Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus, 13910-14014 [2010-5132]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13910-14014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5132]



[[Page 13909]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings for 
Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 
as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 55 / Tuesday, March 23, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 13910]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R6-ES-2010-0018]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Findings 
for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus 
urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition findings.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 
three 12-month findings on petitions to list three entities of the 
greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). 
We find that listing the greater sage-grouse (rangewide) is warranted, 
but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will develop a 
proposed rule to list the greater sage-grouse as our priorities allow.
    We find that listing the western subspecies of the greater sage-
grouse is not warranted, based on determining that the western 
subspecies is not a valid taxon and thus is not a listable entity under 
the Act. We note, however, that greater sage-grouse in the area covered 
by the putative western subspecies (except those in the Bi-State area 
(Mono Basin), which are covered by a separate finding) are encompassed 
by our finding that listing the species is warranted but precluded 
rangewide.
    We find that listing the Bi-State population (previously referred 
to as the Mono Basin area population), which meets our criteria as a 
distinct population segment (DPS) of the greater sage-grouse, is 
warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will 
develop a proposed rule to list the Bi-State DPS of the greater sage-
grouse as our priorities allow, possibly in conjunction with a proposed 
rule to list the greater sage-grouse rangewide.

DATES: The finding announced in the document was made on March 23, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and www.fws.gov. Supporting documentation we used 
to prepare this finding is available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Suite 308A, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009; 
telephone (307) 772-2374; facsimile (307) 772-2358. Please submit any 
new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this 
species to the Service at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian T. Kelly, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Ecological Services Office (see 
ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition containing substantial scientific or commercial 
information that the listing may be warranted, we make a finding within 
12 months of the date of the receipt of the petition on whether the 
petitioned action is (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 
warranted, but that immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the 
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine 
whether species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress 
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of 
the Act requires that we treat a petition for which the requested 
action is found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on 
the date of such finding; that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be 
made within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the 
Federal Register.

Previous Federal Action

Greater Sage-Grouse

    On July 2, 2002, we received a petition from Craig C. Dremann 
requesting that we list the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 
urophasianus) as endangered across its entire range. We received a 
second petition from the Institute for Wildlife Protection on March 24, 
2003, requesting that the greater sage-grouse be listed rangewide. On 
December 29, 2003, we received a third petition from the American Lands 
Alliance and 20 additional conservation organizations (American Lands 
Alliance et al.) to list the greater sage-grouse as threatened or 
endangered rangewide. On April 21, 2004, we announced our 90-day 
petition finding in the Federal Register (69 FR 21484) that these 
petitions taken collectively, as well as information in our files, 
presented substantial information indicating that the petitioned 
actions may be warranted. On July 9, 2004, we published a notice to 
reopen the period for submitting comments on our 90-day finding, until 
July 30, 2004 (69 FR 41445). In accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of 
the Act, we completed a status review of the best available scientific 
and commercial information on the species. On January 12, 2005, we 
announced our not-warranted 12-month finding in the Federal Register 
(70 FR 2243).
    On July 14, 2006, Western Watersheds Project filed a complaint in 
Federal district court alleging that the Service's 2005 12-month 
finding was incorrect and arbitrary and requested the finding be 
remanded to the Service. On December 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court 
of Idaho ruled that our 2005 finding was arbitrary and capricious, and 
remanded it to the Service for further consideration. On January 30, 
2008, the court approved a stipulated agreement between the Department 
of Justice and the plaintiffs to issue a new finding in May 2009, 
contingent on the availability of a new monograph of information on the 
sage-grouse and its habitat (Monograph). On February 26, 2008, we 
published a notice to initiate a status review for the greater sage-
grouse (73 FR 10218), and on April 29, 2008, we published a notice 
extending the request for submitting information to June 27, 2008 (73 
FR 23172). Publication of the Monograph was delayed due to 
circumstances outside the control of the Service. An amended joint 
stipulation, adopted by the court on June 15, 2009, required the 
Service to submit the 12-month finding to the Federal Register by 
February 26, 2010; this due date was subsequently extended to March 5, 
2010.

Western Subspecies of the Greater Sage-Grouse

    The western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 
urophasianus phaios) was identified by the Service as a category 2 
candidate species on September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958). At the time, we 
defined Category 2 species as those species for which we possessed 
information indicating that a proposal to list as endangered or 
threatened was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on 
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a 
proposed rule. On February 28, 1996, we discontinued the designation of 
category 2 species as candidates for listing under the Act (61 FR 
7596), and consequently the western subspecies was no longer considered 
to be a candidate for listing.
    We received a petition, dated January 24, 2002, from the Institute 
for Wildlife

[[Page 13911]]

Protection requesting that the western subspecies occurring from 
northern California through Oregon and Washington, as well as any 
western sage-grouse still occurring in parts of Idaho, be listed under 
the Act. The petitioner excluded the Mono Basin area populations in 
California and northwest Nevada since they already had petitioned this 
population as a distinct population segment (DPS) for emergency listing 
(see discussion of Bi-State area (Mono Basin) population below). The 
petitioner also requested that the Service include the Columbia Basin 
DPS in this petition, even though we had already identified this DPS as 
a candidate for listing under the Act (66 FR 22984, May 7, 2001) (see 
discussion of Columbia Basin below).
    We published a 90-day finding on February 7, 2003 (68 FR 6500), 
that the petition did not present substantial information indicating 
the petitioned action was warranted based on our determination that 
there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the petitioned western 
population of sage-grouse is a valid subspecies or DPS. The petitioner 
pursued legal action, first with a 60-day Notice of Intent to sue, 
followed by filing a complaint in Federal district court on June 6, 
2003, challenging the merits of our 90-day finding. On August 10, 2004, 
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in 
favor of the Service (Case No. C03-1251P). The petitioner appealed and 
on March 3, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
reversed in part the ruling of the District Court and remanded the 
matter for a new 90-day finding (Institute for Wildlife Protection v. 
Norton, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5428 9th Cir., March 3, 2006). 
Specifically, the Court of Appeals rejected the Service's conclusion 
that the petition did not present substantial information indicating 
that western sage-grouse may be a valid subspecies, but upheld the 
Service's determination that the petition did not present substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned population may constitute a 
DPS. The Court's primary concern was that the Service did not provide a 
sufficient description of the principles we employed to determine the 
validity of the subspecies classification. On April 29, 2008, we 
published in the Federal Register (73 FR 23170) a 90-day finding that 
the petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing western sage-grouse may be warranted and 
initiated a status review for western sage-grouse.
    In a related action, the Service also has made a finding on a 
petition to list the eastern subspecies of the greater sage-grouse 
(Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus). On July 3, 2002, we received 
a petition from the Institute for Wildlife Protection to list the 
eastern subspecies, identified in the petition as including all sage-
grouse east of Oregon, Washington, northern California, and a small 
portion of Idaho. The petitioners sued the Service in U.S. District 
Court on January 10, 2003, for failure to complete a 90-day finding. On 
October 3, 2003, the Court ordered the Service to complete a finding. 
The Service published its not-substantial 90-day finding in the Federal 
Register on January 7, 2004 (69 FR 933), based on our determination 
that the eastern sage-grouse was not a valid subspecies. The not-
substantial finding was challenged, and on September 28, 2004, the U.S. 
District Court ruled in favor of the Service, dismissing the 
plaintiff's case.

Columbia Basin (Washington) Population of the Western Subspecies

    On May 28, 1999, we received a petition dated May 14, 1999, from 
the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation. 
The petitioners requested that the Washington population of western 
sage-grouse (C. u. phaios) be listed as threatened or endangered under 
the Act. The petitioners requested listing of the Washington population 
of western sage-grouse based upon threats to the population and its 
isolation from the remainder of the taxon. Accompanying the petition 
was information relating to the taxonomy, ecology, threats, and the 
past and present distribution of western sage-grouse.
    In our documents we have used ``Columbia Basin population'' rather 
than ``Washington population'' because we believe it more appropriately 
describes the petitioned entity. We published a substantial 90-day 
finding on August 24, 2000 (65 FR 51578). On May 7, 2001, we published 
our 12-month finding (66 FR 22984), which included our determination 
that the Columbia Basin population of the western sage-grouse met the 
requirements of our policy on DPSs (61 FR 4722) and that listing the 
DPS was warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing 
actions. As required by section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act, we have 
subsequently made resubmitted petition findings, announced in 
conjunction with our Candidate Notices of Review, in which we continued 
to find that listing the Columbia Basin DPS of the western subspecies 
was warranted but precluded by other higher priority listing actions 
(66 FR 54811, 67 FR 40663, 69 FR 24887, 70 FR 24893, 74 FR 57803). 
Subsequent to the March 2006 decision by the court on our 90-day 
finding on the petition to list the western subspecies of the greater 
sage-grouse (described above), our resubmitted petition findings stated 
we were not updating our analysis for the DPS, but would publish an 
updated finding regarding the petition to list the Columbia Basin 
population of the western subspecies following completion of the new 
rangewide status review for the greater sage-grouse.

Bi-State Area (Mono Basin) Population of Sage-grouse

    On January 2, 2002, we received a petition from the Institute for 
Wildlife Protection requesting that the sage-grouse occurring in the 
Mono Basin area of Mono County, California, and Lyon County, Nevada, be 
emergency listed as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS) of 
Centrocercus urophasianus phaios, which the petitioners considered to 
be the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse. This request was 
for portions of Alpine and Inyo Counties and most of Mono County in 
California and portions of Carson City, Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, and 
Mineral Counties in Nevada. On December 26, 2002, we published a 90-day 
finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted (67 FR 78811). Our 2002 finding was based on our 
determination that the petition did not present substantial information 
indicating that the population of greater sage-grouse in this area was 
a DPS under our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), and thus was 
not a listable entity (67 FR 78811; December 26, 2002). Our 2002 
finding also included a determination that the petition did not present 
substantial information regarding threats to indicate that listing the 
petitioned population may be warranted (67 FR 78811).
    On November 15, 2005, we received a petition submitted by the 
Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic on behalf of the Sagebrush 
Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds Project, Center for Biological 
Diversity, and Christians Caring for Creation to list the Mono Basin 
area population of greater sage-grouse as a threatened or endangered 
DPS of the greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus) under the Act. On 
March 28, 2006, we responded that emergency listing was not warranted 
and, due to court orders and settlement agreements for other listing 
actions, we would not be able to address the petition at that time.

[[Page 13912]]

    On November 18, 2005, the Institute for Wildlife Protection and Dr. 
Steven G. Herman sued the Service in U.S. 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 2002 
finding 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 both plaintiffs 
under which we agreed to evaluate the November 2005 petition and 
concurrently reevaluate the December 2001 petition (received in January 
2002). The settlement agreement required the Service to submit to the 
Federal Register a 90-day finding by December 8, 2006, and if 
substantial, to complete the 12-month finding by December 10, 2007. On 
December 19, 2006, we published a 90-day finding that these petitions 
did not present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted (71 FR 76058).
    On August 23, 2007, the November 2005 petitioners filed a complaint 
challenging the Service's 2006 finding. After review of the complaint, 
the Service determined that we would revisit our 2006 finding. The 
Service entered into a settlement agreement with the petitioners on 
February 25, 2008, in which the Service agreed to a voluntary remand of 
the 2006 petition finding, and to submit for publication in the Federal 
Register a new 90-day finding by April 25, 2008. The agreement further 
stipulated that if the new 90-day finding was positive, the Service 
would undertake a status review of the Mono Basin area population of 
the greater sage-grouse and submit for publication in the Federal 
Register a 12-month finding by April 24, 2009.
    On April 29, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 
23173) a 90-day petition finding that the petitions presented 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that 
listing the Mono Basin area population may be warranted and initiated a 
status review. Based on a joint stipulation by the Service and the 
plaintiffs to extend the due date for the 12-month finding, on April 
23, 2009, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 
issued an order that if the parties did not agree to a later 
alternative date, the Service would submit a 12-month finding for the 
Mono Basin population of the greater sage-grouse to the Federal 
Register no later than May 26, 2009. On May 27, 2009, the U.S. District 
Court, Northern District of California, issued an order accepting a 
joint stipulation between the Department of Justice and the plaintiffs, 
which states that the parties agree that the Service may submit to the 
Federal Register a single document containing the 12-month findings for 
the Mono Basin area population and the greater sage-grouse no later 
than by February 26, 2010. Subsequently, the due date for submission of 
the document to the Federal Register was extended to March 5, 2010.
    Both the November 2005 and the December 2001 petitions as well as 
our 2002 and 2006 findings use the term ``Mono Basin area'' to refer to 
greater sage-grouse that occur within the geographic area of eastern 
California and western Nevada that includes Mono Lake. For conservation 
planning purposes, this same geographic area is referred to as the Bi-
State area by the States of California and Nevada (Greater Sage-grouse 
Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California, 2004, pp. 4-5). 
For consistency with ongoing planning efforts, we will adopt the ``Bi-
State'' nomenclature hereafter in this finding.

Biology and Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse

Greater Sage-Grouse Description

    The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is the largest 
North American grouse species. Adult male greater sage-grouse range in 
length from 66 to 76 centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 inches (in.)) and weigh 
between 2 and 3 kilograms (kg) (4 and 7 pounds (lb)). Adult females are 
smaller, ranging in length from 48 to 58 cm (19 to 23 in.) and weighing 
between 1 and 2 kg (2 and 4 lb). Males and females have dark grayish-
brown body plumage with many small gray and white speckles, fleshy 
yellow combs over the eyes, long pointed tails, and dark green toes. 
Males also have blackish chin and throat feathers, conspicuous 
phylloplumes (specialized erectile feathers) at the back of the head 
and neck, and white feathers forming a ruff around the neck and upper 
belly. During breeding displays, males exhibit olive-green apteria 
(fleshy bare patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999, 
p. 2).

Taxonomy

    Greater sage-grouse are members of the Phasianidae family. They are 
one of two congeneric species; the other species in the genus is the 
Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). In 1957, the American 
Ornithologists' Union (AOU) (AOU 1957, p 139) recognized two subspecies 
of the greater sage-grouse, the eastern (Centrocercus urophasianus 
urophasianus) and western (C. u. phaios) based on information from 
Aldrich (1946, p. 129). The original subspecies designation of the 
western sage-grouse was based solely on differences in coloration 
(specifically, reduced white markings and darker feathering on western 
birds) among 11 museum specimens collected from 8 locations in 
Washington, Oregon, and California. The last edition of the AOU Check-
list of North American Birds to include subspecies was the 5\th\ 
Edition, published in 1957. Subsequent editions of the Check-list have 
excluded treatment of subspecies. Richard Banks, who was the AOU Chair 
of the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature in 2000, indicated 
that, because the AOU has not published a revised edition at the 
subspecies level since 1957, the subspecies in that edition, including 
the western sage-grouse, are still recognized (Banks 2000, pers. 
comm.). However, in the latest edition of the Check-list (7\th\ Ed., 
1998, p. xii), the AOU explained that its decision to omit subspecies, 
``carries with it our realization that an uncertain number of currently 
recognized subspecies, especially those formally named early in this 
century, probably cannot be validated by rigorous modern techniques.''
    Since the publication of the 1957 Check-list, the validity of the 
subspecies designations for greater sage-grouse has been questioned, 
and in some cases dismissed, by several credible taxonomic authorities 
(Johnsgard 1983, p. 109; Drut 1994, p. 2; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3; 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 2000, p. 62; 
Banks 2000, 2002 pers. comm.; Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Benedict et al. 
2003, p. 301). The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
(WAFWA), an organization of 23 State and provincial agencies charged 
with the protection and management of fish and wildlife resources in 
the western part of the United States and Canada, also questioned the 
validity of the western sage-grouse as a subspecies in its Conservation 
Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly et 
al. 2004, pp. 8-4 to 8-5). Furthermore, in its State conservation 
assessment and strategy for greater sage-grouse, the Oregon Department 
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) stated that ``recent genetic analysis 
(Benedict et al. 2003) found little evidence to support this subspecies 
distinction, and this Plan refers to sage-grouse without reference to 
subspecies delineation in this document'' (Hagen 2005, p. 5).

[[Page 13913]]

    The Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), a database 
representing a partnership of U.S., Canadian, and Mexican agencies, 
other organizations, and taxonomic specialists designed to provide 
scientifically credible taxonomic information, lists the taxonomic 
status of western sage-grouse as ``invalid - junior synonym'' (ITIS 
2010). In an evaluation of the historical classification of the western 
sage-grouse as a subspecies, Banks stated that it was ``weakly 
characterized'' but felt that it would be wise to continue to regard 
western sage-grouse as taxonomically valid ``for management purposes'' 
(Banks, pers. comm. 2000). This statement was made prior to the 
availability of behavioral and genetic information that has become 
available since 2000. In addition, Banks' opinion is qualified by the 
phrase ``for Management purposes.'' Management recommendations and 
other considerations must be clearly distinguished from scientific or 
commercial data that indicate whether an entity may be taxonomically 
valid for the purpose of listing under the Act.
    Although the Service had referred to the western sage-grouse in 
past decisions (for example, in the 12-month finding for a petition to 
list the Columbia Basin population of western sage-grouse, 66 FR 22984; 
May 7, 2001), this taxonomic reference was ancillary to the decision at 
hand and was not the focal point of the listing action. In other words, 
when past listing actions were focused on some other entity, such as a 
potential distinct population segment in the State of Washington, we 
accepted the published taxonomy for western sage-grouse because that 
taxonomy itself was not the subject of the review and thus not subject 
to more rigorous evaluation at the time.
    Taxonomy is a component of the biological sciences. Therefore, in 
our evaluation of the reliability of the information, we considered 
scientists with appropriate taxonomic credentials (which may include a 
combination of education, training, research, publications, 
classification and/or other experience relevant to taxonomy) as 
qualified to provide informed opinions regarding taxonomy, make 
taxonomic distinctions, and/or question taxonomic classification.
    There is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a 
subspecies, and the use of subspecies may vary between taxonomic groups 
(Haig et al. 2006, pp. 1584-1594). The Service acknowledges the diverse 
opinions of the scientific community about species and subspecies 
concepts. However, to be operationally useful, subspecies must be 
discernible from one another (i.e., diagnosable); this element of 
``diagnosability,'' or the ability to consistently distinguish between 
populations, is a common thread that runs through all subspecies 
concepts. The AOU Committee on Classification and Nomenclature offers 
the following definition of a subspecies: ``Subspecies should represent 
geographically discrete breeding populations that are diagnosable from 
other populations on the basis of plumage and/or measurements, but are 
not yet reproductively isolated. Varying levels of diagnosability have 
been proposed for subspecies, typically ranging from at least 75% to 
95% * * * subspecies that are phenotypically but not genetically 
distinct still warrant recognition if individuals can be assigned to a 
subspecies with a high degree of certainty'' (AOU 2010). In addition, 
the latest AOU Check-list of North American Birds describes subspecies 
as: ``geographic segments of species' populations that differ abruptly 
and discretely in morphology or coloration; these differences often 
correspond with difference in behavior and habitat'' (AOU 1998, p. 
xii).
    In general, higher levels of confidence in the classification of 
subspecies may be gained through the concurrence of multiple 
morphological, molecular, ecological, behavioral, and/or physiological 
characters (Haig et al. 2006, p. 1591). The AOU definition of 
subspecies also incorporates this concept of looking for multiple lines 
of evidence, in referring to abrupt and discrete differences in 
morphology, coloration, and often corresponding differences in behavior 
or habitat as well (AOU 1998, p. xii). To assess subspecies 
diagnosability, we evaluated all the best scientific and commercial 
information available to determine whether the evidence points to a 
consistent separation of birds currently purported to be ``western 
sage-grouse'' from other populations of greater sage-grouse. This 
evaluation incorporated information that has become available since the 
AOU's last subspecies review in 1957, and included data on the 
geographic separation of the putative eastern and western subspecies, 
behavior, morphology, and genetics. If the assessment of these multiple 
characters provided a clear and consistent separation of the putative 
western subspecies from other populations of sage-grouse, such that any 
individual bird from the range of the western sage-grouse would likely 
be correctly assigned to that subspecies on the basis of the suite of 
characteristics analyzed, that would be considered indicative of a 
likely valid subspecies.
Geography
    The delineation between eastern and western subspecies is vaguely 
defined and has changed over time from its original description 
(Aldrich 1946, p. 129; Aldrich and Duvall 1955 p. 12; AOU 1957, p. 139; 
Aldrich 1963, pp. 539-541). The boundary between the subspecies is 
generally described along a line starting on the Oregon-Nevada border 
south of Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge and ending near Nyssa, 
Oregon (Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 1963, pp. 539-541). 
Aldrich described the original eastern and western ranges in 1946 
(Aldrich 1946, p. 129), while Aldrich and Duvall (1955, p. 12) and 
Aldrich (1963, pp. 539-541) described an intermediate form in northern 
California, presumably in a zone of intergradation between the 
subspecies. All of Aldrich's citations include a portion of Idaho 
within the western subspecies' range, but the 1957 AOU designation 
included Idaho as part of the eastern subspecies (AOU 1957, p. 139).
    Our evaluation reveals that a boundary between potential western 
and eastern subspecies may be drawn multiple ways depending on whether 
one uses general description of historical placement, by considering 
topographic features, or in response to the differing patterns reported 
in studying sage-grouse genetics, morphology, or behavior. In their 
description of greater sage-grouse distribution, Schroeder et al. 
(2004, p. 369) noted the lack of evidence for differentiating between 
the purported subspecies, stating ``We did not quantify the respective 
distributions of the eastern and western subspecies because of the lack 
of a clear dividing line (Aldrich and Duvall 1955) and the lack of 
genetic differentiation (Benedict et al. 2003).'' Based on this 
information, there does not appear to be any clear and consistent 
geographic separation between sage-grouse historically described as 
``eastern'' and ``western.''
Morphology
    As noted above, the original description of the western subspecies 
of sage-grouse was based solely on differences in coloration 
(specifically, reduced white markings and darker feathering on western 
birds) among 11 museum specimens (10 whole birds, 1 head only) 
collected from 8 locations in Washington, Oregon, and California 
(Aldrich 1946, p. 129). By today's standards, this represents an 
extremely small sample size that would likely

[[Page 13914]]

yield little confidence in the ability to discriminate between 
populations on the basis of this character. Furthermore, the subspecies 
designation was based on this single characteristic; no other 
differences between the western and eastern subspecies of sage-grouse 
were noted in Aldrich's original description (Aldrich 1946, p. 129; 
USFWS 2010). Banks (1992) noted plumage color variation in the original 
specimens Aldrich (1946) used to make his subspecies designation, and 
agreed that the specimens from Washington, Oregon, and northern 
California did appear darker than the specimens collected in the 
eastern portion of the range. However, individual morphological 
variation in greater sage-grouse, such as plumage coloration, is 
extensive (Banks 1992). Further, given current taxonomic concepts, 
Banks (1992) doubted that most current taxonomists would identify a 
subspecies based on minor color variations from a limited number of 
specimens, as were available to Aldrich during the mid-1900s (Aldrich 
1946, p. 129; Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 1963, pp. 539-
541). Finally, the AOU Committee on Classification has stated that, 
because of discoloration resulting from age and poor specimen 
preparation, museum specimens ``nearly always must be supplemented by 
new material for comprehensive systematic studies.'' (AOU, Check-list 
of North American Birds, 7\th\ ed., 1998, p. xv.)
    Schroeder (2008, pp. 1-19) examined previously collected 
morphological data across the species' range from both published and 
unpublished sources. He found statistically significant differences 
between sexes, age groups, and populations in numerous characteristics 
including body mass, wing length, tail length, and primary feather 
length. Many of these differences were associated with sex and age, but 
body mass also varied by season. There also were substantial 
morphometric (size and shape) differences among populations. Notably, 
however, these population differences were not consistent with any of 
the described geographic delineations between eastern and western 
subspecies. For example, sage-grouse from Washington and from Northern 
Colorado up to Alberta appeared to be larger than those in Idaho, 
Nevada, Oregon, and California (Schroeder 2008, p. 9). This regional 
variation was not consistent with differences in previously established 
genetic characteristics (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, as cited in 
Schroeder 2008, p. 9). Thus our review revealed no clear basis for 
differentiating between the two described subspecies based on plumage 
or morphology.
Behavior
    The only data available with respect to behavior are for strutting 
behavior on leks, a key component of mate selection. One recent study 
compared the male strut behavior between three sage-grouse populations 
that happen to include populations from both sides of the putative 
eastern-western line (Taylor and Young 2006, pp. 36-41). However, the 
classification of these populations changes depending on the 
description of western sage-grouse used. The Lyon/Mono population falls 
within the intermediate zone identified by Aldrich and Duvall (1955, p. 
12) but would be classified as eastern under Aldrich (1963, p. 541). 
The Lassen population may be considered either western (Aldrich 1946, 
p. 129) or intermediate (Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 1963, 
p. 541). The Nye population falls within the range of the eastern sage-
grouse (Aldrich and Duvall 1955, p. 12; Aldrich 1963, p. 541). The 
researchers found that male strut rates were not significantly 
different between populations, but that acoustic components of the 
display for the Lyon/Mono and Lassen populations (considered 
intermediate and/or western) were similar to each other, whereas the 
Nye population (eastern) was distinct. We consider these results 
inconclusive in distinguishing between eastern and western subspecies 
because of the inconsistent results and limited geographic scope of the 
study.
    Schroeder (2008, p. 9) also examined previously collected data on 
strutting behavior on leks, including Taylor and Young (2006). He noted 
that, although there was regional variation in the strut rate of sage-
grouse, it was not clear if this variation reflected population-level 
effects or some other unexplained variation. Based on the above limited 
information, we do not consider there to be any strong evidence of a 
clear separation of the western sage-grouse from other populations on 
the basis of behavioral differences.
Genetics
    Genetic research can sometimes augment or refine taxonomic 
definitions that are based on morphology or behavior or both (discussed 
in Haig et al. 2006, p. 1586; Oyler-McCance and Quinn in press, p. 19). 
Benedict et al. (2003, p. 309) found no genetic data supporting a 
subspecies designation. To investigate taxonomic questions and examine 
levels of gene flow and connectedness among populations, Oyler-McCance 
et al. (2005, p. 1294) conducted a comprehensive examination of the 
distribution of genetic variation across the entire range of greater 
sage-grouse, using both mitochondrial and nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid 
(DNA) sequence data. Oyler-McCance et al. (2005, p. 1306) found that 
the overall distribution of genetic variation showed a gradual shift 
across the range in both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data sets. Their 
results demonstrate that greater sage-grouse populations follow an 
isolation-by-distance model of restricted gene flow (gene flow 
resulting from movement between neighboring populations rather than 
being the result of long distance movements of individuals) (Oyler-
McCance et al. 2005, p. 1293; Campton 2007, p. 4), and are not 
consistent with subspecies designations. Oyler-McCance and Quinn (in 
press, entire) reviewed available studies that used molecular genetic 
approaches, including Oyler-McCance et al. (2005). They examined the 
genetic data bearing on the delineation of the western and eastern 
subspecies of greater sage-grouse, and determined that the distinction 
is not supported by the genetic data (Oyler-McCance and Quinn in press, 
p. 4). The best available genetic information thus does not support the 
recognition of the western sage-grouse as a separate subspecies.
Summary: Taxonomic Evaluation of the Subspecies
    The AOU has not revisited the question of whether the eastern and 
western subspecies are valid since their original classification in 
1957. We have examined the best scientific information available 
regarding the putative subspecies of the greater sage-grouse and have 
considered multiple lines of evidence for the potential existence of 
western and eastern subspecies based on geographic, morphological, 
behavioral, and genetic data. In our evaluation, we looked for any 
consistent significant differences in these characters that might 
support recognition of the western or eastern sage-grouse as clear, 
discrete, and diagnosable populations, such that either might be 
considered a subspecies.
    As described above, the boundaries distinguishing the two putative 
subspecies have shifted over time, and there does not appear to be any 
clear and consistent geographic separation between sage-grouse 
historically described as ``eastern'' and ``western.'' Banks (1992) and 
Schroeder (2008, p. 9) both found morphological variations between 
individuals and populations, but Banks stated that the differences 
would not be sufficient to recognize

[[Page 13915]]

subspecies by current taxonomic standards, and Schroeder noted that the 
differences were not consistent with any of the described geographic or 
genetic delineations between putative subspecies. Schroeder (2008 p. 9) 
also noted regional behavior differences in strut rate, but stated it 
was not clear if this variation reflected population-level effects. 
Finally, the best available genetic information indicates there is no 
distinction between the putative western and eastern subspecies 
(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 309; Oyler-McCance and Quinn in press, p. 
12).
    Because the best scientific and commercial information do not 
support the taxonomic validity of the purported eastern or western 
subspecies, our analysis of the status of the greater sage-grouse 
(below) does not address considerations at the scale of subspecies. 
(See Findings section, below, for our finding on the petition to list 
the western subspecies of the greater sage-grouse.)

Life History Characteristics

    Greater sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats 
throughout their life cycle, and are considered obligate users of 
several species of sagebrush (e.g., Artemisia tridentata ssp. 
wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush), A. t. ssp. vaseyana (mountain big 
sagebrush), and A. t. tridentata (basin big sagebrush)) (Patterson 
1952, p. 48; Braun et al. 1976, p. 168; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 970-
972; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-1; Miller et al. in press, p. 1). 
Greater sage-grouse also use other sagebrush species such as A. 
arbuscula (low sagebrush), A. nova (black sagebrush), A. frigida 
(fringed sagebrush), and A. cana silver sagebrush (Schroeder et al. 
1999, pp. 4-5; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-4). Thus, sage-grouse 
distribution is strongly correlated with the distribution of sagebrush 
habitats (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364). Sage-grouse exhibit strong 
site fidelity (loyalty to a particular area even when the area is no 
longer of value) to seasonal habitats, which includes breeding, 
nesting, brood rearing, and wintering areas (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 
3-1). Adult sage-grouse rarely switch between these habitats once they 
have been selected, limiting their adaptability to changes.
    During the spring breeding season, male sage-grouse gather together 
to perform courtship displays on areas called leks. Areas of bare soil, 
short-grass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed knolls, or other 
relatively open sites typically serve as leks (Patterson 1952, p. 83; 
Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-7 and references therein). Leks are often 
surrounded by denser shrub-steppe cover, which is used for escape, 
thermal, and feeding cover. The proximity, configuration, and abundance 
of nesting habitat are key factors influencing lek location (Connelly 
et al., 1981, and Connelly et al., 2000 b, cited in Connelly et al., in 
press a, p. 11). Leks can be formed opportunistically at any 
appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting habitat (Connelly et al. 
2000a, p. 970), and, therefore, lek habitat availability is not 
considered to be a limiting factor for sage-grouse (Schroeder 1999, p. 
4). Nest sites are selected independent of lek locations, but the 
reverse is not true (Bradbury et al. 1989, p. 22; Wakkinen et al. 1992, 
p. 382). Thus, leks are indicative of nesting habitat.
    Leks range in size from less than 0.04 hectare (ha) (0.1 acre (ac)) 
to over 36 ha (90 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-3) and can host from 
several to hundreds of males (Johnsgard 2002, p. 112). Males defend 
individual territories within leks and perform elaborate displays with 
their specialized plumage and vocalizations to attract females for 
mating. Although males are capable of breeding the first spring after 
hatch, young males are rarely successful in breeding on leks due to the 
dominance of older males (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). Numerous 
researchers have observed that a relatively small number of dominant 
males account for the majority of copulations on each lek (Schroeder et 
al. 1999, p. 8). However, Bush (2009, p. 106) found on average that 
45.9 percent (range 14.3 to 54.5 percent) of genetically identified 
males in a population fathered offspring in a given year, which 
indicates that males and females likely engage in off-lek copulations. 
Males do not participate in incubation of eggs or rearing chicks.
    Females have been documented to travel more than 20 km (12.5 mi) to 
their nest site after mating (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970), but 
distances between a nest site and the lek on which breeding occurred is 
variable (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-5). Average distance between a 
female's nest and the lek on which she was first observed ranged from 
3.4 km (2.1 mi) to 7.8 km (4.8 mi) in five studies examining 301 nest 
locations (Schroeder et al. 1999 p. 12).
    Productive nesting areas are typically characterized by sagebrush 
with an understory of native grasses and forbs, with horizontal and 
vertical structural diversity that provides an insect prey base, 
herbaceous forage for pre-laying and nesting hens, and cover for the 
hen while she is incubating (Gregg 1991, p. 19; Schroeder et al. 1999, 
p. 4; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-17, 
18; Connelly et al. in press b, p. 12). Sage-grouse also may use other 
shrub or bunchgrass species for nest sites (Klebenow 1969, p. 649; 
Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). Shrub 
canopy and grass cover provide concealment for sage-grouse nests and 
young, and are critical for reproductive success (Barnett and Crawford 
1994, p. 116; Gregg et al. 1994, p. 164; DeLong et al.1995, p. 90; 
Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-4). Published vegetation characteristics of 
successful nest sites included a sagebrush canopy cover of 15-25 
percent, sagebrush heights of 30 to 80 cm (11.8 to 31.5 in.), and 
grass/forb cover of 18 cm (7.1 in.) (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 977).
    Sage-grouse clutch size ranges from 6 to 9 eggs with an average of 
7 eggs (Connelly et al. in press a, pp. 14-15). The likelihood of a 
female nesting in a given year averages 82 percent in eastern areas of 
the range (Alberta, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, 
Wyoming) and 78 percent in western areas of the range (California, 
Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Utah ) (Connelly et al. in press a, 
p. 15). Adult females have higher nest initiation rates than yearling 
females (Connelly et al. in press a, p. 15). Nest success (one or more 
eggs hatching from a nest), as reported in the scientific literature, 
varies widely (15-86 percent Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 11). Overall, 
the average nest success for sage-grouse in habitats where sagebrush 
has not been disturbed is 51 percent and for sage-grouse in disturbed 
habitats is 37 percent (Connelly et al., in press a, p. 1). Re-nesting 
only occurs if the original nest is lost (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 
11). Sage-grouse re-nesting rates average 28.9 percent (based on 9 
different studies) with a range from 5 to 41 percent (Connelly et al. 
2004. p. 3-11). Other game bird species have much higher re-nesting 
rates, often exceeding 75 percent. The impact of re-nesting on annual 
productivity for most sage-grouse populations is unclear and thought to 
be limited (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 4). In north-central Washington 
State, re-nesting contributed to 38 percent of the annual productivity 
of that population (Schroeder 1997, p. 937). However, the author 
postulated that the re-nesting efforts in this population may be 
greater than anywhere else in the species' range because environmental 
conditions allow a longer period of time to successfully rear a clutch 
(Schroeder 1997, p. 939).
    Little information is available on the level of productivity 
(number of chicks per hen that survive to fall) that is necessary to 
maintain a stable population (Connelly et al. 2000b, p.

[[Page 13916]]

970). However, Connelly et al. (2000b, p. 970, and references therein) 
suggest that 2.25 chicks per hen are necessary to maintain stable to 
increasing populations. Long-term productivity estimates of 1.40-2.96 
chicks per hen across the species range have been reported (Connelly 
and Braun 1997, p. 20). Productivity declined slightly after 1985 to 
1.21-2.19 chicks per hen (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 20). Despite 
average clutch sizes of 7 eggs (Connelly et al. in press a, p. 15) due 
to low chick survival and limited renesting, there is little evidence 
that populations of sage-grouse produce large annual surpluses 
(Connelly et al. in press a, p. 24).
    Hens rear their broods in the vicinity of the nest site for the 
first 2-3 weeks following hatching (within 0.2-5 km (0.1-3.1 mi)), 
based on two studies in Wyoming (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-8). Forbs 
and insects are essential nutritional components for chicks (Klebenow 
and Gray 1968, p. 81; Johnson and Boyce 1991, p. 90; Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 4-9). Therefore, early brood-rearing habitat must provide 
adequate cover (sagebrush canopy cover of 10 to 25 percent; Connelly et 
al. 2000a, p. 977) adjacent to areas rich in forbs and insects to 
ensure chick survival during this period (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-
9).
    All sage-grouse gradually move from sagebrush uplands to more mesic 
areas (moist areas such as streambeds or wet meadows) during the late 
brood-rearing period (3 weeks post-hatch) in response to summer 
desiccation of herbaceous vegetation (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). 
Summer use areas can include sagebrush habitats as well as riparian 
areas, wet meadows, and alfalfa fields (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4). 
These areas provide an abundance of forbs and insects for both hens and 
chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). 
Sage-grouse will use free water although they do not require it since 
they obtain their water needs from the food they eat. However, natural 
water bodies and reservoirs can provide mesic areas for succulent forb 
and insect production, thereby attracting sage-grouse hens with broods 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-12). Broodless hens and cocks also will use 
more mesic areas in close proximity to sagebrush cover during the late 
summer, often arriving before hens with broods (Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 4-10).
    As vegetation continues to desiccate through the late summer and 
fall, sage-grouse shift their diet entirely to sagebrush (Schroeder et 
al. 1999, p. 5). Sage-grouse depend entirely on sagebrush throughout 
the winter for both food and cover. Sagebrush stand selection is 
influenced by snow depth (Patterson 1952, p. 184; Hupp and Braun 1989, 
p. 827), availability of sagebrush above the snow to provide cover 
(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-13, and references therein) and, in some 
areas, topography (e.g., elevation, slope and aspect; Beck 1977, p. 22; 
Crawford et al. 2004, p. 5).
    Many populations of sage-grouse migrate between seasonal ranges in 
response to habitat distribution (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-5). 
Migration can occur between winter and breeding and summer areas, 
between breeding, summer, and winter areas, or not at all. Migration 
distances of up to 161 km (100 mi) have been recorded (Patterson 1952, 
p.189); however, distances vary depending on the locations of seasonal 
habitats (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3). Migration distances for female 
sage-grouse generally are less than for males (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 
3-4), but in one study in Colorado, females traveled farther than males 
(Beck 1977, p. 23). Almost no information is available regarding the 
distribution and characteristics of migration corridors for sage-grouse 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-19). Sage-grouse dispersal (permanent moves 
to other areas) is poorly understood (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-5) and 
appears to be sporadic (Dunn and Braun 1986, p. 89). Estimating an 
``average'' home range for sage-grouse is difficult due to the large 
variation in sage-grouse movements both within and among populations. 
This variation is related to the spatial availability of habitats 
required for seasonal use, and annual recorded home ranges have varied 
from 4 to 615 square kilometers (km\2\) (1.5 to 237.5 square miles 
(mi\2\)) (Connelly et al., in press a, p. 10).
    Sage-grouse typically live between 3 and 6 years, but individuals 
up to 9 years of age have been recorded in the wild (Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 3-12). Hens typically survive longer due to a disproportionate 
impact of predation on leks to males (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). 
Juvenile survival (from hatch to first breeding season) is affected by 
food availability, habitat quality, harvest, and weather. Based on a 
review of many field studies, juvenile survival rates range from 7 to 
60 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-12). The variation in juvenile 
mortality rates may be associated with gender, weather, harvest rates, 
age of brood female (broods with adult females have higher survival), 
and with habitat quality (rates increase in poor habitats) (Schroeder 
et al. 1999, p. 14; Connelly et al., in press a, p. 20). The average 
annual survival rate for male sage-grouse (all ages combined) 
documented in various studies ranged from 38 to 60 percent and 55 to 75 
percent for females (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). Higher female 
survival rates account for a female-biased sex ratio in adult birds 
(Schroeder 1999, p. 14; Johnsgard 2002, p. 621). The sex ratio of sage-
grouse breeding populations varies widely with values between 1.2 and 3 
females per male being reported (Connelly et al., in press a, p. 23). 
Although seasonal patterns of mortality have not been thoroughly 
examined, over-winter mortality appears to be low (Connelly et al. 
2000b, p. 229; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 9-4). While both males and 
females are capable of breeding the first spring after hatch, young 
males are rarely successful due to the dominance of older males on the 
lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14). Nesting rates of yearling females 
are 25 percent less than adult females (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 13).

Habitat Description and Characteristics

    Sage-grouse are dependent on large areas of contiguous sagebrush 
(Patterson 1952, p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-1; Connelly et al. 
in press a, p. 10; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 4), and large-scale 
characteristics within surrounding landscapes influence sage-grouse 
habitat selection (Knick and Hanser in press, p. 26). Sagebrush is the 
most widespread vegetation in the intermountain lowlands in the western 
United States (West and Young 2000, p. 259) and is considered one of 
the most imperiled ecosystems in North America (Knick et al. 2003, p. 
612; Miller et al. in press, p. 4, and references therein). Scientists 
recognize 14 species and 13 subspecies of sagebrush (Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 5-2; Miller et al. in press, p. 8), each with unique habitat 
requirements and responses to perturbations (West and Young 2000, p. 
259). Sagebrush species and subspecies occurrence in an area is 
dictated by local soil type, soil moisture, and climatic conditions 
(West 1983, p. 333; West and Young 2000, p. 260; Miller et al. in 
press, pp. 8-11). The degree of dominance by sagebrush varies with 
local site conditions and disturbance history. Plant associations, 
typically defined by perennial grasses, further define distinctive 
sagebrush communities (Miller and Eddleman 2000, pp. 10-14; Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 5-3), and are influenced by topography, elevation, 
precipitation, and soil type. These ecological conditions influence the 
response and resiliency of sagebrush and their associated understories 
to natural and human-caused changes.
    Sagebrush is typically divided into two groups, big sagebrush and 
low sagebrush, based on their affinities for

[[Page 13917]]

different soil types (West and Young 2000, p. 259). Big sagebrush 
species and subspecies, such as A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis, are 
limited to coarse-textured and/or well-drained sediments. Low 
sagebrush, such as A. nova, typically occur where erosion has exposed 
clay or calcified soil horizons (West 1983, p. 334; West and Young 
2000, p. 261). Reflecting these soil differences, big sagebrush will 
die if surfaces are saturated long enough to create anaerobic 
conditions for 2 to 3 days (West and Young 2000, p. 259). Some low 
sagebrush are more tolerant of occasionally supersaturated soils, and 
many low sage sites are partially flooded during spring snowmelt. None 
of the sagebrush taxa tolerate soils with high salinity (West 1983, p. 
333; West and Young 2000, p. 257). Sagebrush that provide important 
annual and seasonal habitats for sage-grouse include three subspecies 
of big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. wyomingensis, A. t. ssp. tridentata and A. 
t. ssp. vaseyana), two low forms of sagebrush (A. arbuscula (little 
sagebrush) and A. nova), and A. cana ssp. cana (Miller et al. in press, 
p. 8).
    All species of sagebrush produce large ephemeral leaves in the 
spring, which persist until reduced soil moisture occurs in the summer. 
Most species also produce smaller, over-wintering leaves in the late 
spring that last through summer and winter. Sagebrush have fibrous tap 
root systems, which allow the plants to draw surface soil moisture, and 
also to access water deep within the soil profile when surface water is 
limited (West and Young 2000, p. 259). Most sagebrush flower in the 
fall. However, during years of drought or other moisture stress, 
flowering may not occur. Although seed viability and germination are 
high, seed dispersal is limited. Sagebrush seeds, depending on the 
species, remain viable for 1 to 3 years. However, Wyoming big sagebrush 
seeds do not persist beyond the year of their production (West and 
Young 2000, p. 260).
    Sagebrush is long-lived, with plants of some species surviving up 
to 150 years (West 1983, p. 340). They produce allelopathic chemicals 
that reduce seed germination, seedling growth, and root respiration of 
competing plant species and inhibit the activity of soil microbes and 
nitrogen fixation. Sagebrush has resistance to environmental extremes, 
with the exception of fire and occasionally defoliating insects (e.g., 
webworm (Aroga spp.); West 1983, p. 341). Most species of sagebrush are 
killed by fire (West 1983, p. 341; Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 17; 
West and Young 2000, p. 259), and historic fire-return intervals were 
as long as 350 years, depending on sagebrush type and environmental 
conditions (Baker in press, p. 16). Natural sagebrush recolonization in 
burned areas depends on the presence of adjacent live plants for a seed 
source or on the seed bank, if present (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 
17), and requires decades for full recovery.
    Plants associated with the sagebrush understory vary, as does their 
productivity. Both plant composition and productivity are influenced by 
moisture availability, soil characteristics, climate, and topographic 
position (Miller et al., in press, pp. 8-14). Forb abundance can be 
highly variable from year to year and is largely affected by the amount 
and timing of precipitation.
    Very little sagebrush within its extant range is undisturbed or 
unaltered from its condition prior to EuroAmerican settlement in the 
late 1800s (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612, and references therein). Due to 
the disruption of primary patterns, processes, and components of 
sagebrush ecosystems since EuroAmerican settlement (Knick et al. 2003, 
p. 612; Miller et al. in press, p. 4), the large range of abiotic 
variation, the minimal short-lived seed banks, and the long generation 
time of sagebrush, restoration of disturbed areas is very difficult. 
Not all areas previously dominated by sagebrush can be restored because 
alteration of vegetation, nutrient cycles, topsoil, and living 
(cryptobiotic) soil crusts has exceeded recovery thresholds (Knick et 
al. 2003, p. 620). Additionally, processes to restore sagebrush ecology 
are relatively unknown (Knick et al. 2003, p. 620). Active restoration 
activities are often limited by financial and logistic resources and 
lack of political motivation (Knick et al. 2003, p. 620; Miller et al. 
in press, p. 5) and may require decades or centuries (Knick et al. 
2003, p. 620, and references therein). Meaningful restoration for 
greater sage-grouse requires landscape, watershed, or eco-regional 
scale context rather than individual, unconnected efforts (Knick et al. 
2003, p. 623, and references therein; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 27). 
Landscape restoration efforts require a broad range of partnerships 
(private, State, and Federal) due to landownership patterns (Knick et 
al. 2003, p. 623; see discussion of landownership below). Except for 
areas where active restoration is attempted following disturbance 
(e.g., mining, wildfire), management efforts in sagebrush ecosystems 
are usually focused on maintaining the remaining sagebrush (Miller et 
al. in press, p. 5; Wisdom et al. in press, pp. 26, 30).
    Greater sage-grouse require large, interconnected expanses of 
sagebrush with healthy, native understories (Patterson 1952, p. 9; 
Knick et al. 2003, p. 623; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-15; Connelly et 
al. in press a, p. 10; Pyke in press, p. 7; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 
4). There is little information available regarding minimum sagebrush 
patch sizes required to support populations of sage-grouse. This is due 
in part to the migratory nature of some but not all sage-grouse 
populations, the lack of juxtaposition of seasonal habitats, and 
differences in local, regional, and range-wide ecological conditions 
that influence the distribution of sagebrush and associated 
understories. Where home ranges have been reported (Connelly et al. in 
press a, p. 10 and references therein), they are extremely variable (4 
to 615 km\2\ range (1.5 to 237.5 mi\2\)). Occupancy of a home range 
also is based on multiple variables associated with both local 
vegetation characteristics and landscape characteristics (Knick et al. 
2003, p. 621). Pyke (in press, p. 18) estimated that greater than 4,000 
ha (9,884 ac) was necessary for population sustainability. However, he 
did not indicate whether this value was for migratory or nonmigratory 
populations, nor if this included juxtaposition of all seasonal 
habitats. Large seasonal and annual movements emphasize the landscape 
nature of the greater sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2003, p. 624; Connelly 
et al. in press a, p. 10).
Range and Distribution of Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush
    Prior to settlement of western North America by European immigrants 
in the 19th century, greater sage-grouse occurred in 13 States and 3 
Canadian provinces--Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, 
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, 
Arizona, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (Schroeder et al. 
1999, p. 2; Young et al. 2000, p. 445; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). 
Sagebrush habitats that potentially supported sage-grouse occurred over 
approximately 1,200,483 km\2\ (463,509 mi\2\) before 1800 (Schroeder et 
al. 2004, p. 366). Currently, greater sage-grouse occur in 11 States 
(Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, 
Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota), and 2 Canadian 
provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), occupying approximately 56 
percent of their historical range (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). 
Approximately 2 percent of the total range of the greater sage-grouse

[[Page 13918]]

occurs in Canada, with the remainder in the United States (Knick in 
press, p. 14).
    Sage-grouse have been extirpated from Nebraska, British Columbia, 
and possibly Arizona (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2; Young et al. 2000 p. 
445; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). Current distribution of the 
greater sage-grouse is estimated at 668,412 km\2\ (258,075 mi\2\; 
Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-9; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). Changes 
in distribution are the result of sagebrush alteration and degradation 
(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 363).
    Sage-grouse distribution is associated with sagebrush (Schroeder et 
al. 2004; p. 364), although sagebrush is more widely distributed. 
However, sagebrush does not always provide suitable habitat due to 
fragmentation and degradation (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 369, 372). 
Very little of the extant sagebrush is undisturbed, with up to 50 to 60 
percent having altered understories or having been lost to direct 
conversion (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612 ). There also are challenges in 
mapping altered and depleted understories, particularly in semi-arid 
regions, so maps depicting only sagebrush as a dominant cover type are 
deceptive in their reflection of habitat quality and, therefore, use by 
sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616). As such, variations in the 
quality of sagebrush habitats (from either abiotic or anthropogenic 
events) are reflected by sage-grouse distribution and densities (Figure 
1).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23MR10.000

    Sagebrush occurs in two natural vegetation types that are 
delineated by temperature and patterns of precipitation (Miller et al. 
in press, p. 7). Sagebrush steppe ranges across the northern portion of 
sage-grouse range, from British Columbia and the Columbia Basin, 
through the northern Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and Montana, and 
into the Wyoming Basin and northern Colorado. Great Basin sagebrush 
occurs south of sagebrush steppe, and extends from the Colorado Plateau 
westward into Nevada, Utah, and California (Miller et al. in press, p. 
7). Other sagebrush types within greater sage-grouse range include 
mixed-desert shrubland in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming, and grasslands 
in eastern Montana and Wyoming that also support A. cana and A. 
filifolia (sand sagebrush) (Miller et al. in press, p. 7).
    Due to differences in the ecology of sagebrush across the range of 
the greater sage-grouse, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies (WAFWA) delineated seven Management Zones (MZs I-VII) based 
primarily on floristic provinces (Figure 2; Table 1; Stiver et al. 
2006, p. 1-6). The boundaries of these MZs were delineated based on 
their ecological and biological attributes rather than on arbitrary 
political boundaries (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 1-6). Therefore, 
vegetation found within a MZ is similar and sage-grouse and their 
habitats within these areas are likely to respond similarly to 
environmental factors and management actions. The WAFWA conservation 
strategy includes the Gunnison sage-grouse, and the boundary for MZ VII 
includes its range (Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 1-1, 1-8), which does not 
overlap with the range of the greater sage-grouse.

[[Page 13919]]



 Tab