Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered, 76058-76079 [E6-21135]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76058-76079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21135]



[[Page 76057]]

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

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-
Grouse as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 76058]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-
Grouse as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on two petitions to list the Mono Basin area population 
of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Bi-State area 
of California and Nevada as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petitions 
do not present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing this population may be warranted. Therefore, we 
are not initiating a status review in response to these petitions. We 
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes 
available concerning the status of this population or threats to it or 
its habitat at any time.

DATES: This finding was made on December 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Nevada 
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340 
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502. Submit new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species 
to us at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or 775-861-6300 
(voice), or 775-861-6301 (fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the Service make 
a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 
species presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Such findings 
are based on information contained in the petition and information 
otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. 
To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 
90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the 
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    In making this finding, we based our decision on information 
provided by the petitioners in petitions dated December 28, 2001, and 
November 10, 2005, and otherwise available in our files at the time of 
the petition review. As part of an active and ongoing partnership with 
the States of California and Nevada in collaborative sage-grouse 
conservation efforts, we contacted the Nevada Department of Wildlife 
(NDOW) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) subsequent 
to receiving the 2005 petition, to obtain information about sage-grouse 
for the Mono Basin area, as sage-grouse are a game species managed by 
the States. We received information from these agencies on population 
levels, lek distribution, harvest and harvest seasons, and 
implementation of projects of benefit to sage-grouse. We also contacted 
the U.S. Geological Survey--Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), 
Dixon Field Station of the Western Ecological Research Center, to 
obtain reports from a 3-year study of sage-grouse in the Bi-State area 
that was mostly funded by the CDFG and the Service. New information 
(i.e. information not already in our files) obtained from NDOW, CDFG, 
and USGS-BRD as a result of these contacts, was not used as a basis for 
this 90-day finding. Specifically we did not utilize the new 
information we obtained in our evaluation of threats (see Threats 
Analysis, below), which is the basis of this finding. This approach is 
consistent with recent court decisions that invalidated the Service's 
90-day findings for the Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Center for 
Biological Diversity, et al v. Morgenweck, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1143-
44 (D. Colo. 2004)) and the Colorado River cutthroat trout (Colorado 
River Cutthroat Trout, et al. v. Kempthorne et al., No. 00-2497, slip 
op. at 12 (D. D.C. September 7, 2006)). In these cases, the courts 
ruled that the Service over-reached the limited review involved in a 
90-finding by soliciting information from State and Federal agencies 
after the receipt of the petition and relied on that information to 
supplement petition findings. Therefore, the Service did not rely on 
any new information received from the States or from USGS-BRD in the 
threats analysis. We have however, included some of the new information 
in the Species Information section (see below) to help the public 
understand the status of the population.
    We evaluated the information in the petitions in accordance with 
our regulations at title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
Sec.  424.14(b). The process of making a 90-day finding under section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Sec.  424.14(b) of our regulations is based 
on a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the 
``substantial scientific information'' threshold.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that amount of 
information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the 
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 
If we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a status 
review of the species.
    On January 2, 2002, we received a petition, dated December 28, 
2001, from the Institute for Wildlife Protection requesting that the 
greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) occurring in the 
Mono Basin area of Mono County, California, and Lyon County, Nevada, be 
emergency listed as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS) 
under the Act. Although the petitioner referred to greater sage-grouse 
in the Mono Basin area by the subspecific epithet ``phaios'' we have 
concluded that the subspecies designations for greater sage-grouse are 
inappropriate give current taxonomic standards (September 12, 2006, 
Federal Register, p. 53781). In response to recent judicial direction, 
the Service is in the process of revisiting our current interpretation 
of the taxonomic status of the greater sage-grouse subspecies. We have 
not included subspecies designations any further in this finding.
    The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the 
requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required 
in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 20, 2002, letter to the petitioners, we 
responded that we reviewed the petition and determined that an 
emergency listing was not necessary. On December 26, 2002, we published 
a 90-day finding that this petition did not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted (67 FR 78811). Our finding was based the lack 
of substantial information in the petition indicating that the Mono 
basin area sage-grouse is a distinct population segment (DPS) under our 
DPS policy (61 FR 47222), and thus we concluded it was not a listable 
entity (Federal Register, December 26, 2002, pp. 78813-78814).

[[Page 76059]]

Our 2002 finding also included a determination that the petition did 
not present substantial information that the Mono Basin area sage 
grouse was threatened with extinction (Federal Register, December 26, 
2002, p. 78814).
    On November 15, 2005, we received a formal petition dated November 
10, 2005, submitted by the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic 
on behalf of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds Project, 
the Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for 
Conservation to list the Mono Basin area greater sage-grouse 
(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. The petition 
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 
424.14(a). In a March 28, 2006, letter to the petitioners, we responded 
that we reviewed the petition and determined that emergency listing was 
not warranted. We also stated that due to court orders and settlement 
agreements for other listing and critical habitat actions that required 
nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 
2006, we would not be able to further address the petition at that 
time. On April 17, 2006, we received a 60-day notice of intent letter 
from the Stanford Environment Law Clinic, dated April 14, 2006, 
notifying us that the petitioners intend to sue the Service for 
violating the Act's requirement to make a petition finding within 12 
months after receiving a petition.
    On November 18, 2005, the Institute for Wildlife Protection and Dr. 
Steven G. Herman filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 
Relief in United States District Court for the Western District of 
Washington (Institute for Wildlife Protection et al. v. Norton et al., 
No. C05-1939 RSM) challenging the Service's finding in 2002 that their 
petition did not present substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. On April 11, 2006, we reached a 
stipulated settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. Under this 
settlement agreement we agreed to evaluate both the November 2005 
petition submitted by the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds 
Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for 
Conservation (hereafter referred to as the November, 2005 petition), 
and to reconsider the December 2001 petition submitted by the Institute 
for Wildlife protection (hereafter referred to as the December, 2001 
petition). The settlement agreement calls for the Service to submit to 
the Federal Register a completed 90-day finding by December 8, 2006, 
and if substantial, to complete the 12-month finding by December 10, 
2007. This notice constitutes the 90-day finding on the November 2005 
petition and reevaluation of the December 2001 petition. In completing 
this finding, we reviewed the December 2001 petition in the context of 
whether it provided additional information not discussed in the 
November 2005 petition.

Species Information

    The sage-grouse is the largest North American grouse species. Adult 
males range in size from 65 to 75 centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 inches 
(in)) and weigh between 1.7 and 2.9 kilograms (kg) (3.8 and 6.4 pounds 
(lb)); adult females range in size from 50 to 60 cm (19.7 to 23.6 in) 
and weigh between 1 and 1.8 kg (2.2 and 3.9 lb) (Schroeder et al. 1999, 
p. 19-20). 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 (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2). 
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 also exhibit olive-green apteria 
(fleshy bare patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999, 
p. 2).
    Sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub steppe habitats throughout 
their life cycle, and are particularly associated with several species 
of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Throughout much of the year, adult sage-
grouse rely on sagebrush to provide roosting cover and food (Schroeder 
et al. 1999, p. 4). During the winter, they depend almost exclusively 
on sagebrush for food (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). The type and 
condition of shrub steppe plant communities strongly affect habitat use 
by sage grouse populations. However, these populations also exhibit 
strong site fidelity. Sage-grouse populations may disperse up to 160 
kilometers (km) (100 miles (mi)) between seasonal use areas; however, 
average population movements are generally less than 34 km (21 mi) 
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3). Movements between season use areas may 
involve dispersal over areas of unsuitable habitat.
    During the spring breeding season, primarily during the morning 
hours just after dawn, male sage-grouse gather together and perform 
courtship or strutting displays on areas called leks (an area where 
animals assemble and perform courtship displays) (Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 3-8). Areas of bare soil, short grass steppe, windswept ridges, 
exposed knolls, or other relatively open sites may serve as leks 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-7). Leks range in size from 1 hectare (ha) 
(2.5 acre (ac)) to at least 16 ha (39.5 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 
3-7) and can host several to hundreds of males. Some leks are used for 
many years. These ``historic'' leks are typically surrounded by smaller 
``satellite'' leks, which may be less stable in both size and location 
within the course of 1 year and between 2 or more years. A group of 
leks where males and females may interact within a breeding season 
(approximately late February to early June each year) or between years 
is called a lek complex. Males defend individual territories within 
leks and perform elaborate displays with their specialized plumage and 
vocalizations to attract females for mating (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 
3-7 to 3-8).
    Females may travel over 20 km (12.5 mi) after mating, and typically 
select nest sites under sagebrush cover, although other shrub or 
bunchgrass species are sometimes used (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 970). 
Nests are relatively simple and consist of scrapes on the ground. 
Clutch sizes range from about 6-9 eggs (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-10). 
Nest success ranges from 12 to 86 percent (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 
969). Sage grouse generally have low reproductive rates and high annual 
survival compared to other grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 
970). Shrub canopy and grass cover provide concealment for sage grouse 
nests and young, and may be critical for reproductive success (Connelly 
et al. 2000, p. 971).
    Sage-grouse typically live between 1 and 4 years. However, sage-
grouse up to 10 years of age have been recorded in the wild (Connelly 
et al. 2004, p. 3-12). Annual survival ranges from about 36 to 78 
percent for females and about 30 to 60 percent for males (Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 3-12). The generally higher survival rate of females 
accounts for a female-biased sex ratio in adult birds (Schroeder et al. 
1999, p. 14).
    Prior to settlement of the western United States by European 
immigrants greater sage-grouse were found 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. 2004, p. 
368). Greater sage-grouse still occur in most of these states and 
provinces except for Nebraska, British Columbia, and possibly Arizona 
where they have been extirpated (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp.

[[Page 76060]]

368-369). Sagebrush habitats that potentially supported greater sage-
grouse covered approximately 1,200,483 square kilometers (sq km) 
(463,509 square miles (sq mi)) before the year 1800 (Schroeder et al. 
2004, p. 366). Current distribution is estimated at 668,412 sq km 
(258,075 sq mi) or 56 percent of the potential pre-settlement 
distribution (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369).
    The number of greater sage-grouse that existed in North America 
prior to European expansion across the continent is unknown. The 
Western States Sage- and Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Technical 
Committee (WSSCSTGTC) estimated there were 1.1 million sage-grouse in 
1800 (WSSCSTGTC 1999), although this estimate was for both greater 
sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). Braun 
(1998, unpaginated) estimated that there were about 142,000 sage-grouse 
(both greater and Gunnison sage-grouse) rangewide in 1998. Connelly et 
al. (2004, p. 13-5) did not estimate a rangewide population for greater 
sage-grouse, but did state that the number is probably much greater 
than the estimate by Braun (1998).
    Although Connelly et al. (2004) were unable to estimate rangewide 
population numbers for greater sage-grouse, they did use lek count data 
as an indication of population changes since 1965 (Connelly et al. 
2004, Chapter 6). They reported substantial declines from 1965 through 
2003 with an average decline of 2 percent of the population per year 
during this time period (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). The decline 
was more pronounced from 1965 through 1985, with an average annual 
change of 3.5 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). However, the 
rate of decline rangewide slowed from 1986 to 2003 to 0.37 percent 
annually (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71).
    The best available scientific and commercial information regarding 
the past, present, and future threats faced by the greater sage-grouse 
were reviewed by the Service, including information on population 
declines. Based on that review, on January 12, 2005, the Service 
published a finding that listing the greater sage-grouse was not 
warranted (70 FR 2243). The Service noted that although sagebrush 
habitat and sage-grouse populations had declined and were continuing to 
decline in some areas, the most recent data indicated overall 
population declines had slowed, stabilized, or populations had 
increased, and that the threats, when considered in relation to the 
status, trend, and distribution of the current population, were not 
sufficient to result in the greater sage-grouse becoming an endangered 
species in the foreseeable future (Federal Register, January 12, 2005, 
pp. 2280-2281).

Mono Basin Area Sage Grouse

    The States of California and Nevada jointly supported development 
of a conservation plan, entitled Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 
for Nevada and Eastern California (Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2004). 
A draft version of the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada 
and Eastern California was submitted to a seven-person team for 
external science peer review (Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2004, p. 
6). The conservation plan written specifically for sage-grouse in the 
Mono Basin area is the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the 
Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern California (Bi-State Plan) 
(Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004), and is an appendix of the Greater 
Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. The 
2005 petition frequently refers to the Bi-State Plan. The Bi-State Plan 
was not peer reviewed. The group that developed the Bi-State Plan 
consisted of local biologists, land managers, land users, and others 
with concerns about sage-grouse in western Nevada and eastern 
California (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. vi).
    The Bi-State Plan covers the same geographic area described in the 
2001 and 2005 petitions as the Mono Basin area, but refers to it as the 
Bi-State area (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, pp. 4-5). The Mono 
Basin area includes portions of Alpine and Inyo Counties, and most of 
Mono County in California and portions of Lyon, Douglas, Carson City, 
Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties in Nevada.
    Sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area historically occurred 
approximately throughout Mono, eastern Alpine, and northern Inyo 
Counties, California (Hall 1995, Figure 1); and parts of Carson City, 
Esmeralda, Mineral, Lyon, and Douglas Counties, Nevada. The current 
range of the population in California is reduced from the historic 
range (Leach and Hensley, 1954, p. 386; Hall 1995, p. 54). Gullion and 
Christensen (1957, pp. 131-132) documented that sage-grouse occurred 
throughout most of their historic range in Nevada, including 
occurrences in Esmeralda, Mineral, Lyon, and Douglas Counties, but not 
in Carson City County, although Espinosa (2006) hypothesized that birds 
may still persist in this County. Sage-grouse habitat has been lost in 
the Nevada portion of the Bi-State area but the extent of the loss has 
not been estimated (Stiver 2002).
    Prior to development of the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 
for Nevada and Eastern California, the State of Nevada sponsored 
development of the Nevada Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy (Sage-
Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001). This Strategy established 
Population Management Units (PMUs) for Nevada and California as 
management tools for defining and monitoring sage-grouse distribution 
(Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 31). The PMU 
boundaries are based on aggregations of leks, sage-grouse seasonal 
habitats, and existing sage-grouse telemetry data (Sage-Grouse 
Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 31). PMUs that comprise the Mono 
Basin area include the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, 
Bodie, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. The Bi-State Plan (2004) 
is the only existing assessment of greater sage-grouse populations and 
habitats specific to the PMUs that comprise the Mono Basin area.
    Currently in the Mono Basin area, sage-grouse leks occur in the 
Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono, and White 
Mountains PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). Most of the leks occur in the 
Bodie and South Mono PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). Of the 122 known lek 
locations in the Mono Basin area: 56 are on Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) land, 30 are on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land, 4 are on 
Department of Defense land, 2 are on State of California land, 9 are on 
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power land, and 21 occur on private 
land (Espinosa 2006; Taylor 2006). Overall, 83 percent of the leks are 
on public land and 17 percent occur on private land. Based upon the 
extent of previous survey work, it is unlikely that more leks will be 
found in the Nevada portions of the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales 
PMUs (Espinosa 2006). Due to long-term and extensive survey efforts, it 
also is unlikely that new leks will be found in the California portion 
of the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs or the Bodie and South Mono 
PMUs (Gardner 2006). However, it is possible that more leks will be 
discovered in the Mount Grant PMU and the Nevada portion of the White 
Mountains PMU because these are less accessible and there has been less 
survey effort in them (Espinosa 2006). More leks also may be discovered 
in the California portion of the White Mountains PMU, which is 
difficult to access and has not been well surveyed (Gardner 2006).
    Sage-grouse population trends analyzed for California and Nevada 
for 1965-2003 (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-

[[Page 76061]]

24 to 6-26 and 6-36 to 6-39) led to a conclusion that populations in 
California had slightly increased over this timeframe while those in 
Nevada had declined (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-67 to 6-68). However, 
this analysis was performed at the State level and did not specifically 
analyze population trends for the Mono Basin area.
    The Bi-State Plan (2004) provides some information on population 
trends for some of the PMUs in the Mono Basin area, and indicates that 
in some areas population declines occurred historically. However, the 
number of leks surveyed, survey methodology, and techniques for 
estimating population size are inconsistent and have varied 
considerably over time, making it very difficult to interpret or rely 
on the information. In 2003, the NDOW began estimating population 
numbers based on a peer reviewed and accepted formula (NDOW, 2006, p. 
1), and consequently we believe the most accurate population estimates 
for the Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area start in 2003. Prior to 
that, Nevada survey efforts varied from year to year, with no data for 
some years, and inconsistent survey methodology. Although CDFG methods 
for estimating populations of sage-grouse have been more consistent 
prior to 2003, using population estimates for sage-grouse derived 
before 2003 would lead to invalid and unjustified conclusions given the 
variation in the number of leks surveyed, survey methodology, and 
population estimation techniques between NDOW and CDFG. Due to past 
differences in consistency in population estimation techniques for the 
two States, in this description of populations we are only presenting 
population numbers from 2003-2006. During this period of time, both 
states used the same population estimation methods. We provide this 
information to help inform the public, and for the reasons described 
above, we did not consider this information in our Threats Analysis 
(below) and it was not part of the basis for making this finding.
    CDFG and NDOW annually coordinate sage-grouse lek counts in the 
California and Nevada portions, respectively, of the Mono Basin area. 
Results from these lek counts are used by CDFG and NDOW to estimate 
sage-grouse populations for PMUs in the Mono Basin area. CDFG and NDOW 
calculate low and high sage-grouse population estimates for the PMUs, 
based on low and high lek detection rates, respectively, to account for 
the range in lek detection rates.
    The following spring population estimates are based on lek counts 
for the South Mono, Bodie, Mount Grant, and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs 
(CDFG 2006; NDOW 2006). They also include population estimates from the 
Nevada portion of the Pine Nut PMU (NDOW 2006). However, they do not 
include population estimates for the White Mountains PMU or the 
California portion of the Pine Nut PMU (CDFG 2006; NDOW 2006). The 
White Mountain PMU and the California portion of the Pine Nut PMU 
together comprise about 41 percent of the Mono Basin area. Due to the 
lack of information on sage-grouse habitat for the Mono Basin, we 
cannot state what percent of the current habitat occurs in these two 
areas for which population estimates are unavailable. The recent spring 
population estimates for the areas described above are as follows: 
2003--a low estimate of 2820 birds and a high estimate of 3181 birds, 
2004--a low estimate of 3682 birds and a high estimate of 4141 birds, 
2005--a low estimate of 3496 birds and a high estimate of 3926 birds, 
and 2006--a low estimate of 4218 birds and a high estimate of 4740 
birds (CDFG 2006; NDOW 2006). Spring populations largely reflect the 
number of breeding sage-grouse in this area. The number of breeding 
sage-grouse is representative of effective population size and probably 
one of the best ways to assess the health of the overall population.
    At a minimum, the spring population estimates for sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area indicate that the surveyed populations have not 
declined in recent years. Indeed, 2004 to 2006 spring lek counts for 
the Long Valley lek complex, which comprises most of the leks in the 
South Mono PMU, are the highest numbers counted in the last 30 years 
and sage-grouse in this area are more productive than anywhere else in 
California (Gardner 2006).
    Casazza et al. (2006) conducted a 3-year study on sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area to determine movements. The researchers radio-
marked birds in Mono County within the Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, White 
Mountains, and South Mono PMUs (Casazza et al. 2006, unpaginated). The 
greatest distances moved by radio-tagged birds between two points is as 
follows: About 29 percent moved 0-8 km (0-5 mi); about 41 percent moved 
8-16 km (5-10 mi); about 25 percent moved 16-24 km (10-15 mi); about 4 
percent moved 24-32 km (15-20 mi); and about 1 percent moved a distance 
greater than 32 km (20 mi) (Overton 2006). Female sage-grouse home 
range size ranged from 2.3 to 137.1 sq km (0.9 to 52.9 sq mi), with a 
mean home range size of 38.6 sq km (14.9 sq mi) (Overton 2006). Male 
sage-grouse home ranges ranged in size from 6.1 to 245.7 sq km (2.3 to 
94.9 sq mi), with a mean home range size of 62.9 sq km (24.1 sq mi) 
(Overton 2006).

Distinct Population Segment

    We consider a species for listing under the Act if available 
information indicates such an action might be warranted. ``Species'' is 
defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish and 
wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of 
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). 
We, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), developed the 
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments (DPS Policy) (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722) to help us in 
determining what constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies three 
elements that are to be considered in a decision regarding the status 
of a possible DPS. These elements include (1) the discreteness of a 
population in relation to the remainder of the species to which it 
belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species 
to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation 
status in relation to the Act's standards for listing. Our policy 
further recognizes it may be appropriate to assign different 
classifications (i.e., threatened or endangered) to different DPSs of 
the same vertebrate taxon (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722).

Discreteness

    The November 2005 and December 2001 petitions assert that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse qualify as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 
based on discreteness. Both petitions cite the Services' DPS policy 
under the Act (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722) and both assert that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse are discrete based on genetic distinctiveness. 
The DPS policy states that a population segment may be considered 
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It 
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation. (2) It is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant 
in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In a previous 90-

[[Page 76062]]

day finding, we reviewed the December 2001 petitioners' claim that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse are a DPS, and found that there was not 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse may be discrete from other greater sage-grouse 
(December 26, 2002, Federal Register, p. 78811). Our 2002 determination 
was based on a lack of information to demonstrate that Mono Basin sage-
grouse are physically isolated from other nearby populations, the 
limited extent of sage-grouse genetic sampling within the Mono Basin 
area at that time, information from a comparative study which indicated 
that Mono Basin sage-grouse are not behaviorally different from other 
populations of great sage-grouse, and the lack of any morphological 
information on Mono Basin sage-grouse.
    We still believe that there are no significant behavioral 
differences between sage-grouse populations. Young et al. (1994) 
compared greater sage-grouse behavioral attributes for populations in 
the Mono Basin area and outside it for males displaying on leks. This 
study concluded that sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area do not exhibit 
any appreciable behavioral differences in male mating displays from 
other greater sage-grouse populations (Young et al., 1994).
    In contrast to results from comparative behavioral studies, 
comparative genetics studies have documented genetic differences 
between greater sage-grouse populations in the Mono Basin area and 
those outside of it. The November 2005 petition correctly cites 
Benedict et al. (2003), Oyler-McCance et al. (2005), and the Bi-State 
Plan (2004) with regard to how sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area are 
genetically unique from other populations of greater sage-grouse. Since 
we published our previous 90-day finding, comparisons of genetic 
material from many sage-grouse populations across the range of the 
species have been completed and demonstrate that Mono Basin area sage-
grouse contain unique haplotypes not found elsewhere within the range 
of the greater sage-grouse (Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 
2005). Genetic sampling continues in the Mono Basin area, as the full 
geographic extent of this genetic uniqueness has not yet been 
determined. However since our previous 90-day finding on Mono Basin 
area sage-grouse (December 26, 2002, 67 FR 78811), most leks in the 
Mono Basin area have now been genetically sampled. Although the full 
extent of this genetic uniqueness is undetermined, there now exists 
sufficient evidence to suggest that Mono Basin area sage-grouse are 
genetically distinct from other greater sage-grouse populations 
(Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005). The November 2005 
petitioners assert that genetic work by Benedict et al. (2003) or 
Oyler-McCance et al. (2005) support their contention that Mono Basin 
area sage-grouse area are presently isolated from other sage-grouse 
populations by present day habitat conditions, but this claim is 
inaccurate. These genetic studies provided evidence that the present 
genetic uniqueness exhibited by Mono Basin area sage-grouse occurred 
over thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years (Benedict et al. 
2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307). Hence, the genetic 
uniqueness of this sage-grouse population developed prior to the Euro-
American settlement in the Mono Basin area that resulted in changes in 
habitat conditions for this population.
    The Services' DPS policy requires that only one of the discreteness 
criteria be satisfied in order for a population segment of a vertebrate 
species to be discrete. There is substantial information indicating 
that Mono Basin area sage-grouse are genetically distinct from other 
greater sage-grouse populations. Therefore, we conclude that there is 
substantial information indicating that the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may satisfy the discreteness criterion of the DPS policy.

Significance

    Both the December 2001 petition and the November 2005 petition also 
assert that Mono Basin area sage-grouse further qualify as a DPS based 
on significance. The DPS policy (February 7, 1996, Federal Register, p. 
4725) states that if a population segment is considered discrete under 
one or more of the discreteness criteria then its biological and 
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional 
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``* * * sparingly'' 
while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In such an 
examination, the Service considers available scientific evidence of the 
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it 
belongs. As specified in the DPS policy February 7, 1996, Federal 
Register, p. 4725), this consideration of the significance may include, 
but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete 
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the 
taxon; (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would 
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) Evidence that 
the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural 
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an 
introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) Evidence that 
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations 
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    The November 2005 petition claims that the Mono Basin area is a 
unique ecological setting and cites a map in Rowland et al. (2003) to 
support this claim. This petition also asserts that the loss of the 
Mono Basin area population would result in a significant gap in the 
range of the greater sage-grouse and that the population differs 
markedly from other sage-grouse populations in genetic characteristics.
    The Mono Basin area sage-grouse populations do occur in an 
ecological province labeled the Mono province in Rowland et al. (2003, 
p. 63). However, this ecological province is part of the Great Basin, 
and on a gross scale all the ecological provinces that comprise this 
area are characterized by basin and range topography. Basin and range 
topography covers a large portion of the western United States and 
northern Mexico. It is typified by a series of north-south oriented 
mountain ranges running parallel to each other, with arid valleys 
between the mountains. Most of Nevada and eastern California are 
covered by basin and range topography. Hence, we do not concur that 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse occur in an ecological setting that is 
unique for the taxon. Based on the extant range of greater sage-grouse 
provided by Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 369), we do not agree that the 
loss of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse population would result in a 
significant gap in the range of greater sage-grouse. Schroeder et al. 
(2004, p. 363) estimated total extant range of greater sage-grouse to 
be 668,412 sq km (258,075 sq mi) and the total area of the PMUs that 
comprise the Mono Basin area is 18,310 sq km (7,069 mi) (Bi-State Plan 
2004). Hence, the total area comprised by the Mono Basin represents at 
most about 3 percent of the total extant range of greater sage-grouse 
and loss of the population in this area would not result in a 
significant gap in the range of the species. Mono Basin area sage-
grouse are not the only surviving occurrence of the taxon, and as 
previously discussed represent a small proportion of the total extant 
range of the species. However, existing genetic evidence (Benedict et 
al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005) does indicate that Mono Basin area 
sage-grouse differ from other populations of greater sage-grouse in 
their genetic

[[Page 76063]]

characteristics, as discussed previously with regard to the 
discreteness criterion. Therefore, based on information regarding 
genetics, we conclude that there is substantial information indicating 
that the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may satisfy the significance 
criterion of the DPS policy.

DPS Conclusion

    We have reviewed the information presented in the petitions, and 
have evaluated the information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In 
a 90-day finding, the question is whether a petition presents 
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
do not make final determinations regarding DPSs at this stage; rather, 
we determine whether a petition presents substantial information that a 
population may be a DPS. On the basis of our review, we find that the 
November 2005 petition, and our files, do present substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that Mono Basin area 
sage-grouse may be a DPS based, on genetic evidence, which may meet 
both the discreteness and significance criteria of the DPS policy. 
Based on this preliminary assessment, we proceeded with an evaluation 
of information presented in both petitions, as well as information in 
our files, to determine whether there is substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing this population may be 
warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow.

Threats Analysis

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) 
Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this 90-
day finding, we evaluated whether information on threats to the Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse in our files and presented in the November 2005 
and the December 2001 petitions constitutes substantial scientific or 
commercial information such that listing under the Act may be 
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
the Species' Habitat or Range

Geographic Range
    The November 2005 petition asserts that the range of sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area is greatly reduced and that the populations are 
scattered among several counties in western Nevada and eastern 
California. Petitioners cite the work of Schroeder et al. (2004) and 
claim that in pre-settlement time the habitat for the species was 
continuous along the California-Nevada border and extended from Inyo 
County, California, into Oregon. The petition further states that by 
2000 the Mono Basin area population had become physically isolated from 
other sage-grouse populations and now only occurs in small isolated 
groups. The petitioners cite a Western States Sage Grouse Technical 
Committee report (WSSGTC 1999) and state that for the Nevada portion of 
the Mono Basin area sage-grouse are extirpated from Storey and Carson 
City Counties, at extreme risk in Douglas and Esmeralda Counties, and 
at risk in Lyon and Mineral Counties. Regarding sage-grouse range in 
California, the petition cites Hall (1995) and states that there has 
been a 55 percent reduction statewide in the range of the species from 
its historic range. More specific to the Mono Basin area, the 
petitioners cite our December 26, 2002, 90-day finding (67 FR 78811), 
which states that suitable habitat for the California portion of the 
Mono Basin area has declined approximately 71 percent from historic 
levels based on information in Hall (1995). The petitioners also cited 
Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) to state that extirpations of local 
populations of Gunnison sage-grouse have occurred because of the loss 
and fragmentation of habitat caused by human activities; cited Barbour 
(1988, unpaginated) regarding impacts to sagebrush habitat in 
California; and cited Braun's (1998, unpaginated) assessment of factors 
that have caused sage-grouse declines across the western United States, 
which included habitat loss.
    We agree with the petitioners that there has been a reduction in 
the distribution of greater sage-grouse along the California-Nevada 
border (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368-369). Distribution in the Mono 
Basin area is much more disjunct now compared to pre-settlement 
conditions; however, the southern limit of sage-grouse distribution 
along the California-Nevada border has not changed (Schroeder et al. 
2004, pp. 368-369). A considerable amount (approximately 71 percent) of 
the original sage-grouse habitat has been lost in the California 
portion of the Mono Basin area (Hall, 1995, p. 54; December 26, 2002, 
Federal Register, p. 78813). The extent of habitat has also declined 
within the Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area, but no estimates are 
provided in the petitions or available in our files regarding the 
Nevada portion. The Bi-State Plan (2004) provides limited anecdotal 
information about the historic range of the population in the Mono 
Basin area, and the distribution and range discussion is focused 
primarily on current conditions. Additionally the work cited from 
Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) and Braun (1998) is not specific to the 
Mono Basin area. Connelly et al. (2004) did assess changes for the 
sagebrush ecosystem, but this analysis was also performed at the 
rangewide level for sage-grouse and not specific to the Mono Basin 
area. Although sage-grouse habitat and range has been reduced from pre-
settlement conditions, and some additional habitat losses may be 
occurring at present, neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide 
information on the rate or extent of habitat losses for the Mono Basin 
area. The Bi-State Plan (2004) documents some loss of specific 
localized habitat areas due to wildfire. The Service recognizes that 
historically there has been destruction and modification of the habitat 
and range of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. However, historic 
impacts are not the focus of the evaluation called for under Factor A; 
rather, Factor A specifically addresses the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range. Although 
the petitioners and our files contain information on historic 
reductions in range, neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide 
substantial information that documents the present or threatened loss 
of sage-grouse range for sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. Therefore, 
we conclude that there is not substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing may be warranted due to the 
present or threatened destruction or modification of habitat or range 
for the sage-grouse population in the Mono Basin area.
Private Land Development
    The November 2005 petition cites private land development as a 
significant threat to Mono Basin area sage-grouse. The petitioners 
state that over 329,000 acres (close to 12 percent) of land in the Mono 
Basin area is

[[Page 76064]]

privately owned and susceptible to development. They cite the Bi-State 
Plan (2004) regarding private land development in several of the PMUs 
and reference discussions of: community expansion in the Pine Nut PMU; 
conversion of private rangeland to residential and vacation homes, 
conversion of grouse winter habitat to irrigated pasture and hay 
fields, and increased pressure of subdivision and development in the 
Desert Creek-Fales PMU; increasing development of private lands for 
residential, commercial and recreational purposes in the Bodie PMU; and 
development of private lands in the South Mono PMU. The petitioners 
claim that Mono County intends to significantly expand the Benton 
Crossing Landfill, which could impact sage-grouse through direct 
habitat loss, increased predation, and a potential increase in disease 
(Mono County 2004). They also cite a process to revise the Mammoth 
Lakes general plan (Mammoth Lakes 2005) and claim the revised plan will 
allow for more development on non-Federal lands. The petitioners assert 
that expansion of the Mammoth Lakes airport to accommodate commercial 
jets and construction of an adjacent business park would pose a 
significant impact to sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU. Petitioners 
cite a California Department of Fish and Game memo (California 
Department of Fish and Game 2001) and state that the California 
Department of Fish and Game expressed serious concerns about the 
impacts of the proposed airport expansion on sage-grouse. The 
petitioners claim that California Department of Fish and Game expressed 
several concerns, including that aircraft may disturb birds on leks and 
while they are wintering and that the airport expansion project would 
have growth-inducing impacts to the region. Finally, they claim that a 
number of other proposed developments could affect the South Mono sage-
grouse population.
    The December 2001 petition also cited development and habitat 
conversion to suburbs and ranchettes as a threat to sage-grouse. 
However, this petition did not provide additional information beyond 
what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    The November 2005 petition is incorrect in asserting that close to 
12 percent of the Mono Basin area is privately owned. Their figures do 
not include the White Mountains PMU, which comprises about 38 percent 
of the total area; including this PMU, approximately 8 percent of lands 
within the Mono Basin area are privately owned (Bi-State Plan 2004). 
Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-25, 7-26) included some analysis of the 
effects of development (including associated infrastructure) on sage-
grouse, but the analysis was conducted at the rangewide scale (Connelly 
et al. 2004, pp. 12-1 to 12-23) and not specific to the Mono Basin 
area. The Bi-State Plan (2004) recognizes urban expansion as a risk to 
sage-grouse in the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 24), the Desert 
Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 47), the Bodie PMU (Bi-State 
Plan 2004, p. 88), and the South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169).
    Although development of private lands may impact sage-grouse 
habitat (Connelly et al. 2004) and there are concerns about private 
lands being developed for housing in the Mono Basin area (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 4), about 89 percent of the land area within the Mono Basin 
area is federally managed land, primarily USFS and BLM lands (Bi-State 
Plan 2004). These public lands are not the areas where traditional 
development into housing communities is occurring and are not subject 
to such development. Furthermore, although some housing development has 
occurred on private lands within the Mono Basin area, the five housing 
subdivisions cited by the petitioners are considered speculative, as 
they have not moved beyond the planning stage. The petitioners are 
correct that the Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan is being updated 
and does allow for more housing development on private land; however, 
the petitioners fail to note that this growth is planned to occur 
within the Mammoth Lakes Urban Growth Boundary (Town of Mammoth Lakes 
2005, pp. 3-9 to 3-14), well away from known lek sites, and therefore 
it will not directly impact sage-grouse. Additionally, the Benton 
Crossing Landfill will not be expanded as the petition asserts (Town of 
Mammoth Lakes 2005, p. 2-38).
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has dropped its proposal 
to expand the Mammoth Yosemite Airport (FAA 2006). However, the FAA is 
currently proposing to resume regional commercial air service using the 
existing Mammoth Yosemite Airport facilities, with two winter flights 
per day initially and potentially increasing to a maximum of eight 
winter flights per day by 2012-2013 (FAA 2006). The Mammoth Yosemite 
Airport had regional commercial air service from 1970 to the mid-1990s 
(FAA 2006) and it currently supports about 400 flights per month, 
primarily single-engine aircraft (Town of Mammoth Lakes 2005, p. 4-
204). Therefore, sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU that occur in lek 
areas in the near proximity of the Mammoth Yosemite Airport have been 
exposed to commercial air traffic in the past, and they are presently 
exposed to private air traffic. Effects of the FAA proposal to 
reinstate commercial air traffic at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport on 
sage-grouse are unknown at this time, as the level of commercial flight 
traffic these birds may be exposed to is undetermined and subject to 
commercial success by the airlines. Also, since the proposal by FAA has 
yet to be implemented, any assessment of effects is speculative. The 
FAA will develop an environmental analysis for the proposed project 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (FAA 2006), 
which will include an assessment of impacts to wildlife. The Town of 
Mammoth Lakes is proposing commercial development on a tract of land 
immediately adjacent to the existing airport (Town of Mammoth Lakes 
2005, p. 2-9). We do not have information in our files to determine 
whether the area of proposed development involves sage-grouse habitat.
    In summary, development of private lands for housing and the 
associated construction of roads and power lines within the Mono Basin 
area would occur mostly in areas where sage-grouse are not present. 
Furthermore, petitioners' claims about expansion of the Mammoth 
Yosemite Airport are no longer valid, and they did not provide 
information which documents how the proposed resumption of commercial 
air service at the Airport, combined with the construction of an 
adjacent business park, would impact sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU. 
Most significantly, about 89 percent of the Mono Basin area is 
federally managed land (Bi-State Plan 2004), where development into 
housing communities is not occurring. Neither the petitioners, nor our 
files, provide information on the extent or magnitude of private 
development to indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to 
private land development.
Public Land Development
    The November 2005 petition states that the majority of the Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse habitat is managed by BLM and the USFS under 
multiple-use policies that have harmed sage-grouse and degraded their 
habitat. Petitioners assert that public land is subject to some forms 
of development and that private land development often affects the

[[Page 76065]]

integrity and health of adjacent public lands. The petitioners cite the 
Bi-State Plan (2004) with regard to the Bodie PMU and state that 
habitat loss and fragmentation associated with land use change and 
development is not restricted to private lands in this PMU. Petitioners 
further assert that development of private lands can also have indirect 
effects on sage-grouse populations and habitat on public lands. They 
cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) for the Desert Creek-Fales PMU and note 
that residential development may reduce habitat, resulting in risks to 
habitat quality and fragmentation. The petitioners indicate that the 
Bi-State Plan provides no new regulatory measures or funding for 
mitigation of threats from private land use and development.
    The petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) to support their 
claim that 13 sites have been authorized for monitoring for wind energy 
development in the Pine Nut PMU and wind turbines may be constructed on 
these sites. The petitioners also state that numerous geothermal energy 
developments have been proposed or approved on public and private land 
in the South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004) and specifically reference a 
proposal for the Inyo National Forest claiming that sage-grouse have 
been found within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the proposed project and that the 
project may displace individual sage-grouse by eliminating suitable 
habitat for the species (USFS 2005).
    The petition claims that a myriad of other smaller projects or 
activities are authorized and developed on Federal lands. In support of 
this assertion, the petitioners indicate that records they obtained 
from the BLM-Carson City Field Office for these smaller projects and 
lesser activities authorized between 2001 and 2005 included 55 records 
of categorical exclusions and 13 findings of no significant impact 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The petitioners 
further stated that these decisions were for a variety of projects, 
including rights-of-way, road construction, communication towers, power 
lines, gas/water/sewer pipelines, water tanks, fiber optic/telephone 
cables, seismometer stations, irrigation facilities, monitoring wells, 
and a railroad. The petition asserts that, although the size and scope 
of these are considered minor by Federal management agencies, and hence 
their potential environmental impacts are not assessed under NEPA, 
their cumulative impact fragments and degrades sagebrush habitat in the 
Mono Basin area.
    As noted previously, the majority of the land area in the Mono 
Basin area, and therefore most of the sage-grouse habitat, is managed 
by BLM and the USFS; approximately 89 percent of the land in the Mono 
Basin area is administered by these agencies (Bi-State Plan 2004). Both 
of these Federal agencies manage public lands on a multiple-use basis 
under Federal laws (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. 2272, 
2274). The multiple-use management approach allows for a wide array of 
actions on Federal lands, including some forms of development that may 
be detrimental, as well as conservation measures that are beneficial, 
for habitat of wildlife species such as sage-grouse. When private lands 
adjacent to public lands are developed, there can be impacts to sage-
grouse on the public lands (Braun 1998, unpaginated) and Connelly et 
al. (2004, pp. 7-24 to 7-26), both document impacts to sage-grouse as a 
result of urbanization, such as loss of habitat.
    Several urban and suburban areas in this PMU are continuing to 
expand in the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 24). For the Bodie 
PMU, the Bi-State Plan does indicate that habitat loss and 
fragmentation associated with land use change and development is not 
restricted to private lands (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 88). Rights-of-ways 
across public lands for roads, utility lines, sewage treatment plants 
and other public purposes are frequently requested, and granted, to 
support development activities on adjacent private lands (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 88). But the Bi-State Plan concludes that land use and 
development on most lands in the Bodie PMU are guided by existing land 
use plans and that the development is a manageable risk for sage-grouse 
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 88). Residential development was reported to be 
very low in the White Mountains PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 124). 
Effects of public land development were not cited among the risk 
factors described for the Mount Grant PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004).
    We have also evaluated the threat of energy development as 
presented by the petitioners. According to the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 
31) three sites in the Pine Nut PMU have been authorized for monitoring 
wind energy potential, not 13 sites as presented by the petitioners. 
The Bi-State Plan expresses concern about possible threats arising from 
infrastructure, such as roads and power lines, associated with wind 
energy development in this area (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 31). Connelly 
et al. (2004, p. 7-43) discuss wind energy development as a factor that 
could impact sagebrush ecosystems. There is also potential for wind 
energy and geothermal energy development in the South Mono PMU (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 178). The South Mono PMU has an existing geothermal 
plant and the Bi-State Plan discusses four other proposed geothermal 
energy projects in the PMU, only one of which has been approved (Bi-
State Plan 2004, pp. 178-181). The Bi-State Plan indicates that 
geothermal development in the South Mono PMU is a manageable risk, and 
that the USFS and BLM both have management plans in place that consider 
effects of this activity on sage-grouse (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 181). 
One of the geothermal projects discussed in the Bi-State Plan is being 
evaluated by the USFS (Inyo National Forest 2005). The project would 
occur in suitable habitat for sage-grouse, and birds have been 
documented within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the site (Inyo National Forest, 
2005, p. 7). However, the USFS evaluation concluded that while the 
proposed geothermal project may affect individuals it would not likely 
result in a loss of sage-grouse viability because: the area was 
surveyed for leks and none were found; only about 3 acres of habitat 
would be lost; prior to construction, an area adjacent to the 
construction corridor would be surveyed for nests and if nests are 
located, construction would not be allowed within 30 meters (100 feet) 
until after the young had fledged (Inyo National Forest 2005, p. 22).
    We acknowledge that development of public lands for a variety of 
purposes (including rights-of-ways for roads, power lines, utility 
lines, and wind and geothermal energy development) may impact some 
sage-grouse habitat. However, neither the petitioners, nor our files, 
provide information on the present or future extent or magnitude of 
public development as a threat for the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we 
conclude that there is not substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may be warranted as a result of the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to 
public land development.
Fences, Power Lines, Roads
    The November 2005 petition cites Braun (1998) in stating that 
fences and power lines fragment sage-grouse habitat, cause direct 
mortality, and provide perches for avian predators. The petition cites 
a Sierra Pacific Power Company report (Sierra Pacific Power Company 
2003) and states that construction of transmission lines can

[[Page 76066]]

increase weed invasion in sagebrush. The petitioners also cite a 
personal communication with F. Hall from the Bi-State Plan (2004) which 
indicates that, in northern California, power lines had a negative 
effect on lek attendance and strutting activity, and fewer radio-marked 
birds were lost as distance from power lines increased. For the Pine 
Nut PMU the petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that: 
The North Pine Nut lek is bordered on two sides by power lines; 
strutting grounds and nest sites are within the hunting territory of 
ravens (Corvus corax) that nest on power lines; and more new power 
lines have been requested in the area. The petitioners also cite a BLM 
Environmental Assessment (BLM-Carson City Field Office 2004) in stating 
that BLM recently authorized construction of a power line in the Pine 
Nut PMU and this area includes suitable sage-grouse habitat and is 
within 5 miles of a lek. For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, petitioners 
cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that recent declines in this 
PMU may be linked to power line construction in the last 10 years. 
Petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) and state that in the Bodie 
area, a number of power lines may be affecting sage-grouse, and in the 
South Mono PMU, sage-grouse are currently impacted by power lines and 
more may be constructed due to energy development.
    The November 2005 petition cites a BLM-Bishop Field Office document 
(BLM-Bishop Field Office undated), which indicates that mortalities 
increase and lek use decreases when fences or power lines are built 
nearby. Petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that 
fences in the Bodie area have been identified as a potentially 
significant threat and they also cite Fatooh et al. (undated), which 
reports that sage-grouse in the Bodie Hills area were displaced from 
one lek area by a fence.
    Regarding roads as a threat to sage-grouse, the November 2005 
petition cites Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) in stating that roads are an 
important cause of fragmentation and degradation of Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat. Petitioners also cite the assessment by Wisdom et al. 
(2003) in asserting that human disturbances from roads and other 
activities can also exacerbate the spread of cheatgrass into sagebrush 
ecosystems, and that disturbances such as road construction and use, 
inappropriate grazing, energy development, mining, and recreational 
activities can cause cheatgrass expansion.
    The December 2001 petition also cited fences, power lines, and 
roads as a threat to sage-grouse. However, this petition did not 
provide additional information beyond what was provided in the November 
2005 petition.
    The effects of fencing on sage-grouse include direct mortality 
through collisions, creation of predator (raptor) perch sites, the 
potential creation of a predator corridor along fences (particularly if 
a road is maintained next to the fence), incursion of exotic species 
along the fencing corridor, and habitat fragmentation (January 12, 
2005, 70 FR 2257). Power lines can directly affect sage-grouse by 
posing a collision and electrocution hazard, and can have indirect 
effects by increasing predation, fragmenting habitat, and facilitating 
the invasion of exotic annual plants (January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2256). 
Impacts from roads to sage-grouse may include direct habitat loss, 
direct mortality, the creation of barriers to migration corridors or 
seasonal habitats, providing predator travel corridors, facilitation of 
the spread of invasive plant species, and oth