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]
Download as PDF
76058
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 BiState 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
We evaluated the information in the
petitions in accordance with our
regulations at title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR), § 424.14(b).
The process of making a 90-day finding
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
§ 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 sagegrouse 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).
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76059
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.
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76060
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
368–369). Sagebrush habitats that
potentially supported greater sagegrouse 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 SharpTailed Grouse Technical Committee
(WSSCSTGTC) estimated there were 1.1
million sage-grouse in 1800
(WSSCSTGTC 1999), although this
estimate was for both greater sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse, 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 sagegrouse 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 SageGrouse Conservation Plan for the BiState 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 sagegrouse 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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, sagegrouse 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–
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 sagegrouse 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 3year study on sage-grouse in the Mono
Basin area to determine movements.
The researchers radio-marked birds in
Mono County within the Desert CreekFales, 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-
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76061
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-
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76062
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 sagegrouse (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 sagegrouse (Benedict et al. 2003; OylerMcCance 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
suggest that Mono Basin area sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 sagegrouse differ from other populations of
greater sage-grouse in their genetic
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 sagegrouse 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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 presettlement conditions; however, the
southern limit of sage-grouse
distribution along the California-Nevada
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76063
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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76064
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 sagegrouse. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 sagegrouse 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 sagegrouse may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of sagegrouse 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 (BiState 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76065
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 sagegrouse, 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
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76066
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
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 radiomarked 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 (BLMCarson 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 CreekFales 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 sagegrouse in the Bodie Hills area were
displaced from one lek area by a fence.
Regarding roads as a threat to sagegrouse, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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
other indirect influences such as noise
(January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2257).
The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 28) does
state that in the Pine Nut PMU there are
power lines bordering the North Pine
Nut lek. However, it also indicates that
these power lines are 3.2–4.8 km (2–3
mi) away from active strutting grounds
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 28) so they do
not occur in close proximity to the leks.
The petitioners other assertions about
the Pine Nut PMU are accurate. The
BLM-Carson City Field Office did
recently authorize construction of a
power line in the Pine Nut PMU as
stated by petitioners (BLM-Carson City
Field Office 2004). However, sagegrouse habitat is not present along the
power line route or in its vicinity (BLMCarson City Field Office 2004, p. 3–15)
and the closest known leks to the line
are more than 8 km (5 mi) away (BLMCarson City Field Office 2004, p. 3–20).
For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU the BiState plan concludes that power lines
are one of several types of infrastructure
that are a risk to sage-grouse which can
impact habitat for the species (Bi-State
Plan 2004, p. 54). It also states that
recent declines in the Fales population
in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU may be
related to construction of power lines
and other associated land use activities
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). In the Bodie
PMU, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 81)
characterizes utility lines as a past,
current, and future risk that affects
multiple sites and multiple birds. Also,
the Bodie PMU utility line discussion in
the Bi-State Plan cites a personal
communication with F. Hall indicating
that in northern California these lines
have a negative effect on lek attendance
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and strutting activity and that radiotagged sage-grouse lost to avian
predation increased as the distance to
utility lines decreased (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 81). The Bi-State Plan (2004,
pp. 81–82) identifies several utility lines
in the Bodie PMU that may be
negatively affecting sage-grouse. Land
use plans in Bodie PMU do not predict
or plan for any additional major, multiline, or high-voltage utility lines in this
PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 82). For the
Mount Grant PMU, the Bi-State Plan
(2004, p. 137) indicates that a power
line fragments this PMU and that the
line provides perches for raptors. In the
South Mono PMU, transmission lines
were considered to be a risk to sagegrouse on a yearlong basis (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 169). The Bi-State Plan also
mentions three transmission lines that
either are impacting sage-grouse or may
potentially impact them, and that future
geothermal development may result in
expansion of transmission lines in the
South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004,
p. 169). The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 120)
indicates that construction of new
transmission lines may fragment
occupied or potential sage-grouse
habitat in the White Mountains PMU.
BLM-Bishop Field Office (undated)
documented increased sage-grouse
mortality and decreased use of leks
when fences or power lines are built
nearby although the source of this
statement was a summary sheet of
information put together for a
presentation, not a published report or
study. Fatooh et al. (undated) reported
that sage-grouse were displaced from
one lek area by fence construction.
Fences were considered a risk to sagegrouse in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54) and the Bodie
PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 80). Within
the Bodie PMU, there have been
instances where sage-grouse avoided
habitat areas following fence
construction and several documented
cases where mortalities resulted from
collisions with fences (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 80). However, the Bi-State Plan
discussion of fences in the Bodie PMU
also indicated that properly designed
and sited fences are an important
management tool that may improve
sage-grouse habitat quality, and that
fencing is clearly a manageable risk (BiState Plan 2004, p. 80). For the White
Mountains PMU, fences can potentially
affect sage-grouse populations or habitat
negatively, and construction of new
fences may fragment occupied or
potential habitat for the species (Bi-State
Plan 2004, pp. 120, 124). In the South
Mono PMU, fences and other types of
infrastructure are considered to be a risk
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
to sage-grouse and sage-grouse mortality
caused by collision with a fence has
been documented (Bi-State Plan 2004, p.
169). However, the South Mono PMU
discussion also indicated that fences are
a valuable rangeland management tool
and that mitigation of potential impacts
to sage-grouse from fences includes
design and placement (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 169). Fences were not
considered to be a risk factor for either
the Pine Nut or Mount Grant PMUs (BiState Plan 2004).
Roads were one of several factors
causing habitat degradation for the
Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 324).
Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 10–3) indicates
that disturbance factors, including
roads, can facilitate cheatgrass spread.
For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, roads
were considered to be a type of risk to
sage-grouse for the (Bi-State Plan 2004,
p. 54). Roads were considered as a type
of disturbance in the White Mountains
that can potentially negatively impact
sage-grouse populations or habitat (BiState Plan 2004, p. 124), and
construction of new roads in this PMU
may fragment occupied or potential
habitat for the species (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 120). For the South Mono PMU,
roads are listed as a risk factor that
affect sage-grouse habitat and
populations (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169).
Roads were not presented as a specific
risk factor for the Pine Nut, Bodie, or
Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004).
Fences, power lines, and roads are
present in all the PMUs that comprise
the Mono Basin area. The presence of
this type of human infrastructure in
areas where sage-grouse occur may have
direct or indirect impacts to the species
(January 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp.
2256–2258). In the Bi-State area, power
lines and fences are considered to be a
risk factor for most of the PMUs, but
roads were not (Bi-State Plan 2004).
Although the Bi-State Plan (2004)
provides some direct examples of
impacts to sage-grouse from fences,
power lines, and roads, most of what it
presents is the potential for impacts to
sage-grouse without providing
documentation that this infrastructure
threatens sage-grouse or specifically
how it is a threat and whether this
infrastructure has actually affected
populations. In general, we
acknowledge that where fences, power
lines, and roads occur in close
proximity to occupied sage-grouse
habitat, they may impact the species.
However, neither the petitioners, nor
our files, provide information on the
extent or magnitude of fences, power
lines, and roads as a threat for sagegrouse habitat in the Mono Basin area.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
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 due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or
range due to the impacts of fences,
power lines, or roads.
Mining
The November 2005 petition states
that mining directly eliminates habitat
wherever it occurs in sagebrush steppe,
may poison surface water, and may
expose wildlife to toxic chemicals.
Petitioners also assert that mining often
requires the construction of roads,
power lines, ditches, pipelines, and
slagheaps that fragment habitat. The
petition claims that hard-rock mining
for silver and gold is a prominent threat
in the Bodie PMU, citing the Bi-State
Plan, stating that within this PMU:
Mineral exploration is likely to continue
for the foreseeable future; recent
proposals to mine for gold, silver, sand
and gravel would affect a sage-grouse
summer concentration near the
Panamount Mine and a lek area on Dry
Lakes Plateau; and disturbances
associated with these activities include
noise, stream sedimentation, water and
soil contamination, and habitat removal
(Bi-State Plan, pp. 89–90). Additionally,
the petitioners cite Braun (1998) in
asserting that there is no evidence that
sage-grouse populations are able to
reach their pre-mining numbers on
reclaimed areas. The petition states that
sage-grouse may use areas reclaimed
from mining, but only if migration
corridors from source populations are
available (Braun 1998). Petitioners also
cite problems in mineland reclamation,
including that it is difficult to establish
sagebrush and forbs on reclaimed areas,
reclamation is expensive, invasive
weeds can spread on reclaimed sites,
and shrub densities on reclaimed sites
may not be adequate to support sagegrouse.
The December 2001 petition also cited
mining as habitat conversion that is a
threat to sage-grouse. However, this
petition did not provide additional
information beyond what was provided
in the November 2005 petition in
relation to mining and its relationship to
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
habitat or range of sage-grouse in the
Mono Basin area.
We previously have concluded that
surface mining for any mineral resource
will result in direct habitat loss for sagegrouse if the mining occurs in occupied
habitat (January 12, 2005, Federal
Register, p. 2260). The actual effect of
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76067
this loss, however, depends on the
quality, amount, and type of habitat
disturbed; in some cases, if the type of
habitat disturbed is not a limiting factor
for a local population, then loss of that
habitat will not result in a population
decline. However, the effects of mining
on sage-grouse populations are not well
known (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 974).
The petition correctly cites the BiState Plan (2004, pp. 89–90) in
describing potential mineral exploration
in the Bodie PMU and the associated
impacts. However, most of the
discussion of mining impacts for the
Bodie PMU relate to either effects of
past mining operations, or the potential
for future mining impacts should
mineral deposits be discovered and
developed (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89–
90). The discussion for the Bodie PMU
concludes that the current risk is
restricted to small-scale gold and silver
exploration and sand and gravel
extraction activities that are considered
to have minimal impacts on sage-grouse
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 90). Furthermore,
although Braun (1998) indicated that
mining and the associated infrastructure
negatively impact sage-grouse numbers
and habitat in the short term, there is
some recovery of populations following
initial development and subsequent
reclamation of the affected sites
(although sage-grouse may not attain
population levels present prior to
development) (Braun 1998).
Within the Mono Basin area, sagegrouse were impacted by past mining in
the Bodie PMU. While mining could
potentially impact some sage-grouse
habitat in the Bodie PMU in the future,
petitioners’ claims regarding this are
speculative, since the potential for
mining will depend largely on where
mineral deposits are discovered and
developed (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89–
90). Also, the potential impacts of future
mineral development would be
influenced by factors such as new
technology and economic
considerations. Furthermore, the
amount of suitable habitat that might be
involved, the number of sage-grouse that
might be impacted, and the actual
nature of the impacts resulting from
mining are inherently speculative at this
time and would depend on local
conditions, including whether the
habitat impacted was a limiting factor
for the local sage-grouse population in
that area.
Neither the petitioners, nor our files,
provide information on the present or
future extent, magnitude, or immediacy
of mining as a threat for the Mono Basin
area. Therefore, we conclude that there
is not substantial scientific or
commercial information to indicate that
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
76068
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
listing of the Mono Basin area sagegrouse may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of sagegrouse habitat or range due to mining
activities.
Livestock Grazing
The November 2005 petition asserts
that livestock grazing is associated with
the widespread decline of sage-grouse
across their range through habitat
degradation, loss, and fragmentation
and cites Connelly and Braun (1997)
and Webb and Salvo (2002) to support
this assertion. According to the
petitioners, Beck and Mitchell (2000)
found that there were more negative
impacts than positive impacts of
livestock grazing; negative impacts often
affect large areas, whereas positive
grazing affects are localized; and
livestock grazing appears to affect sagegrouse productivity.
The petitioners cite Gregg and
Crawford (1991) and Holloran et al.
(2005) in asserting that livestock eat and
trample sagebrush, and the grasses and
forbs around sagebrush, which degrades
or eliminates nesting habitat; and the
petitioners cite Gregg et al. (1994),
Delong et al. (1995), and Sveum et al.
(1998) to state that this affects both
nesting success and chick survival. The
petitioners cite information from
multiple authors and studies in
asserting the following: the availability
of forbs during the pre-laying period
may affect the nutritional status of hens
and their reproductive success (Barnett
and Crawford 1994); herbaceous cover is
important in nest site selection
(Connelly et al. 1991; Wakkinen 1990);
nest success is positively correlated
with presence of big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata) and thick grass
and forb cover (Beck and Mitchell 2000;
Connelly et al. 1991; Gregg et al. 1994);
herbaceous cover is important for
nesting sage-grouse for concealment,
security, and shelter from weather and
predators (Schroeder and Baydack 2001;
Sveum et al. 1998); unsuitable nesting
habitat may contribute to lower nesting
success (Connelly and Braun 1997); the
presence of livestock can cause sagegrouse to abandon their nests
(Rasmussen and Griner 1938; Call 1979);
consumption of forbs by livestock in
late spring and early summer may limit
their availability for sage-grouse chicks
(Call 1979); insects are an important
food source for sage-grouse chicks (Pyle
and Crawford 1991; Johnson and Boyce
1990) and insects are less abundant in
degraded habitats; the availability of
primary foods directly affects the diets
of sage-grouse chicks (forbs and insects
comprise over 75 percent of chick diets
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
in areas where forbs and arthropods
were more available, whereas in less
productive habitats sage-grouse chicks
consumed 65 percent sagebrush) (Drut
et al. 1994).
The petitioners cite an Inyo National
Forest sage-grouse management plan
(Inyo National Forest 1966) in claiming
that livestock grazing was a factor in
historic declines in Mono Basin area
sage-grouse populations. Petitioners also
claim that livestock grazing affects other
seasonal habitats for sage-grouse. In
support of this claim, they cite Belsky
et al. (1999) in stating that livestock
damage riparian areas and associated
meadows; they cite Owens and Norton
(1992) in stating that livestock eat and
trample sagebrush; and they cite
Bedunah (1992) in asserting that
livestock grazing introduces and spreads
unpalatable weeds in sagebrush habitat,
which reduces sage-grouse food sources.
Further, the petition asserts that the
range developments that support
livestock grazing also harm sage-grouse.
The petitioners state that fence posts
provide raptor perches, and livestock
water developments may artificially
increase sage-grouse predators or
competitors. They cite Autenrieth
(1981) in asserting that conversion of
sagebrush to crested wheatgrass and
other livestock forage species eliminates
sage-grouse habitat. The petitioners cite
Wilkenson (2001) in stating that sagegrouse are low fliers and frequently
collide with fences used to manage
livestock.
The November 2005 petition claims
that commercial livestock grazing on
public lands affects broad swaths of
sage-grouse habitat in the Mono Basin
area. The petitioners cite the Bi-State
Plan (2004) in listing the number of
livestock allotments in the Desert CreekFales, Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs
and in stating that about 75 percent of
the Bodie PMU is subject to grazing.
They also assert that all PMUs in the BiState area are subject to livestock
grazing. The petitioners further cite the
Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that:
enforcement of permit conditions,
seasons of use, numbers of livestock,
and trespass grazing is a concern for
part of the Pine Nut PMU; riparian
habitats are being adversely impacted by
grazing in the White Mountains PMU;
and trespass livestock are impacting
habitat in the Mount Grant PMU.
Finally, the petitioners cite two Great
Basin assessments (Wisdom et al. 2003;
Rowland et al. 2003) in stating that vast
areas of sagebrush habitat in Nevada are
at risk of cheatgrass invasion and may
be sensitive to inappropriate livestock
grazing.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The December 2001 petition also cited
grazing as a threat to sage-grouse.
However, this petition did not provide
additional information beyond what
was provided in the November 2005
petition.
In reviewing several of the documents
cited by the petitioners (Beck and
Mitchell 2000; Connelly and Braun
1997; Holloran et al. 2005; Gregg and
Crawford 1991; Schroeder and Baydack
2001; and Call 1979), we found that the
cited materials offered a more
comprehensive discussion of the threats
from grazing. For example, although
Beck and Mitchell (2000) found more
negative than positive impacts of
grazing, they concluded that indirect
impacts of livestock grazing have
affected sage-grouse habitat more than
direct impacts (Beck and Mitchell 2000,
p. 997) and that presently little
information is available regarding the
direct impacts of grazing on sage-grouse
habitat (Beck and Mitchell 2000, p. 993).
Connelly and Braun (1997, p. 231–232)
stated that although excessive grazing
during the breeding season may have
negative impacts on sage-grouse
populations, there is little direct
evidence linking grazing practices to
sage-grouse population levels and that
more information is needed on the
relationship of livestock grazing to sagegrouse production. Additionally,
although several authors (Holloran et al.
2005; Gregg and Crawford 1991; Gregg
et al. 1994; Delong et al. 1995; Sveum
et al. 1998; 1994; Connelly et al. 1991;
and Wakkinen 1990) discuss the
relationship between sagebrush grass
and herbaceous cover and nesting
success as presented by the petitioners,
none of these studies are direct
comparisons of grazed versus nongrazed sites, but rather they all compare
successful to unsuccessful nest sites and
hypothesize that grazing may negatively
impact nesting success. Furthermore,
neither Holloran et al. (2005) nor Gregg
and Crawford discuss livestock eating
sagebrush and trampling sagebrush or
the grasses and forbs around them as
asserted by the petitioners. Beck and
Mitchell (2000) did not demonstrate that
sagebrush cover and grass or herbaceous
cover was important to nest success but
rather summarized the work of other
researchers. Sveum et al. (1998, p. 268)
did find that sagebrush cover and tall
grass cover was greater for successful
nests than for those lost to predation,
but Schroeder and Baydack (2001) only
discuss predation for prairie grouse
species in general without providing
specific conclusions for sage-grouse.
Call (1979, p. 25) cites work by
Patterson (1950) in which livestock
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
presence at a site resulted in nest
desertion and destruction, but Call
(1979; p. 30) also states that while sheep
can cause nest abandonment, cattle are
generally not considered to cause nest
desertion. Call (1979, p. 25) indicates
that consumption of forbs by livestock
in spring and summer may have an
adverse impact on young sage-grouse,
but this was not based on a comparative
study of grazed versus ungrazed sites.
Barnett and Crawford (1994, p. 114)
documented the importance of forb
availability to nesting females, but as
with other studies, they did not
compare grazed sites to ungrazed sites
to directly address grazing effects on
forb availability.
Both Pyle and Crawford (1991) and
Johnson and Boyce (1990, pp. 90–91)
demonstrated that insects were
important in the diet of young sagegrouse. However, Pyle and Crawford did
not compare grazed to ungrazed sites,
and the results in Johnson and Boyce
(1990, pp. 89–91) are based on captive
birds, not a field study. Furthermore,
Johnson and Boyce (1990, p. 91) state
that results from their work cannot be
related directly to effects of insect
reductions on wild populations, because
insect types and abundance needed for
young sage-grouse to meet their
requirements are unknown. Drut et al.
(1994, pp. 91–92) did document that
sage-grouse chicks ate more forbs and
insects at a site where these were more
abundant, and they consumed more
sagebrush at another study site where
forbs and insects were less available.
However, they did not directly compare
grazed to ungrazed sites and only make
inferences about land use practices
based on major outcomes of their work
(Drut et al. 1994, p. 93).
The sage-grouse management plan
developed for the Inyo National Forest
(Inyo National Forest 1966, p. 2) does
suggest that livestock grazing was a
factor in historic declines of sage-grouse
populations in Inyo and Mono Counties.
However, this plan is 40 years old and
it refers to livestock as a factor in
historic declines in sage-grouse that
occurred in the 20th century, and does
not relate directly to present conditions
or present grazing management
practices in the Mono Basin area.
The petitioners correctly cite other
works (Belsky et al. 1999; Owens and
Norton 1992; and Bedunah 1992) that
document effects of grazing on
sagebrush habitat. However these
authors only present effects of livestock
grazing on habitat and do not document
how grazing directly impacts sagegrouse. Petitioners do correctly cite
Autenrieth (1980, p. 772) regarding
conversion of sagebrush to grasslands
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
and Wilkinson (2001), who documents
sage-grouse mortalities caused by fences
used to manage livestock.
For the Mono Basin area, all the sagegrouse PMUs are subject to livestock
grazing (Bi-State Plan 2004), as stated by
petitioners. Petitioners also accurately
characterize the number of grazing
allotments for the Desert Creek-Fales,
Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State
Plan 2004, pp. 56–57, 82, and 138). The
petition accurately characterizes
concerns related to grazing for the
southern part of the Pine Nut PMU (BiState Plan 2004, p. 29); however, the BiState Plan indicates that public land
grazing in this PMU is being managed
in such a way that it is not known to
be impacting sage-grouse habitat at this
time (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 29).
Petitioners asserted that riparian
habitats in general are being impacted in
the White Mountains PMU; whereas,
according to the Bi-State Plan (2004, p.
122), impacts are discussed for only
three specific riparian areas and there is
no indication that livestock grazing is
considered to be a major risk for sagegrouse in this PMU. For the Mount
Grant PMU, the petitioners assert that
trespass livestock are impacting habitat
in this PMU, whereas the Bi-State Plan
(2004, p. 138) only states that there are
some trespass cattle present in one
specific area. There is no indication in
the Bi-State Plan (2004, pp. 138–139)
that livestock grazing is considered to be
a major risk for the Mount Grant PMU.
Nor is livestock grazing considered to be
a major risk for sage-grouse in the Desert
Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004,
pp. 56–57). The Bi-State Plan does
characterize livestock grazing as a risk
to sage-grouse for the Bodie PMU (BiState Plan 2004, p. 82); however, it also
states that permitted grazing is a
manageable risk with current
management practices representing a
significant improvement over historic
use (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 85). Finally,
for the South Mono PMU, the Bi-State
Plan (2004, pp. 175–176) states the
livestock grazing occurs on public lands
in this PMU but it does not characterize
grazing as a major risk to sage-grouse.
The petition accurately characterizes
both the Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xiv)
and Rowland et al. (2003, p. 16)
assessments of the Great Basin and
Nevada regarding the large area at risk
to cheatgrass displacement and
sensitivity to inappropriate grazing.
However, both of these assessments
were completed at a large geographic
area scale. Neither of these assessments
is specific to the Mono Basin area. With
regard to inappropriate livestock
grazing, the Rowland et al. (2003, p. 16)
assessment only states that very little of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76069
the sagebrush habitat in Nevada is on
lands protected outright from
disturbances like energy development or
inappropriate grazing, and this
information is not specific to the Mono
Basin area.
Petitioners accurately cite a BLM
Environmental Assessment authorizing
livestock grazing (BLM-Bishop Field
Office 2003, pp. 22–23). However, the
2005 petitioners’ assessment of grazing
actions for BLM-Bishop Field Office
lands is not consistent with the
characterization of grazing provided in
the Bi-State Plan. Most of the land
administered by the BLM-Bishop Field
Office occurs in the Bodie and South
Mono PMUs. For these two PMUs, the
discussions of livestock grazing in the
Bi-State Plan do not indicate that
livestock grazing is a major risk, or that
it is having major impacts on sagegrouse populations in these areas (BiState Plan 2004, pp. 82–85 and 175–
176).
Beck and Mitchell (2000), Connelly et
al. (2000), Connelly et al. (2004), and
Crawford et al. (2004) present
information about the effects of
livestock grazing on sage-grouse,
including what is documented and what
has not been documented. Livestock
grazing has some effects on sagebrush
habitat and therefore some effects on
sage-grouse. Most of the impacts on sage
grouse appear to be indirect (Beck and
Mitchell 2000, p. 993). There is little
direct experimental evidence linking
grazing practices to sage-grouse
population levels (Connelly et al. 2004,
p. 974). Excessive livestock grazing has
negatively impacted sage-grouse habitat
by creating conditions that favor annual
grasses and reducing perennial grasses
used as nesting and escape cover by
sage-grouse (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 12).
However, the specific relationship
between grazing pressure and sagegrouse nest success has not been
evaluated, and more research is needed
to address the direct effects of livestock
grazing on the species (Crawford et al.
2004, p. 12).
Specific to the Mono Basin area, most
of the land area that is grazed by
livestock in the Mono Basin area is
public land managed by BLM and USFS
under rangeland management practices
guided by agency land use plans.
Livestock grazing is a long-term and
historic use in the Mono Basin area, and
sage-grouse have persisted here over
time. Neither the petitioners, nor our
files, provide information on the present
or threatened extent, magnitude, or
immediacy of livestock grazing as a
threat for the Mono Basin area.
Therefore, we conclude that there is not
substantial scientific or commercial
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
76070
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
information 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 livestock grazing.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Non-Native Species
The November 2005 petition states
that non-native plants are common in
sagebrush-steppe habitat and degrade
habitat quality for sage-grouse. The
petitioners cite the description of the
impacts of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)
invasion and other invasive plants on
sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse
provided by Connelly et al. (2004). They
also cite the Bi-State Plan in stating that
in the Pine Nut PMU noxious weeds
and cheatgrass are invading sagebrush
and wet meadow sites throughout the
PMU. Petitioners cite Wisdom et al.
(2003) as reporting that 26 percent of
sage-grouse habitat in Nevada is at
moderate risk and another 14 percent of
this habitat is at high risk of cheatgrass
invasion, and that 44 percent of all
sagebrush habitat in Nevada currently
faces a moderate or high risk of being
replaced by non-native cheatgrass. The
petitioners cite a related assessment
completed by Rowland et al. (2003) in
stating that sage-grouse habitat for the
BLM-Carson City District lands, where
Mono Basin area sage-grouse occur, are
at moderate risk of displacement by
cheatgrass, and 13 percent of these
lands are at high risk of displacement by
cheatgrass.
The December 2001 petition also cited
invasive species as a threat to sagegrouse. However, this petition did not
provide additional information beyond
what was provided in the November
2005 petition.
We recognize that a wide variety of
plant species are considered invasive
across the range of the sagebrush
ecosystem that sage-grouse occupy
(January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p.
2265). Cheatgrass is a non-native annual
grass species that was introduced to
western North America and was well
established by the late 1920s (Connelly
et al. 2004, p. 7–14). Cheatgrass readily
outcompetes native plant species for
water and nutrients, and standing dead
cheatgrass is more flammable than
native species, leading to increased fire
intensity and frequency, which greatly
shortens the fire return interval in areas
where it dominates compared to native
sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al.
2004, p. 7–14). The more frequent fires
encouraged by the presence of
cheatgrass directly eliminate native
shrubs, forbs, and perennial grasses,
resulting in self-perpetuating stands of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
cheatgrass (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–
14).
Wisdom et al. (2003, pp. 4–3 to 4–13)
assessed the risk of cheatgrass
displacement of native vegetation and
presented their results for the Great
Basin eco-region and then separately for
the State of Nevada. We agree with
petitioners that for their Nevada
assessment, Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xi)
reported that 44 percent of existing
sagebrush habitat was at either a
moderate or high risk of displacement
by cheatgrass, but we also note that 56
percent of sagebrush habitat is at low
risk of displacement (Wisdom et al.
2003, p. xi). Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xii)
also stated that for Nevada sage-grouse
habitat, 14 percent was at high risk and
another 26 percent was at moderate risk
of cheatgrass replacement within
Nevada, but that 60 percent of sagegrouse habitat in Nevada is at low risk
of being displaced by cheatgrass
(Wisdom et al. 2003, p. xii).
Furthermore, the assessment stated that
the amount of habitat present and its
associated threats do not directly
correlate with population effects for a
given species, and that new research is
needed to evaluate the performance of
their cheatgrass risk model, including
extensive field evaluation (Wisdom et
al. 2004, p. 9–2 and 4–12). The Rowland
et al. (2003) habitat assessment was a
component of the Wisdom et al. (2003)
assessment.
We note also that the assessments
conducted by Wisdom et al. (2003) and
Rowland et al. (2003) were conducted at
large landscape scales and do not
provide information specific to the
Mono Basin area. The Rowland et al.
(2003) assessment provided a summary
for lands within BLM’s Carson City
Field Office boundary, but a large
portion of the lands administered by
this Field Office do not occur within the
Mono Basin area, and consequently it is
not appropriate to apply these results
directly to the Mono Basin area.
The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 30) states
that noxious weeds and cheatgrass are
invading sagebrush and meadow sites
throughout the Pine Nut PMU, and that
exotic plant species negatively affect
sage-grouse habitat quality and quantity.
The Bi-State Plan also identifies
cheatgrass in some sagebrush
communities in the Bodie PMU and
states that there is some risk of habitat
type conversion, but it is for limited
sagebrush habitats in this PMU and
there have not been any conversions of
sagebrush habitat to non-native annual
grasslands in the Bodie PMU to date (BiState Plan 2004, p. 93). Although nonnative plants are present in the White
Mountains, Mount Grant, and South
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Mono PMUs, this was not found to be
a risk factor in any of these areas (BiState Plan 2004, pp. 118, 140, 177).
Non-native plants were not considered
to be a risk factor in the Desert CreekFales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004).
Neither the petitioners, nor our files,
provide substantial information to
document the extent or magnitude of
the present or future threat of nonnative plant species for sage-grouse
habitat in 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 due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or
range due to non-native plant species.
Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment
The November 2005 petition cites the
impacts of pinyon-juniper (Pinus edulisJuniperus spp.) encroachment described
by Connelly et al. (2004) on sagebrush
steppe habitat and sage-grouse. The
petition asserts that pinyon-juniper
encroachment into sagebrush habitat is
occurring throughout the Mono Basin
area and has widespread impacts on
sage grouse habitat. The petition also
cites USFS information that the Inyo
National Forest noticed encroachment
of pinyon pine into sagebrush habitat in
the Crowley Lake area in 1966 (Inyo
National Forest 1966). For the Pine Nut
PMU, the petitioners cite the Bi-State
Plan (2004) in stating that many of the
ecological sites that support big
sagebrush have been converted to
pinyon-juniper woodlands over the past
100 years. The petition further cites the
Bi-State Plan (2004) for the Pine Nut
PMU in stating that: Encroachment is
impacting potential nesting and brood
habitat at multiple sites; it may also be
affecting connectivity between breeding
populations; and the effects of
encroachment may become permanent
and irreversible without active
management. For the Desert Creek-Fales
PMU petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan
(2004) in stating that pinyon-juniper
encroachment is occurring throughout
the entire PMU and is adversely
affecting both the habitat quality and
quantity for sage-grouse. For the Bodie
PMU they assert that Fatooh et al.
(undated) questioned whether ‘‘pinyon
and juniper may be limiting potential
winter habitat or constraining potential
migration routes.’’ The petitioners also
cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating
that all or portions of the other PMUs
are also affected by pinyon-juniper
encroachment, and they cite the work of
Wisdom et al. (2003) in stating that 41
percent of Great Basin ecosystems were
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
at moderate or high risk of pinyonjuniper invasion.
We agree that the work by Connelly
et al. (2004) describes the expansion of
pinyon-juniper woodlands as a threat to
the sagebrush ecosystem, and
specifically within the Great Basin
region, these woodlands have expanded
greatly in comparison to their
distribution over 150 years ago
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–7). Potential
causes for this increase include a
decrease in fire frequencies; climate
change; past patterns of livestock
grazing; and increases in carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere (Connelly et al. 2004,
p. 7–7). This expansion has resulted in
the loss of many bunchgrass and
sagebrush-bunchgrass communities that
formerly dominated the Intermountain
West (January 12, 2005, Federal
Register, p. 2266). Wisdom et al. (2003,
p. 4–1 to 4–7) modeled the risk that
pinyon-juniper woodlands would
displace sagebrush habitats in the Great
Basin and found that nearly 60 percent
of the area occupied by sagebrush was
at low risk of replacement, 6 percent of
all sagebrush cover was at moderate
risk, and 35 percent of sagebrush cover
was at high risk of replacement.
However, they also reported that new
research is needed to evaluate the
performance of their pinyon-juniper risk
model, including extensive field
evaluation, and that the amount of
habitat and associated threats does not
directly correlate with populations
effects for a given species (Wisdom et al.
2003, p. 4–6 and 9–2). We note also that
the assessments by Connelly et al.
(2004) and Wisdom et al. (2003) were
for large geographic areas covering
multiple states in the range of the
species, and hence they do not provide
a specific assessment of conditions in
the Mono Basin area.
The quote of Fatooh et al. (undated)
in the petition was incomplete. Fatooh
et al. (undated) actually stated that ‘‘in
a heavy snow winter we may want to
note whether pinyon and juniper may
be limiting potential winter habitat or
constraining potential migration routes’’
(Fatooh et al., undated). Thus the
information in Fatooh et al. is
inconclusive, as it relates to period of
heavy winter snow and poses questions,
rather than providing evidence, in
relation to possible effects on potential
habitat and potential migration routes.
The Inyo National Forest reported that
some pinyon pine encroachment into
sagebrush has occurred (Inyo National
Forest 1966, p. 22). However, that
statement related to past conditions and
was limited to the east side of the
Crowley Lake area. Also, there is no
information presented by the Inyo
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
National Forest document on the extent
or magnitude of pine encroachment in
this limited area by Crowley Lake.
The Bi-State Plan reports that within
the Pine Nut PMU, pinyon-juniper
encroachment is occurring and many
big sagebrush sites have been converted
to pinyon-juniper woodland (Bi-State
Plan 2004, p. 20). The petition correctly
cites other concerns expressed for the
Pine Nut PMU in the Bi-State Plan
(2004, p. 20) as well as concerns about
pinyon-juniper encroachment in the
Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 39), and Bodie, White
Mountains, Mount Grant, and South
Mono PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 96,
119, 133, 167). The Bi-State Plan
indicates that pinyon-juniper
encroachment is occurring to some
degree in all of the PMUs in the Mono
Basin area with the greatest risk
occurring in the Pine Nut, Desert CreekFales, and Bodie PMUs (Bi-State Plan
2004, pp. 20, 39, 96). However, the BiState Plan does not provide
documentation of the amount of
sagebrush habitat lost to encroachment
in the Mono Basin area, nor does it not
demonstrate that pinyon-juniper
encroachment has caused sage-grouse
populations to decline in any of the
PMUs. Information about the time
period over which encroachment has
been ongoing is lacking, but it has been
occurring since at least the 1960’s (Inyo
National Forest 1966, p. 22).
Our evaluation shows that neither the
petitions, nor our files, provide
documentation of the extent or
magnitude of the present or future threat
of pinyon-juniper encroachment to sagegrouse habitat within 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 sagegrouse may be warranted as a result of
the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of sagegrouse habitat or range due to pinyonjuniper encroachment.
Military Lands
The November 2005 petition states
that 19,804 hectares (ha) (48,936 acres
(ac)) of sage-grouse habitat in the Mono
Basin area are managed by the
Department of Defense as an army depot
(a facility used for storage, renovation,
and disposal of conventional army
weapons). The petitioners cite Connelly
et al. (2004) regarding impacts of
military training and related activities
on sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse
and conclude that these lands cannot be
considered suitable or protected habitat
since they are open to development and
activities that negatively impact the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76071
species. The December 2001 petition
also cited military operations as a threat
to sage-grouse. However, this petition
did not provide additional information
beyond what was provided in the
November 2005 petition.
We agree that the U.S. Army manages
19,804 ha (48,936 ac) of land within the
Mount Grant PMU as part of its
Hawthorne Army Depot (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 127). However, the petitioner’s
claim that these lands cannot be
considered suitable or protected habitat
because they are open to development
and activities that negatively impact
sage-grouse is not valid. The Bi-State
Plan (2004) describes Hawthorne Army
Depot lands in the Mount Grant PMU as
some of the best sage-grouse habitat
within this PMU because of the
exclusion of livestock and the public
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 149). Livestock
grazing has not occurred on the
Hawthorne Army Depot lands in the
Mount Grant PMU since the 1930s and
military activities such as testing and
training have been fairly minor on these
lands (Nachlinger 2003, p. 38).
Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7–43)
summarizes impacts of military training
due to military exercises involving
tracked and wheeled vehicles, and fires
from ordnance impacts from across the
range of sagebrush ecosystems.
However, this assessment was
generalized for all military lands within
the range of the sage-grouse and did not
include information specific to military
lands in the Mono Basin area.
Hawthorne Army Depot lands within
the Mount Grant PMU have been
documented to provide relatively high
quality habitat for sage-grouse
(Nachlinger 2003, p. 38; Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 149), and we are not aware of
any other U.S. military lands elsewhere
in the Mono Basin area. Neither the
petitioners, nor our files, provide
documentation to substantiate claims
that military training or development on
military lands is a present or future
threat to the habitat or range of the sagegrouse population in 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 sagegrouse may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of sagegrouse habitat or range due to military
training or development of military
lands.
Water Development
The November 2005 petition states
that the conversion of natural basins to
managed watersheds for the purpose of
providing water for agriculture and
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76072
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
urban centers negatively affects
semiarid ecosystems. The petitioners
also state that the City of Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power
(LADWP) manages land in the Mono
Basin area and diverts, collects, and
exports water from this area to Los
Angeles. They cite the work of Elmore
et al. (2003) and indicate that the
diversion, exportation, and inter-basin
transfer of water from arid environments
results in adverse ecological impacts to
aquatic, riparian, wetland, mesic, and
other systems dependent on that water.
They also cite Elmore et al. (2003) in
stating that: groundwater pumping
adversely affects semi-arid habitats that
are dependent on groundwater when
droughts occur; that native vegetation
decreases during drought when
groundwater pumping lowers water
tables; in some areas the decline in
native vegetation is followed by an
increase in non-native weed species
after the drought ended; and that these
effects are amplified when vegetation
communities are disturbed by other
factors such as burning, grazing, and
agriculture. According to the
petitioners, a variety of plant
communities are present in the Owens
River Valley, including sagebrush
habitat and Mono Basin sage-grouse
were historically present in this area.
The petitioners cite Elmore et al. (2003)
and assert that this study demonstrated
that where LADWP has drilled wells
and pumped water, the lowered water
tables have caused a loss of native
vegetative cover within 19 percent of
the valley landscape. Finally, the
petitioners assert that the loss of mesic
and semi-arid habitats adversely affects
sage-grouse in the Owens Valley by
eliminating habitat and degrading and
fragmenting the sagebrush habitats that
remain.
We concur that Elmore et al. (2003)
demonstrated that groundwater
pumping from the Owens River Valley
by LADWP impacted some native plant
communities in this area. However, the
petitioners failed to note that only a
small portion of the Owens Valley study
area (Elmore et al. 2003, p. 449) actually
overlaps with the Mono Basin area (in
the White Mountains PMU). They also
fail to note that only a small portion of
the Owens Valley study area (Elmore et
al. 2003, p. 449) overlaps with the
historic range of sage-grouse in Inyo
County (Hall 1995, Figure 1) or that
sage-grouse are no longer present in the
area where the Elmore et al. (2003)
study occurred (Hall 1995, Figure 1).
Even if groundwater pumping by
LADWP was a factor in the reduction of
sage-grouse range in Inyo County, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
extent and magnitude of this impact
would have been limited, given the
small overlap in the historic range of
sage-grouse and the Elmore et al. (2003)
study area. Also, Elmore et al. (2003, p.
454) did not find any negative response
of sagebrush plant communities (which
sage-grouse require) to groundwater
pumping. Furthermore, the sagebrush
type in the Elmore et al. (2003, p. 447)
study only comprised a minor portion of
their study area (about 4 percent of the
area), and the nearest sage-grouse leks to
the Owens Valley are at high-elevation
sites in the White Mountains, and
groundwater pumping would not
directly impact these birds. None of the
PMU discussions in the Bi-State Plan
identified groundwater pumping by
LADWP as a risk to sage-grouse.
Neither the petition, nor our files,
provide documentation that
groundwater pumping in the Owens
Valley of California is the cause of the
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the
habitat or range of the greater sagegrouse in the Mono Basin. Therefore, we
conclude that there is not substantial
scientific or commercial information to
indicate that listing the Mono Basin area
sage-grouse may be warranted due to
water development.
Feral Horses
The November 2005 petition claims
that feral horses affect sage-grouse
populations at several locations in the
Mono Basin area and cites the Bi-State
Plan (2004) in claiming they are a
potentially significant risk for the 7Troughs lek in the Bodie PMU. They
also cite the discussion of impacts from
wild horse and burros in Connelly et al.
(2004).
Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7–36—7–37)
stated that habitat occupied by horses
exhibits lower grass cover, fewer shrubs,
and less total vegetative cover, and that
horse alteration of spring or other mesic
areas may be a concern with regard to
sage-grouse brood rearing (Connelly et
al. 2004, p. 7–37). However, these
observations were general and not
specific to the Mono Basin area. The BiState Plan (2004, pp. 28, 86, 122, 139,
177) included discussions on wild
horses for the Pine Nut, Bodie, White
Mountains, Mount Grant, and South
Mono PMUs. For all PMUs except
Bodie, the discussions in the Bi-State
Plan are brief and focused on one or a
few locations within each PMU where
wild horses may be impacting sagegrouse habitat. The most extensive
discussion is for the Bodie PMU (BiState Plan 2004, pp. 86–87), where there
is risk of disturbance to the 7-Troughs
lek. However, for the Bodie PMU, the
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
current extent of breeding and summer
sage-grouse habitat degradation
attributable to wild horses is
insignificant due to low horse numbers,
and the extent of winter habitat
degradation due to this factor also is
insignificant because sagebrush cover is
minimally affected by horse use (BiState Plan 2004, p. 86). The BLM
captured and removed some wild horses
from part of the Bodie PMU in 2003 (BiState Plan 2004, pp. 86–87).
Neither the petitioners, nor our files,
provide substantial information to
document the extent, magnitude, or
immediacy of present or future threats
posed by feral horses to sage-grouse
throughout 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 feral horses.
Wildfire
The November 2005 petition states
that wildfire is often mentioned as a
significant threat to sage-grouse. It cites
the Connelly et al. (2004) review of
wildfire impacts on sagebrush steppe
habitats and sage-grouse. The
petitioners also cite Wisdom et al.
(2003) and state that: Wildfire often
leads to cheatgrass invasion of
sagebrush habitats; that the number and
size of wildfires across the Great Basin
and Nevada have increased in the past
20 years and this trend continues; and
that reducing the spread of cheatgrass in
native shrublands through mitigation of
human disturbances that facilitate its
spread is probably the most important
consideration in reducing the frequency,
intensity, and area of undesirable
wildfires.
The December 2001 petition also cited
fire as a threat to sage-grouse. However,
this petition did not provide additional
information beyond what was provided
in the November 2005 petition.
We note the Connelly et al. (2004)
assessment of fire data across the range
of the sagebrush ecosystem and their
conclusions that the number of fires and
total area burned had increased for the
period from 1980–2003, and that fires
are an increasingly significant
disturbance throughout much of the
sagebrush ecosystem (Connelly et al.
2004, p. 7–6). Repeated fires in more
arid sagebrush stands have allowed
cheatgrass to replace native shrubs and
herbs with fires occurring at more
frequent intervals (Connelly et al. 2004,
p. 7–5). Cheatgrass recovers more
quickly after fire, effectively preventing
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the return of native sagebrush (January
12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 2265).
From a rangewide perspective, altered
fire regimes due to cheatgrass invasion
is a factor in the loss of sage-grouse
habitat (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–5).
Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 10–1) conducted
a bioregional assessment of the Great
Basin eco-region and similarly
concluded that the number and size of
wildfire across this region have
increased dramatically in the last 20
years, and that this trend continues.
They further concluded that reducing
the spread of cheatgrass in native
shrublands, and mitigating human
disturbances that facilitate its spread are
probably the most important
considerations in reducing the
frequency, intensity, and area of
wildfires (Wisdom et al. 2003, p. 10–1).
However, both the analysis performed
by Connelly et al. (2004) and the
assessment by Wisdom et al. (2003)
were conducted at large landscape
scales, and neither provides an
evaluation of the present or potential
future effects of wildfire on greater sagegrouse habitat in the Mono Basin area.
For the Mono Basin area, the Bi-State
Plan (2004) states that: wildfire is a
factor that can affect the quality of
sagebrush habitat for the Desert CreekFales and South Mono PMUs; wildfire
is a low risk for sage-grouse in the White
Mountains PMU; and only three recent
fires have occurred in the Mount Grant
PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 53, 124,
140, 178). The Bi-State Plan indicates
that some wildfires occur in the Pine
Nut PMU nearly every year with the
potential to remove sagebrush habitats
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 26). Wildfire is
a risk to sage-grouse habitat in the Pine
Nut PMU; however, the Bi-State Plan
(2004, p. 26) does not provide
information on the extent or magnitude
of fire, or how it has impacted sagegrouse in this PMU. For the Bodie PMU,
the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 92) indicates
that all sagebrush habitats in the PMU
are subject to some fire-related risk.
However, it also states that: Recent
wildfire activity in the PMU is limited;
no landscape-scale fires have occurred
over the last 40 years and even the
largest recent burns have been small; no
significant impacts to key sage-grouse
habitats have been documented; and fire
is a manageable risk (Bi-State Plan 2004,
p. 93).
Rangewide, wildfires have led to the
loss of some sage-grouse habitat. Within
the Mono Basin area, wildfire is a
potential threat to sage-grouse habitat,
but neither the petitioners, nor our files,
provide any documentation that large
landscape fires have occurred in this
area or that significant amounts of
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
habitat have been lost here due to fire.
Hence, information on the extent and
magnitude of wildfire is lacking for the
Mono Basin area. Wildfires are a natural
part of the environment in which the
sage-grouse has evolved and persisted.
Due to the changes in fire regimes
described, wildfire remains a potential
threat to sage-grouse in the Mono Basin
area. However, neither the petitioners,
nor our files, provide substantial
scientific or commercial information
that indicates wildfire poses a
substantial risk of present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitat or range of the
greater sage-grouse in the Mono Basin
area to such an extent as to indicate
listing may be warranted.
Summary for Factor A
Habitat loss and modification for sagegrouse has occurred in the Mono Basin
area in the past as a result of many of
the situations and actions described
above. However, the question being
addressed in Factor A is the present or
future, not the past. Our evaluation
(above) shows that the 2001 and 2005
petitions, and information in our files,
do not present substantial information
that indicates listing is warranted under
Factor A in relation to any of the
individual activities described in the
petitions. Further, neither the petitions
nor information in our files present
substantial information that collectively
these actions indicate that listing is
warranted under Factor A.
In summary, we evaluated the threats
cited in both petitions. We find that the
petitions and other information in our
files do not present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned action may be
warranted due to the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or
range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
The November 2005 petition asserts
that given the declines in sage-grouse
populations across the West, there are
many concerns about the possible
impacts of continued sport hunting on
this species. The petition further states
that the impacts of hunting may
disproportionately affect small and
isolated populations of sage-grouse. The
petitioners also claim that hunting in
the South Mono and Bodie PMUs could
suppress local populations and
jeopardize the Mono Basin area sagegrouse rangewide. The petitioners cite
the following information to support
their contention that hunting is a threat
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76073
to Mono Basin area sage-grouse.
Connelly et al. (2004) reviewed the
impacts of hunting on sage-grouse
populations. Autenrieth (1981) assessed
hunting of sage-grouse and stated that
harvest rates should be more
conservative in xeric (dry) areas close to
urban centers than in more mesic
(moist) areas. Connelly et al. (2003)
studied sage-grouse response to hunting
and reported that: Areas open to
hunting had lower rates of increase than
did areas with no hunting; both
moderate and restricted hunting seasons
slowed population recovery; and
populations in low elevation habitats
close to urban centers, and isolated due
to habitat fragmentation, may be less
able to withstand a harvest rate that
would not affect populations in more
extensive, contiguous, remote, or mesic
areas. The petitioners also cited Gibson
(1998), who analyzed the effect of
hunting sage-grouse on two populations
in the Mono Basin area and found that
for the Long Valley area, which was
characterized as an isolated population,
hunting mortality could depress and
hold population levels well below the
carrying capacity. In contrast, for
another local population that was
contiguous with other sage-grouse local
populations in Nevada, Gibson (1998)
found that population level was not
related to hunting mortality. The
petition states that Gibson (2001) later
concluded that: The Long Valley
population of sage-grouse is heavily
impacted by hunting; changes in
population size in this area have been
driven by CDFG hunting regulations
over the past 40 years; and despite
reduced permit numbers over the past
10 years, this population has not
rebounded like it did when the season
was closed for several years each in the
1960s and 1980s. The petition cites the
Bi-State Plan (2004) to state that for the
Bodie PMU, direct mortality of sagegrouse from hunting is a potentially
significant risk, and that during a
closure of the hunting season in Mono
County the population increased but
then declined after the season was
reopened.
The December 2001 petition also
identified hunting as a threat to Mono
Basin area sage-grouse. The December
2001 petition states that roads and the
use of off-road vehicles greatly increase
the level of poaching, and that hunting
seasons for other upland game birds
expose sage-grouse to mortality when
the areas open to hunting overlap with
sage-grouse range, as they may be
misidentified and shot. The petition
also asserts that falconry, bird watching,
and scientific study disturb or stress
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76074
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sage-grouse. However, that petition did
not provide any additional information
beyond that presented in the November
2005 petition that was substantial.
The effect of harvest on greater sagegrouse has been assessed across the
range of the species (Connelly et al.
2004, pp. 9–1 to 9–6). Some negative
effects have been documented to
particular populations of sage grouse,
but Connelly et al. (2004, p. 9–6)
conclude that no studies have
demonstrated that hunting is a primary
cause of reduced numbers of greater
sage-grouse. The only known
assessment of hunting effects specific to
the Mono Basin area is the analysis by
Gibson (2001) for the Bodie Hills and
Long Valley lek complexes. The
assessment by Gibson (2001) indicated
that populations in the Long Valley area
were depressed by hunting for the
period of years examined, but the Bodie
Hills populations were not. However,
Gibson’s analysis covered a 45-year
period (Gibson 1998), and CDFG has
significantly changed hunting seasons
for sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area
over this time period, as described
below.
Prior to 1983, there was no limit on
hunting permits in the Mono Basin area,
then the season was closed from 1983 to
1986 (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 73–74).
CDFG instituted a permit system in
1987 when the season was re-opened,
and issued hundreds of permits each
year until 1998 when permit numbers
were reduced significantly over what
they had been during the period of
1987–1997 (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 74–
75). From 1998 to the present, the
number of hunting permits issued by
CDFG has ranged from 10 to 35 per year
for the two hunt units (the North Mono
Hunt Area in the Bodie Hills portion of
the Bodie PMU, and the South Mono
Hunt Area in the Long Valley part of the
South Mono PMU) open to hunting in
the California portion of the Mono Basin
area (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 173). CDFG
has concluded that the removal of
individual animals from resident game
bird populations statewide (including
sage-grouse) will not significantly
reduce those populations and will
therefore not have a significant
environmental impact on resident game
birds (CDFG 2002, p. 7).
Hunting (gun) has been closed in the
Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area
since 1999 (Greater Sage-Grouse
Conservation Plan for Nevada and
Eastern California 2004, p. 108).
Regarding possible effects of bird
watching at leks or from scientific
studies of sage-grouse, neither CDFG nor
NDOW had any specific information
about how these activities may affect
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
birds in the Mono Basin area. Casazza
et al. (2005, p. 10) indicate that in two
years of study of radio-marked sagegrouse, the deaths of only 3 birds was
attributed to handling of the birds by
researchers. Thus, mortality related to
scientific studies of sage-grouse in the
Mono Basin area is negligible.
The petitions provided information
regarding the impacts of hunting for a
limited part of the Mono Basin area.
However, as described above the extent
of hunting of sage-grouse in the Mono
Basin area is quite limited. The petitions
did not provide substantial information,
nor did our files contain information,
indicating that the extent or magnitude
of hunting and other potential
overutilization factors are significant
threats to this sage-grouse population
such that the requested listing action
may be warranted.
C. Disease or Predation
The November 2005 petition asserts
that West Nile virus is a threat to Mono
Basin area sage-grouse. The petitioners
cite Naugle et al. (2004) as stating ‘‘If
survival in our marked sample is
representative of broader impacts of
West Nile virus, the virus may be an
important new stressor on sage-grouse
populations.’’ They further quote
Naugle et al. (2004) as stating, ‘‘Survival
of females has been shown to be
limiting in sage-grouse populations and
declines due to West Nile virus
occurred in late summer when survival
typically is high.’’ Additionally they cite
Naugle et al. (2004) as stating, ‘‘Of
immediate concern are the potential
consequences of West Nile virus for
small populations * * * of greater sagegrouse in California,’’ and ‘‘Stochastic
events such as disease exacerbate risk of
extinction due to the combined effect of
demographic stochasticity,
deterministic stressors, and inbreeding
depression in small, fragmented
populations. Moreover, because small or
isolated populations generally show
reduced genetic variation, they are less
likely to include individuals resistant to
emerging infectious disease.’’ The
petition further cites Oyler-McCance et
al. (2005) as stating, ‘‘Populations with
relatively low levels of genetic diversity
can suffer from inbreeding effects and
can be more susceptible to parasitic
agents and disease.’’ The petitioners cite
Casazza et al. (2005) in stating that two
birds in the Bodie PMU and one in the
Desert Creek-Fales PMU have been
killed by West Nile virus. The petition
also asserts that West Nile virus could
eliminate entire populations in the near
future because they are small and
isolated, which makes them more
susceptible to disease.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The December 2001 petition also
indicates that disease and parasites
could cause local declines in sagegrouse populations. The petition
discusses losses in sage-grouse
populations due to coccidiosis. It also
states that numerous parasites are
associated with sage-grouse, including
tapeworms, protozoans, and ticks. The
petitioner states that other diseases such
as salmonellosis, botulism, aspergillosis,
avian tuberculosis, and pasturellosis
affect sage grouse. The petitioner claims
that disease outbreaks need not kill or
even cause physiologic effects in
individual birds to reduce population
viability. The petition cites Boyce (1990)
in stating that even mild malaria
outbreaks can affect reproduction
because male sage-grouse infected with
malaria attend leks significantly less
frequently during the mating season.
Finally, the petition claims that the
introduction of exotic game birds in an
area to provide hunting opportunities
carries a substantial risk of disease and
parasite spread to sage-grouse.
The November 2005 petition states
that there are many studies that
correlate predation of sage-grouse to
reduced and degraded habitat. The
petitioners cite a BLM-Bishop Field
Office source in stating, ‘‘56% of
monitored sage grouse leks were lost
from predation in the Long Valley in
2003, despite a high nest initiation
rate.’’ The petition also indicates that
poor habitat quality may have been the
causative factor with regard to these
losses. Petitioners also cite work by
Casazza et al. (2005, p. 10) in stating,
‘‘recent research documented that
predators killed 55 of 136 radio-collared
sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area in
2003 and 2004.’’ Also, petitioners
quoted the Bi-State Plan as stating that
‘‘steep declines in the sage-grouse
population for any reason. * * * could
render the population vulnerable to
predation impacts’’ (Bi-State Plan 2004,
p. 77).
The December 2001 petition also cited
predation as a threat to sage-grouse.
However, this petition did not provide
additional information beyond what
was provided in the November 2005
petition.
West Nile virus was first diagnosed in
greater sage-grouse in 2003 (January 12,
2005, Federal Register, p. 2269). Data
from four studies in the eastern half of
the greater sage-grouse range (Alberta,
Montana, and Wyoming) showed
survival in these populations declined
25 percent in July and August as a result
of the West Nile virus infection (Naugle
et al. 2004, p. 709). Populations of
greater sage-grouse not affected by West
Nile virus showed no similar decline.
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
However, the Naugle et al. (2004) study
did not include any sage-grouse from
the Mono Basin area, and even in the
region where the Naugle et al. (2004)
study was conducted, lek counts in
2004 indicated that regional sage-grouse
populations did not decline. This
suggests that the initial effects of West
Nile virus were localized (January 12,
2005, Federal Register, p. 2270) and did
not have a substantial effect on local
populations. As cited by the petitioners,
Casazza et al. (2005, p. 10) documented
the loss of three sage-grouse to West
Nile virus in the Mono Basin area.
However, this is very minor and
localized mortality and there is no
information presented by the petitions,
nor is there information in our files, that
West Nile virus is a major factor
contributing to mortality of sage-grouse
in the Mono Basin area.
Greater sage-grouse host a variety of
potentially pathogenic organisms.
However, there have been few
systematic surveys for parasites and
infectious diseases completed for greater
sage-grouse (Connelly et al., 2004, p.
10–3). The disease coccidiosis, which is
caused by the protozoan Eimeria spp.,
has been documented to cause sagegrouse mortalities (Connelly et al., 2004,
p. 10–4). However, no cases of sagegrouse mortality resulting from
coccidiosis have been documented since
the early 1960s (Connelly et al., 2004, p.
10–4). Although tapeworms are known
to parasitize sage-grouse, the grouse
remain in good physical condition
(Connelly et al., 2004; p. 10–5).
Greater sage-grouse host many
external parasites, including lice, ticks,
and dipterans (midges, flies,
mosquitoes, and keds) (Connelly et al.,
2004, pp. 10–6 to 10–7). Some studies
have suggested that lice infestations can
affect sage-grouse mate selection (Boyce
1990, p. 266), but they have not been
shown to significantly affect the status
of sage-grouse populations (Connelly et
al. 2004, p. 10–6). Connelly et al. (2004,
p. 10–7) stated that the presence of ticks
is not a threat to sage-grouse
populations.
A variety of bacterial, fungal, and
viral diseases are known to infect
greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al.
2004, p. 10–7). However, in relation to
the diseases cited by the 2001 petition,
salmonellosis is not an important
disease of wild birds, botulism is not
considered a significant threat because
the potential for exposure is low, there
is no evidence to suggest that
aspergillosis plays a significant role in
sage-grouse ecology, and avian
tuberculosis has not been documented
in sage-grouse and thus is not
considered a significant threat (Connelly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
et al. 2004, pp. 10–7 to 10–11). Avian
malaria has been documented to affect
male reproductive performance on sagegrouse leks (Boyce 1990, p. 265);
however, the petitions and the
information available in our files do not
provide evidence that this disease
affects sage-grouse populations in the
Mono Basin area.
Regarding the introduction of exotic
game birds for state hunting programs,
we acknowledge that it may be possible
for diseases carried by exotic birds to
infect native sage-grouse populations.
However, neither the December 2001
petition, nor information available to us
in our files, provides evidence that
exotic game bird introductions threaten
sage-grouse populations in the Mono
Basin area.
Predation is the most commonly
identified cause of direct mortality for
sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 1999, p.
14; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228). The
November 2005 petition states that
many studies have linked predation of
sage-grouse to degraded habitat. This
relationship is confirmed by the
literature (Schroeder and Baydack, p.
28; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 10–2 and
10–3). However, the petitioners’
statement that ‘‘56 percent of monitored
sage-grouse leks were lost from
predation in Long Valley in 2003’’ is
inaccurate. This statement is based on a
table comparing nest initiation rates,
nest success, renesting success, nest
predation rate, and other nesting
parameters from Long Valley with those
for the Bodie Hills (BLM-Bishop Field
Office, undated). The statement in the
November 2005 petition should have
read, ‘‘56 percent of monitored sagegrouse nests were lost from predation in
Long Valley in 2003.’’ This translates to
a nest success of 44 percent for
monitored nests in Long Valley, which
is well within the range of nest success
from across the range of the species,
14.5 to 86.1 percent, as summarized for
a variety of studies in a variety of states
and one province by Connelly et al.
(2004, p. 3–21).
Annual mortality of breeding-age
sage-grouse varies from 55 to 75 percent
for females and 38 to 60 percent for
males (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p.
25); therefore the statement in the
November 2005 petition ‘‘that predators
killed 55 of 136 radio-collared sagegrouse in the Mono Basin area in 2003
and 2004,’’ although accurate (Casazza
et al. 2005, p. 10), is misleading. Similar
to the nest success rate for Long Valley,
the loss of approximately 40 percent of
the radio-collared sage-grouse to
predators is well within the normal
range of annual mortality for the
species.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76075
The 2005 petition statement that
‘‘steep declines in the sage-grouse
population for any reason * * * could
render the population vulnerable to
predation impacts’’ was taken out of
context. The statement only applies to
the Bodie PMU and not the Bi-State area
as a whole (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77).
Additionally, the Bodie PMU discussion
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77) also stated
that predation is not known to be a
significant limiting factor in the Bodie
PMU, and few studies have identified
predation as primary factor limiting
sage-grouse populations elsewhere.
In summary, neither the petitioners,
nor our files, provide substantial
information to document the extent or
magnitude of the present or future threat
of disease or predation to sage-grouse in
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 due
to disease or predation.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms
The November 2005 petition asserts
that no plan or agreement has been
drafted that contains adequate
regulatory mechanisms to prevent
further decline of Mono Basin area sagegrouse and avoid listing the species. The
petition discusses Candidate
Conservation Agreements (CCAs) and
references a 2001 application by CDFG
to the Service to acquire funding for
developing a CCA for sage-grouse in
Mono County, and asserts that the
Service awarded the funding but the
CCA was not developed.
The November 2005 petition
discusses the Bi-State Plan (2004) and
acknowledges it is a component of the
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan
for the Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada
and Eastern California. Petitioners
reference the six goals and objectives of
the Bi-State Plan (2004) and indicate
they are an excellent starting point but
that the Bi-State Plan will not meet
them. The petitioners contend that the
Bi-State Plan (2004) only seeks to
maintain current populations of sagegrouse in the Bi-State planning area and
that there is no discussion of restoring
historic sage-grouse numbers or habitat
in the area.
The 2005 petition cites the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
(March 28, 2003, 68 FR 15100) and lists
the criteria under the policy regarding
the certainty that a conservation effort
will be implemented and the certainty
that the conservation effort will be
effective. According to the petitioners,
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
76076
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
the Bi-State Plan (2004) does not
contain adequate regulatory
mechanisms that meet PECE policy
criteria to avoid listing the Mono Basin
area sage-grouse under the ESA. They
further contend that the Bi-State Plan’s
(2004) management prescriptions are
voluntary, dependent on the
cooperation and participation of
interested parties and agencies, and may
be altered or abandoned at any time.
Also, there is no penalty for noncompliance with the Plan and no
prohibition against activity that will
harm sage-grouse or their habitat. The
petitioners contend that the Service
cannot rely on voluntary conservation
efforts, or on the promise of future
conservation efforts, by Federal and
State agencies and private parties to
delay listing the Mono Basin area sagegrouse under the ESA. From their
review of the Bi-State Plan (2004), the
petitioners conclude that often action
items were not included to address
risks, that the action items are voluntary
and lack funding to complete, that
regulatory mechanisms are lacking, and
that often the actions identified do not
conserve sage-grouse.
The petitioners cite a Service review
of the Bi-State Plan (USFWS 2004) in
which we evaluated the conservation
measures proposed in the Plan pursuant
to PECE. In citing that review,
petitioners state the Service found that
1 of the 30 individual conservation
efforts in the Bi-State Plan fully meets
PECE and the other 29 do not.
Petitioners conclude that if the Bi-State
Plan (2004) does not meet the Service’s
PECE policy (March 28, 2003, 68 FR
15100), then adequate regulatory
mechanisms are not in place to conserve
the sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area.
Finally, the 2005 petition references
the BLM-Bishop Field Office Resource
Management Plan (BLM-Bishop Field
Office 1993) and asserts that sage-grouse
have continued to struggle since the
Resource Management Plan was
adopted in 1993. The petitioners suggest
that a possible reason for suppressed
sage-grouse populations is the small
management buffers recommended by
the Resource Management Plan for
certain activities within 0.4 to 0.5 km
(0.25 to 0.33 mi) of active leks.
The 2001 petition contends that
existing regulatory mechanisms are
virtually non-existent and existing
management is inadequate to conserve
the sage-grouse. This petition contends
that Federal laws such as NEPA,
National Forest Management Act,
Federal Lands Policy and Management
Act, and others do not provide for sagegrouse conservation. The petitioner also
reviewed management on BLM lands
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
and concluded that BLM has seriously
mismanaged public lands; that BLM
does not adequately monitor, plan, or
measure sage-grouse populations or
habitat needed to restore the species;
and that the Service cannot rely on BLM
to follow Federal environmental laws to
conserve sage-grouse. This petition also
provided a review of management on
USFS lands and concluded that the
agency is not giving adequate attention
to sage-grouse on National Forests or
National Grasslands. Management of a
National Guard training area,
Department of Energy lands, and
National Park Service lands were also
included in the petition, which found
shortcomings in the management of all
these federal lands with regard to sagegrouse. The petitioner also reviewed
management of sage-grouse by the
Service and asserts that the Service has
mismanaged both its ESA duties,
including listing responsibilities, and
the lands in the National Wildlife
Refuge System. The petition also asserts
that management of the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has failed to
halt severe declines in sage-grouse
populations to date.
At the State level, the petition
assessed management of sage-grouse by
the States and asserts they have a poor
record of conserving the species.
Regarding State management, the
petition cites the general lack of
conservation plans for sage-grouse and
indicates that those which have been
completed are not regulatory
mechanisms in any sense and do not
assure funding for conservation actions.
Finally, the petition provided an
assessment of management by private
parties and concluded that, aside from
hunting seasons, there are no regulatory
mechanisms to protect sage-grouse on
private lands.
We concur that the Service did
provide funding to CDFG for
development of a CCA for sage-grouse in
Mono County, and to our knowledge
this CCA has not yet been completed.
However, a CCA is not essential to
providing adequate regulatory
mechanisms. Regarding the Bi-State
Plan (2004), we agree that it is focused
on maintaining existing breeding
population in the Bi-State area (Bi-State
Plan 2004, p. 186). However, there is no
apparent need to return sage-grouse
populations and habitat in the Mono
Basin area to historic levels in order to
preclude the need for listing the species
as threatened or endangered. When
populations and habitat are at less than
historic levels, it does not mean a
species is threatened or endangered as
defined by the Act. Thus, the fact that
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the Bi-State Plan does not prescribe
restoring historic sage-grouse numbers
or range does not mean the Plan is
inadequate, nor does it mean that
existing regulatory mechanisms are
inadequate.
We agree that the recommended
actions in the Bi-State Plan are
voluntary and depend on the
cooperation and participation of
interested parties and agencies, and that
the Bi-State Plan does not include any
prohibitions against actions that harm
sage-grouse or their habitat. The Service
did review the Bi-State Plan as part of
our rangewide status review for greater
sage-grouse (January 12, 2005, 70 FR
2244). In that review, we evaluated
formalized conservation efforts that
have not been implemented or have not
demonstrated effectiveness, to
determine if they met the standard in
PECE. In accordance with PECE, a
conservation effort can contribute to a
determination that listing is not
necessary if it is found to be 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.
(March 28, 2003, Federal Register, p.
15111). The petition correctly states that
the Service found that 1 of 30
conservation efforts included in the BiState Plan fully met standard in PECE
(USFWS 2004, p. 4). This does not,
however, mean that regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate. The fact
that conservation efforts in the plan are
voluntary does not mean that further
regulatory mechanisms are necessary to
conserve the sage-grouse in the Mono
Basin area, nor does it mean that the
actions it recommends to conserve sagegrouse will fail to be implemented and
effective. Further, PECE applies to
determining that a conservation effort(s)
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 threats analysis
(March 28, 2003, Federal Register, p.
15115); PECE is not applicable when
such threats are not documented to
exist.
In regard to the BLM-Bishop Resource
Management Plan, although the
petitioners assert that management
buffers and seasonal restrictions that
BLM imposes on land use activities are
insufficient to conserve sage-grouse,
they do not provide information that
documents how this impacts sagegrouse. We note also that BLM resource
management plans are guided by
direction in the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) and
associated regulations, BLM’s Special
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Status Species Management Policy, the
National BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat
Conservation Strategy, and Regulations
on Grazing Administration Exclusive of
Alaska (January 12, 2006, FR p. 2272–
2274.
The 2001 petition provides many
citations to support the petitioners’
contention that existing regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate and
threaten Mono Basin area sage-grouse.
We cannot validate the substantiality of
the petitioners’ claims concerning the
inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
because the petitioners did not provide
copies of these citations and thus we
cannot verify the quality and validity of
the citations, whether the information
was cited correctly, or whether the
information directly relates to the status
of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area.
We note that most of the information in
the petition regarding this factor is not
specific to the Mono Basin area.
Specifically, most of the discussion in
the 2001 petition regarding BLM and
USFS lands was not specific to the
Mono Basin area. Further, there are no
National Guard training areas in the
Mono Basin area, and the only U.S.
Department of Defense lands in the area
are the Hawthorne Army Depot, an area
that provides some of the best remaining
habitat for sage-grouse, as discussed
above. There are no National Parks or
National Wildlife Refuges in any of the
PMUs in the Mono Basin area, and we
are unaware of any private lands in the
area that are enrolled in the CRP
program. Thus, none of the assertions in
the 2001 petition regarding these lands
are relevant. The 2001 petition
indicated that California and Nevada
had not yet completed conservation
plans for sage-grouse, but this is no
longer the case for the Mono Basin area,
due to completion of the Greater SageGrouse Conservation Plan for the BiState Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern
California and its component, the BiState Plan (2004).
As discussed under Factor B, above,
there are only two areas where sagegrouse are hunted in the Mono Basin
area and the harvest of birds in these
areas is closely regulated by CDFG such
that it has determined that there is no
significant environmental impact on
this game bird (CDFG 2002, p. 7). Also,
89 percent of the lands in the Mono
Basin area are public lands managed by
BLM and USFS under federal laws such
as FLPMA, the National Forest
Management Act, and NEPA, along with
other related agency policies (January
12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. 2272–
2276). Neither the petitions, nor our
files, provide substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms is presently a threat to
Mono Basin area sage-grouse such that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Species’ Continued
Existence
Off-Road Vehicle Use
The November 2005 petition states
that off-road vehicles are a threat to a
number of sage-grouse populations in
the Mono Basin area. Regarding the
Bodie PMU, the petition quotes the BiState Plan (2004) as stating that
‘‘population impacts of motorized
recreation include disturbance,
displacement, and direct mortality from
vehicle collisions’’ and that recreation
in this PMU ‘‘is characterized as a past,
current, and future risk to multiple birds
and multiple sites.’’ It also cites the
South Mono PMU section of the Bi-State
Plan (2004) in stating that recreational
activities are affecting multiple birds on
multiple sites year round and increased
urbanization threatens to increase this
risk. Petitioners also quote a portion of
the Pine Nut PMU section of the BiState Plan (2004), which states that
‘‘unrestricted road access throughout
the Pine Nut PMU provides the
potential for increased human presence
in critical habitats during critical times
of the year,’’ and ‘‘people particularly
affect nesting, early brood, and late
brood habitat during spring through fall
where critical habitats are easily
accessed by vehicles [and] increased
human presence disrupts daily activities
for individual birds and broods.’’ The
petition also asserts that another threat
in the Pine Nut PMU is an off-road
vehicle race that goes through sagegrouse brood habitat and affects birds by
direct mortality or by disturbances that
break up broods and cause chick
mortality. Finally, the petitioners cite
Robertson and Bushman (2001) in
asserting that BLM is currently
considering recommendations to
develop new off-road facilities within
sage-grouse habitat.
The December 2001 petition also cited
off road vehicles as a threat to sagegrouse. However, this petition did not
provide additional information beyond
what was provided in the November
2005 petition.
We are not aware of any published
studies concerning recreational effects
on sage-grouse, although recreation
could disturb sage-grouse on leks and in
nesting areas (January 12, 2005, Federal
Register, p. 2278). Also, we are not
aware of any scientific reports that
document direct mortality of sagegrouse through collision with off-road
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76077
vehicles (January 12, 2005, Federal
Register, p. 2278). Off-road vehicle use
could have indirect impacts to sagegrouse habitat; this type of activity
generally is known to reduce sagebrush
canopy cover through repeated trips in
an area, increased sediment production,
and decreased soil infiltration rates
(January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p.
2278).
The Bi-State Plan discusses off-road
vehicles as a risk factor in the Pine Nut
PMU and the Mount Grant PMU (BiState Plan 2004, p. 27 and pp. 137–138,
respectively). However, for the Bodie
and South Mono PMUs, the Bi-State
Plan (2004, pp. 91–92 and pp. 170–171
respectively) discusses off-road vehicles
in the context of all types of recreational
activities (motorized and nonmotorized). For the Pine Nut PMU, the
Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 24) indicates
concerns about unrestricted road access,
including increased human presence in
critical habitats in critical times of the
year, disruption of daily activities for
individual birds and broods, and
existing law enforcement limitations.
The Pine Nut PMU section of the BiState Plan also mentions off-road
vehicle races, which could impact
individual and multiple birds by direct
mortality or disturbance (Bi-State Plan
2004, p. 27). However, the Bi-State Plan
(2004, p. 27) does not indicate that this
is a major risk for the Pine Nut PMU.
The off-road vehicle discussion for the
Mount Grant PMU states that off-road
vehicle use is restricted to designated
routes within this PMU, minimizing any
risks to birds in this PMU. However, the
Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 137) continues to
state that some off-road vehicle use is on
undesignated routes within the Mount
Grant PMU, causing damage to
meadows that provide potential habitat
for sage-grouse. For the Bodie PMU, the
Bi-State Plan considered population
impacts of motorized recreation,
including disturbance, displacement,
and direct mortality (Bi-State Plan 2004,
p. 91), but the statement that recreation
is a past, current, and future risk to
multiple birds and multiple sites refers
to all types of recreation, not just offroad vehicles (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 91).
The Bi-State Plan states that the
prospect of increased motorized
recreational use is a concern, but it does
not indicate that this factor is a major
threat to sage-grouse in the Bodie PMU
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 92). In the South
Mono PMU, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p.
170) states that recreational activities
are affecting multiple birds on multiple
sites year round, but this statement
refers to all types of recreational
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
76078
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
activities combined, not just off-road
vehicle use alone.
Robertson and Bushman (2001)
provide limited recommendations to
BLM for managing existing recreational
uses (motorized and non-motorized) in
the wildland urban interface zone east
of Carson City, Minden, and
Gardnerville, including improvements
at existing staging areas, creation of new
staging areas, and improving
management of existing recreational
activities at access points to Federal
land that are already being used. We do
not know whether BLM has
implemented the recommendations in
the report. Using Robertson and
Bushman (2001), we mapped the
locations of the recreational areas
described in the report. While there may
be some sagebrush habitat associated
with these recreational areas, the
majority (80 percent) of the known lek
areas in the Pine Nut PMU are at least
17.6 km (11 mi) east of these areas, and
the other few remaining leks in this
PMU are a minimum of 11.2 km (7 mi)
southeast of these areas. Hence, sagegrouse do not currently use sagebrush
habitat in the near vicinity of the
recreation areas discussed in Robertson
and Bushman (2001).
In summary, the Bi-State Plan (2004)
discusses the effects of recreational
activities and off-road vehicles. Most of
the discussions in the Bi-State Plan
relate to only the potential for off-road
vehicles to disturb, disrupt, or cause
mortalities to sage-grouse, with
relatively few specific examples of
impacts to the species in the area, and
all of these examples involved indirect
effects. Neither the petitions, nor our
files, provided information that
documents the extent, magnitude, or
immediacy of the threat of off-road
vehicles to sage-grouse, or their habitat,
within 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 due
to the present or threatened effects to
Mono Basin area sage-grouse, or their
habitat, due to off-road vehicle use.
Human Disturbance
The November 2005 petition cites the
Bi-State Plan (2004) in asserting that
human disturbance is affecting multiple
birds on multiple sites in the Desert
Creek-Fales PMU.
Other than citing the Bi-State Plan
(2004) with regard to the Desert CreekFales PMU, the November 2005 petition
does not specify the types of human
disturbances that affect sage-grouse or
the extent of the impacts. The Desert
Creek-Fales PMU part of the Bi-State
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
Plan includes human disturbance as a
risk factor for sage-grouse, stating that
some sage-grouse habitats in this PMU
are accessible for public recreation year
round or are adjacent to recently
developed housing areas, but it does not
indicate this is a major threat to sagegrouse in this PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004,
p. 51). Neither the petitions, nor our
files, present information that
documents the extent, magnitude, or
immediacy of human disturbance as a
threat to sage-grouse 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 sagegrouse may be warranted due to human
disturbance.
Insecticides
The November 2005 petition lists
insecticides as a factor affecting sagegrouse habitat in the Mono Basin area.
The petitioners cite Beck and Mitchell
(2000) as recommending against
application of insecticides to sagegrouse summer habitat, a Johnson and
Boyce (1990) finding that insects are
essential to chick development and that
they are required by chicks of all ages
for normal development, and a report by
Blus et al. (1989) that in southeastern
Idaho there was a sage-grouse die-off
after organophosphorus insecticides
were applied to cultivated crops.
None of the studies cited by the
petitioners are specific to the Mono
Basin area. In the Bi-State Plan the only
mention of this as a threat factor was for
the White Mountains PMU risk
assessment, which indicates that
accidental exposure to pesticides and
herbicides can kill sage-grouse, but that
these compounds are not generally used
in this area because the human
population and agricultural activities
are limited (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 112).
Neither the petitions, nor our files,
provide any specific information about
how insecticides impact sage-grouse in
the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we
conclude that there is not substantial
scientific or commercial information to
indicate that listing Mono Basin area
sage-grouse may be warranted due to
insecticide use.
Other Threats
The December 2001 petition cited
other threats to sage-grouse in the Mono
Basin area, including: Noise, acoustic
interference, disturbance, oil and gas
operations, weather effects, climate
change and global warming, ozone layer
depletion, air pollution, acid
precipitation, effects of chemical and
radiological agents, natural factors and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
environmental variation, habitat
recovery time, and genetic introgression.
The December 2001 petition cited
numerous sources to support the
contention that these other threats pose
a threat to Mono Basin sage-grouse. The
information cited is generic in nature
and was not specific to sage-grouse or
not specific to the Mono Basin or Mono
Basin sage-grouse. The petitioner did
not provide copies of these citations and
hence we cannot validate the
substantiality of the petitioner’s claims
regarding these threats, nor do our files
contain information to validate any of
the other threats cited by the petitioner.
We cannot verify the quality and
validity of the citations, or whether the
information was correctly cited. These
other threats cited by the petition are
speculative in nature. The 2001 petition
does not provide information that
documents the extent, magnitude, or
immediacy of these other threats on
sage-grouse throughout the Mono Basin
area.
In summary, neither the petition nor
our files contain substantial scientific or
commercial information that indicating
other natural or man-made factors
threaten the sage-grouse population in
the Mono Basin area such that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Finding
We reviewed the petitions and
supporting information provided by the
petitioners and evaluated that
information to determine whether the
sources cited in the petitions support
the claims made in the petitions. Based
on this review and evaluation, we find
the petitions do not present substantial
scientific or commercial information
that listing the Mono Basin area sagegrouse as threatened or endangered may
be warranted at this time. We note that
in making this finding we did not use
any of the new information received
from the States or USGS–BRD
subsequent to our receipt of the 2005
petition; if we had used that new
information, we would have reached the
same conclusion. We encourage
interested parties to continue gathering
data that will assist with the
conservation and monitoring of sagegrouse in the Mono Basin area.
Information regarding the Mono Basin
area sage-grouse may be submitted to
the Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section),
at any time.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
herein is available upon request from
the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Authority
The primary author of this notice is
Kevin Kritz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES).
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Author
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Dec 18, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
76079
Dated: December 7, 2006.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6–21135 Filed 12–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\19DEP3.SGM
19DEP3
Agencies
[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