occurred over 
approximately 1,200,483 km2 (463,509 mi2) before 1800 (Schroeder et al. 
2004). Currently, sage-grouse occur in 11 States and 2 Canadian 
provinces, ranging from extreme southeastern Alberta and southwestern 
Saskatchewan, south to western Colorado, and west to eastern 
California, Oregon, and Washington. Sage-grouse have been extirpated 
from Nebraska, British Columbia, and possibly Arizona (Schroeder et al. 
1999; Young et al. 2000; Schroeder et al. 2004). Current distribution 
of the greater sage-grouse is estimated at 668,412 km2 (258,075 mi2) or 
56 percent of the potential pre-settlement distribution (Schroeder et 
al. 2004; Connelly et al. 2004). The vast majority of the current 
distribution of the greater sage-grouse is within the United States.
    Estimates of current total sage-grouse abundance vary, but are all 
much lower than the historical estimates of a million or more birds. 
Braun (1998) estimated that the 1998 rangewide spring population 
numbered about 142,000 sage-grouse, derived from numbers of males 
counted on leks. The Service estimated the rangewide abundance of sage-
grouse in 2000 was at least 100,000 (taken from Braun (1998)) and up to 
500,000 birds (based on harvest data from Idaho, Montana, Oregon and 
Wyoming, with the assumption that 10 percent of the population is 
typically harvested) (65 FR 51578). Survey intensity has increased 
markedly in recent years and, in 2003, more than 50,000 males were 
counted on leks (Connelly et al. 2004). Therefore, Connelly et al. 
(2004) concluded that rangewide population numbers in 2003 were likely 
much greater than the 142,000 estimated in 1998 but was unable to 
generate a rangewide population estimate. Sampling methods used across 
the range of the sage-grouse differ, resulting in too much variation to 
reliably estimate sage-grouse numbers (Connelly et al. 2004). Since 
neither pre-settlement nor current numbers of sage-grouse are known 
with complete precision, the actual rate and extent of decline cannot 
be exactly estimated.
    Periods of historical decline in sage-grouse abundance occurred 
from the late 1800s to the early-1900s (Hornaday 1916; Crawford 1982; 
Drut 1994; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995; Braun 1998; 
Schroeder et al. 1999). Other declines in sage-grouse populatio