Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat, 22827-22866 [2015-09417]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 78
April 23, 2015
Part III
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the
Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater
Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22828
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial
Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502;
telephone 775–861–6300; or facsimile
775–861–6301.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072;
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0042;
4500030113; 4500030114]
RIN 1018–AY10; RIN 1018–AZ70
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Withdrawal of the
Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State
Distinct Population Segment of Greater
Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical
Habitat
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the
proposed rule to list the bi-State distinct
population segment (DPS) of greater
sage-grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus) in California and Nevada
as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
as well as the proposed rules under
section 4(d) of the Act and to designate
critical habitat for the bi-State DPS of
greater sage-grouse. These withdrawals
are based on our conclusion that the
threats to the DPS as identified in the
proposed listing rule no longer are as
significant as believed at the time of
publication of the proposed rule. We
find the best scientific and commercial
data available indicate that the threats to
the DPS and its habitat, given current
and future conservation efforts, are
reduced below the statutory definition
of threatened or endangered. Therefore,
we are withdrawing our proposal to list
the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse
as threatened with critical habitat.
DATES: The October 28, 2013, proposed
rule (78 FR 64358) to list the bi-State
DPS of greater sage-grouse as a
threatened species and the October 28,
2013, proposed rule (78 FR 64328) to
designate critical habitat for the bi-State
DPS of greater sage-grouse are
withdrawn as of April 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The withdrawal of our
proposed rule, comments, and
supplementary documents are available
on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Nos.
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072 and FWS–R8–
ES–2013–0042. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation
of this withdrawal, are also available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at: U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, Reno
Fish and Wildlife 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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish this
document. Under the Endangered
Species Act, a species may warrant
protection through listing if it is
endangered or threatened throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule. We issued
a proposed rule to list a distinct
population segment (DPS) of greater
sage-grouse in California and Nevada
(known as the bi-State DPS) in 2013.
However, this document withdraws that
proposed rule because we now
determine that threats identified in the
proposed rule have been reduced such
that listing is not necessary for this DPS.
Accordingly, we also withdraw the
proposed rule under section 4(d) of the
Act and proposed critical habitat
designation.
The basis for our action. Under the
Endangered Species Act, we can
determine that a species is an
endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. We now determine that
threats have been reduced such that
listing is not necessary for this DPS.
Peer review and public comment. We
sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our
consideration of the status of the species
is based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We invited
these peer reviewers to comment on our
listing proposal. We also considered all
comments and information received
during the comment periods. Public
comments and peer reviewer comments
are addressed at the end of this Federal
Register document.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in
This Document
We use many acronyms and
abbreviations throughout this
document. To assist the reader, we
provide a list of these here for easy
reference:
Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
BSAP = Bi-State Action Plan
CDFG = California Department of Fish and
Game (see below)
CDFW = California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
COT = Conservation Objectives Team
CPT = Conservation Planning Tool
DPS = Bi-State Distinct Population Segment
of the Greater Sage-Grouse
EOC = Executive Oversight Committee
FR = Federal Register
GIS = Geographic Information System
GPS = Global Positioning System
LADWP = Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
LAWG = Local Area Working Group
LRMP = Land Resource Management Plan
MDL = Multi-District Litigation
NDOW = Nevada Department of Wildlife
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation
Service
OHV = Off-highway Vehicle
PECE = Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
PMU = Population Management Unit
RHA = Rangeland Health Assessment
RMP = Resource Management Plan
RSF = Resource Selection Function
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TAC = Technical Advisory Committee
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WNv = West Nile Virus
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing
rule for the bi-State DPS (78 FR 64358;
October 28, 2013) of greater sage-grouse
for a detailed description of the Federal
actions concerning this DPS that
occurred prior to publication of the
proposed listing rule. We concurrently
published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for the bi-State DPS of
greater sage-grouse (78 FR 64328;
October 28, 2013). We received requests
to extend the public comment periods
on the rules beyond the December 27,
2013, due date. In order to ensure that
the public had an adequate opportunity
to review and comment on our proposed
rules, we extended the comment periods
for an additional 45 days to February 10,
2014 (78 FR 77087; December 20, 2013).
On April 8, 2014, we reopened the
comment period on our October 28,
2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State
DPS and the proposed critical habitat
rule (79 FR 19314). We also announced
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
two public hearings: (1) April 29, 2014,
in Minden, Nevada; and (2) April 30,
2014, in Bishop, California. These
meetings were subsequently cancelled
for unrelated reasons. On May 9, 2014,
we published a notice announcing the
rescheduled hearings to take place on
May 28, 2014, and May 29, 2014,
respectively (79 FR 26684). The April 8,
2014, notice also announced a 6-month
extension of the final determination of
whether or not to list the bi-State DPS
as a threatened species, which would
automatically delay any decision
regarding critical habitat for the bi-State
DPS. The comment period was
reopened (until June 9, 2014), and our
determination on the final listing action
was delayed based on substantial
disagreement regarding the sufficiency
or accuracy of the available data
relevant to the proposed listing, making
it necessary to solicit additional
information. Thus, we announced that
we would publish a listing
determination on or before April 28,
2015.
On June 3, 2014, we announced an
extension of the comment period on the
proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR
31901), the availability of a draft
economic analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the biState DPS, and an amended required
determinations section of the proposed
critical habitat rule (available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0042).
On August 5, 2014, we provided an
additional comment period on our
October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list
the bi-State DPS (79 FR 45420) based on
new information received regarding
population trends and recent State and
Federal agency funding and staffing
commitments for various conservation
efforts associated with the Bi-State
Action Plan (BSAP; Bi-State Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) 2012,
entire). The comment period closed on
September 4, 2014.
Background
In our 12-month finding on petitions
to list three entities of sage-grouse (75
FR 13910; March 23, 2010), we found
that the bi-State population of greater
sage-grouse in California and Nevada
meets our criteria as a DPS of the greater
sage-grouse under Service policy (61 FR
4722; February 7, 1996). We reaffirmed
this finding in the proposed listing rule
and do so again here in this document.
This determination was based
principally on genetic information
(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; OylerMcCance et al. 2005, p. 1,307), where
the DPS was found to be both markedly
separated and significant to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:58 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
remainder of the greater sage-grouse
taxon. The bi-State DPS defines the far
southwestern limit of the species’ range
along the border of eastern California
and western Nevada (Stiver et al. 2006,
pp. 1–11; 71 FR 76058).
Although the bi-State DPS is a
genetically unique and markedly
separate population from the rest of the
greater sage-grouse’s range, the DPS has
similar life-history and habitat
requirements. In the proposed rule and
this document, we use information
specific to the bi-State DPS where
available but still apply scientific
management principles for greater sagegrouse that are relevant to the bi-State
DPS’s management needs and strategies,
which is a practice followed by the
wildlife and land management agencies
that have responsibility for management
of both the DPS and its habitat.
A detailed discussion of the bi-State
DPS’s description, taxonomy, habitat
(sagebrush ecosystem), seasonal habitat
selection, life-history characteristics,
home range, life expectancy and
survival rates, historical and current
range distribution, population estimates
and lek (sage-grouse breeding complex)
counts, population trends, and land
ownership information is available in
the Species Report (Service 2015a,
entire). A team of Service biologists
prepared this status review for the biState DPS. The team included biologists
from the Service’s Reno Fish and
Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest
Regional Office, Mountain-Prairie
Regional Office, and national
Headquarters Office. The Species Report
represents a compilation of the best
scientific and commercial data available
concerning the status of the bi-State
DPS, including the past, present, and
future threats to this DPS. The Species
Report and other materials relating to
this final agency action can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
Based upon our review of the public
comments, Federal and State agency
comments, peer review comments,
issues addressed at the public hearings,
and any new relevant information that
became available since the publication
of the proposal, we reevaluated our
proposed listing rule and made changes
as appropriate. Other than minor
clarifications and incorporation of
additional information on the species’
biology and populations, this
determination differs from the proposal
in the following ways:
(1) Based on our analyses of the
potential threats to the species, and our
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22829
consideration of partially completed,
ongoing and future conservation efforts
(as outlined in the Policy for Evaluation
of Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) section of this
document), we have determined that the
bi-State DPS should not be listed as a
threatened species. Specifically, we
have determined that conservation
efforts (as outlined in the BSAP, Agency
commitment letters, and our detailed
PECE analysis (all of which are available
at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket
No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072)), as well
as the TAC comprehensive project
database) will continue to be
implemented because (to date) we have
a documented track record of active
participation and implementation by the
signatory agencies, and commitments to
continue implementation into the
future. Conservation measures, such as
(but not limited to) pinyon-juniper
removal, establishment of conservation
easements for critical brood-rearing
habitat, cheatgrass removal, permanent
and seasonal closure of roads near leks,
removal and marking of fencing, and
restoration of riparian/meadow habitat
have been occurring over the past
decade, are currently occurring, and
have been prioritized and placed on the
agencies’ implementation schedules for
future implementation. Agencies have
committed to remain participants in the
BSAP and continue conservation of the
DPS and its habitat. Additionally, the
BSAP has sufficient methods for
determining the type and location of the
most beneficial conservation actions to
be implemented, including continued
development of new population and
threats information in the future that
will guide conservation efforts. As a
result of these actions, this document
withdraws the proposed rule as
published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR
64358).
(2) The addition of the Ongoing and
Future Conservation Efforts section,
which includes some information
presented in the Available Conservation
Measures section of the proposed listing
rule and the Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) section
following the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section, below.
(3) The addition of a discussion under
the Small Population Size and
Population Structure section that
synthesizes information to evaluate
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation as they relate to the biState DPS.
(4) New information was received
following publication of the proposed
listing rule. Some of the information
was in response to our request for
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22830
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
scientific peer review of the proposed
listing rule, while other information was
a result of new literature now available,
or updated regulations. We incorporated
all new information into the Species
Report (Service 2015a, entire), which is
available on the Internet at
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072), as well as within
this Federal Register document where
appropriate. New information includes
(but is not limited to):
• A variety of biological or habitat
clarifications, such as hen movement
distances, nesting success, and invasive
plant species influence on sagebrushhabitat dynamics.
• A recent trend analysis conducted
by Coates et al. (2014, entire) examined
six populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert
Creek, Fales, Bodie Hills, Parker
Meadows, and Long Valley) over a 10year period between 2003 and 2012. The
results suggest that four of the six
populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert
Creek, Bodie Hills, and Long Valley) are
stable. Population growth was variable
among the populations, and results for
the Pine Nut population are not
considered to be reliable due to the
small sample size associated with a
single active lek (see Species
Information above).
• Two genetic evaluations, one of
which concluded there are between
three and four unique genetic clusters
within the bi-State area (Oyler-McCance
et al. (2014, p. 8), and a second that
concluded there were five unique
genetic clusters (Tebbenkamp 2014, p.
18). Tebbenkamp (2014) did not
evaluate the Pine Nut population; thus,
six populations may have been
identified by Tebbenkamp (2014) had
the Pine Nut population data been
available.
Species Information
As stated above, the bi-State DPS of
greater sage-grouse is genetically unique
and markedly separate from the rest of
the species’ range. The species as a
whole is long-lived, reliant on
sagebrush, highly traditional in areas of
seasonal habitat use, and particularly
susceptible to habitat fragmentation and
alterations in its environment (see the
Seasonal Habitat Selection and Life
History Characteristics section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 11–
15)). Sage-grouse annually exploit
numerous habitat types in the sagebrush
ecosystem across broad landscapes to
successfully complete their life cycle,
thus spanning ecological and political
boundaries. Populations are slowgrowing due to low reproductive rates
(Schroeder et al. 1999 pp. 11, 14;
Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 969–970), and
they exhibit natural, cyclical variability
in abundance (see Current Range/
Distribution and Population Estimates/
Annual Lek Counts section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 17–
31)).
For the purposes of this document, we
discuss the bi-State DPS populations,
threats to those populations, and
associated management needs or
conservation actions as they relate to
population management units (PMUs).
Six PMUs were established in 2001 as
management tools for defining and
monitoring sage-grouse distribution in
the bi-State area (Sage-Grouse
Conservation Planning Team 2001, p.
31). The PMU boundaries are based on
aggregations of leks, known seasonal
habitats, and telemetry data, which
represent generalized subpopulations or
local breeding complexes. The six PMUs
include: Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales,
Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono, and
White Mountains PMUs. These six
PMUs represent a total of three to six
demographically independent
populations with a combined total of
approximately 43 active leks (see Table
1 below; Service 2015a, pp. 17–31). Leks
are considered either active (e.g., two or
more strutting males during at least 2
years in a 5-year period), inactive (e.g.,
surveyed three or more times during one
breeding season with no birds detected
and no sign (e.g., droppings) observed),
historical (e.g., no strutting activity for
20 years and have been checked
according to State protocol at least
intermittently), or unknown/pending
(e.g., sign was observed, and one or no
strutting males observed, or a lek that
had activity the prior year but was not
surveyed or surveyed under unsuitable
conditions during the current year and
reported one or no strutting males).
TABLE 1—BI-STATE DPS POPULATION MANAGEMENT UNITS (PMUS), PMU SIZE, ESTIMATED SUITABLE SAGE-GROUSE
HABITAT, ESTIMATED RANGE IN POPULATION SIZE, NUMBER OF ACTIVE LEKS, AND REPORTED RANGE IN TOTAL
MALES COUNTED ON ALL LEKS WITHIN EACH PMU
Total size
hectares
(acres) *
PMU
Pine Nut ......................................
Desert Creek-Fales .....................
Mount Grant ................................
Bodie ...........................................
South Mono .................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
White Mountains .........................
Total .....................................
(all PMUs combined) ...........
Estimated
suitable habitat
hectares
(acres) **
Current
number of
active
leks ***†
Estimated population size range
(2004–2014) ***
Lek count
(number of males)
range
(2004–2014) ***
232,440
(574,373)
229,858
(567,992)
282,907
(699,079)
141,490
(349,630)
234,508
(579,483)
709,768
(1,753,875)
77,848
(192,367)
105,281
(260,155)
45,786
(113,139)
105,698
(261,187)
138,123
(341,311)
53,452
(132,083)
<100–608 .........................................
1
0–38
638–2,061 ........................................
10
78–220
171–3,058 ........................................
6
12–215
640–2,466 ........................................
12
136–524
965–2,005 ........................................
11
205–426
Data not available ............................
3+
5–14
1,830,972
(4,524,432)
526,188
(1,300,238)
2,497–9,828 .....................................
43
427–1,404
* Bi-State Local Planning Group (2004, pp. 11, 32, 63, 102, 127, 153).
** Bi-State TAC (2012, unpublished data); Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2014a, unpublished data).
*** California Department of Wildlife (CDFW 2014a, unpublished data), Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW 2014a, unpublished data).
† Active—two or more strutting males during at least 2 years in a 5-year period.
NOTE—Area values for ‘‘Total Size’’ and ‘‘Estimated Suitable Habitat’’ may not sum due to rounding.
NOTE—Estimated population and lek count totals are not a sum of the PMU cells. Totals represent minimum and maximum estimates between 2004 and 2014. Minimum numbers were documented in 2008 and maximum in 2012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Each sage-grouse population in the biState area is relatively small, as is the
entire DPS on average, which is
estimated at 2,497 to 9,828 individuals
(CDFW 2014a, unpublished data;
NDOW 2014a, unpublished data). Based
on the maximum number of males
counted on leks, the two largest
populations exist in the Bodie (Bodie
Hills population) and South Mono
(Long Valley population) PMUs. The
remaining PMUs contain smaller
populations. Although population
estimates derived from lek surveys (and
presented in Table 1, above) suggest the
Mount Grant and Desert Creek-Fales
PMUs rival populations in the Bodie
and South Mono PMUs, we consider
population estimates for the two former
PMUs to be inflated due to differences
in survey method (helicopter versus onthe-ground) as well as differences in the
specific estimator formula used by the
NDOW versus the CDFW.
In 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) completed an analysis of
population trends in the bi-State area
between 2003 to 2012 (Coates et al.
2014, entire). This analysis, termed an
Integrated Population Model, integrates
a variety of data such as lek counts and
vital rate information to inform an
estimate of population growth within
the DPS. This analysis evaluated several
populations in the bi-State area
including the Pine Nut (Pine Nut PMU),
Fales (California portion of the Desert
Creek-Fales PMU), Desert Creek (Nevada
Portion of the Desert Creek-Fales PMU),
Bodie Hills (Bodie PMU), Parker
Meadows (South Mono PMU), and Long
Valley (South Mono PMU) populations.
It did not evaluate the Mount Grant
(Mount Grant PMU) or White Mountains
(White Mountains PMU) populations
due to data limitations. Results suggest
the evaluated populations, in their
entirety, are stable (both growing and
declining) between 2003 and 2012
(Coates et al. 2014, p. 19). However, the
trend in population growth was variable
among populations (Coates et al. 2014,
pp. 14–15). Details pertaining to specific
population and PMUs are provided
below.
Two recent and independent genetic
evaluations have been conducted in the
bi-State area. Oyler-McCance et al.
(2014, p. 8) concluded there are between
three and four unique genetic clusters
within the bi-State area, while
Tebbenkamp (2014, p. 18) concluded
there were five unique genetic clusters.
In addition, Tebbenkamp (2014, p. 12)
did not evaluate the Pine Nut
population, which Oyler-McCance et al.
(2014, p. 8) found to be unique. Thus,
presumably Tebbenkamp (2014, entire)
would have differentiated six
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
populations had these data been
available. Based on this information, we
presume that there are likely three to six
populations or groups of birds in the biState area that largely operate
demographically independent of one
another.
Overall, the remaining habitat is
reduced in quality from what we
currently consider high-quality habitat
for the bi-State DPS (see various Impact
Analysis discussions in the Species
Report including, but not limited to, the
Infrastructure, Nonnative, Invasive and
Native Increasing Plants, and Wildfires
and Altered Fire Regime sections
(Service 2015a, pp. 45–91)) and,
thereby, sage-grouse carrying capacity
likely also is reduced. Additionally, the
best available data indicate that
reductions in sage-grouse abundance
proportionally exceed habitat loss (in
other words, because sage-grouse habitat
abundance has been reduced on the
order of 50 percent over the past 150
years, the expected sage-grouse
population numbers (or abundance) are
reduced by more than 50 percent over
the same time period). The residual
limited connectivity of populations and
habitats within and among the PMUs
also continues to slowly erode (Service
2015a, pp. 16–33, 45–52, 57, 58, 61, 63–
65, 67, 69, 82–84, 86, 121–122, 124, 143,
144–150). However, as discussed in the
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE) section (below), conservation
efforts are effectively reducing the risk
of further habitat loss and helping
maintain connectivity.
At the time of the proposed listing
rule, we stated that declining bi-State
DPS population trends were continuing
for the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and
Mount Grant PMUs, with an unknown
trend for the White Mountains PMU
(Service 2013a, pp. 21–29). However, a
more recent trend analysis conducted by
Coates et al. (2014, p. 19) examining six
populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert
Creek, Fales, Bodie Hills, Parker
Meadows, and Long Valley) over a 10year period between 2003 to 2012
estimated these populations to be stable
(not growing or declining) (see Current
Range/Distribution and Population
Estimates/Annual Lek Counts section of
the Species Report). Specifically, this
analysis characterized population
growth rates as positive for four of the
six populations analyzed (i.e., Pine Nut,
Desert Creek, Bodie Hills, and Long
Valley), and negative for the remaining
two populations (i.e., Fales, Parker
Meadows). We note, however, that
although this model projected a positive
growth rate for the Pine Nut population,
the single active lek used to partially
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22831
inform the Pine Nut PMU model for this
trend analysis had zero males strutting
in 2013 and a single male in 2014.
Therefore, we interpret these model
results, particularly for this population,
with caution.
The Bodie and South Mono PMUs
form the central core of the bi-State
DPS. The Bodie Hills and Long Valley
populations within these two PMUs are
the largest sage-grouse populations in
the bi-State area. These PMUs
encompass between approximately 45
and 64 percent of existing bi-State DPS
individuals (Service 2015a, p. 20).
These PMUs are relatively stable at
present (estimates range from
approximately 640 to 2,466 individuals
in the Bodie PMU and 965 to 2,005
individuals in the South Mono PMU
(CDFW 2014a, unpublished data;
NDOW 2014a, unpublished data; Coates
et al. 2014, p. 15)), and the scope and
severity of known impacts are
comparatively less than in other PMUs.
These PMUs currently are relatively
stable with overall fewer impacts as
compared to the other four PMUs,
despite having experienced prior habitat
losses, population declines, and internal
habitat fragmentation. Significant
connectivity between these two PMUs is
currently lacking (Service 2015a, pp.
121–122, 143), and like many areas in
the Great Basin both PMUs (as well as
the other four PMUs) are vulnerable to
the effects of Bromus tectorum
cheatgrass invasion (Service 2015a, pp.
79–81) and wildfire impacts (Service
2015a, pp. 86–91).
Together, the Bodie and South Mono
PMUs represent less than 20 percent of
the historical range for the bi-State DPS.
Historically, the DPS occurred
throughout most of Mono, eastern
Alpine, and northern Inyo Counties,
California (Hall et al. 2008, p. 97), and
portions of Carson City, Douglas,
Esmeralda, Lyon, and Mineral Counties,
Nevada (Gullion and Christensen 1957,
pp. 131–132; Espinosa 2006, pers.
comm.). While the Bodie PMU is
expected to fall below 500 breeding
adults within the next 30 years (Garton
et al. 2011, p. 310), both the Bodie and
South Mono PMUs (which harbor the
two largest populations) are projected
by sage-grouse experts to have moderate
to high probabilities of persistence into
the future (Aldridge et al. 2008, entire;
Wisdom et al. 2011, entire). The Bodie
PMU has fluctuated with positive and
negative population growth over the
past 40 years with no discernible longterm trend (Service 2013a, pp. 24–26).
The long-term population trend for the
South Mono PMU has been stable
(Service 2015a, pp. 26–27). As with the
Bodie PMU, some sage-grouse experts
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22832
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
estimate an 80 percent chance of the
population declining to fewer than 500
breeding adults in 30 years (Garton et al.
2011, p. 310). Both the Bodie and South
Mono PMU populations have fallen
below 500 breeding individuals in the
past and then have returned to higher
numbers. Thus, while sage-grouse
experts predict these populations could
again fall below 500 breeding
individuals in the future, we conclude
it is likely that these populations will
continue to fluctuate in size but persist,
particularly given the conservation
efforts occurring currently and into the
future as a result of implementation and
effectiveness of the BSAP (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Makin Listing Decisions (PECE),
below).
Fluctuations in population size in the
relatively small Pine Nut, Fales, and
Parker Meadows populations (within
the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and
south Mono PMUs) could result in
extirpation of one or more of these
populations, and thereby reduce
population redundancy within the DPS.
Historical extirpations outside the
existing boundaries of the six PMUs
present a similar pattern of lost
peripheral populations (see Historical
Range/Distribution and Population
Estimates section of the Species Report)
(Service 2015a, pp. 16–17)). Two rangewide assessments investigating patterns
of sage-grouse population persistence
confirm that PMUs on the northern and
southern extents of the bi-State DPS
(i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and
White Mountains PMUs) are similar to
extirpated sites elsewhere within the
range of greater sage-grouse, while the
central PMUs (i.e., South Mono, Bodie,
and Mount Grant PMUs) are similar to
extant sites (Aldridge et al. 2008, entire;
Wisdom et al. 2011, entire).
In summary, we anticipate the
greatest risk of PMU loss for three of the
six PMUs in the bi-State DPS (i.e., Pine
Nut, Mount Grant, and White
Mountains PMUs) as compared to the
PMUs that harbor more sage-grouse
individuals (i.e., Desert Creek-Fales
PMU) and the central core (or largest)
populations (i.e., Bodie and South Mono
PMUs).
Following are brief accounts of each
PMU. Primary threats are introduced in
these summaries and described in more
detail in the Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species section below, and
fully evaluated and described in the
Impact Analysis section of the Species
Report (Service 2015a, pp. 45–129).
(1) The Pine Nut PMU has the fewest
sage-grouse of all bi-State DPS PMUs
(i.e., one population ranging in size from
less than 100 to 608 birds based on data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
collected between 2004 and 2014 (Table
1, above)). Telemetry research in the
Pine Nut Mountains suggests the
potential for additional undocumented
leks in the south-central portion of the
PMU (USGS 2013a, p. 2). Most recently
in 2014, eight males were documented
strutting on Bald Mountain in close
proximity to the inactive lek site in the
southern extent of the Pine Nut
Mountains (USGS 2014a, p. 1). A recent
10-year trend analysis between 2003
and 2012 suggests the population in the
Pine Nut PMU has been stable (Coates
et al. 2014, p. 14). However, in 2013, no
birds were documented at the Mill
Canyon Dry Lake lek and in 2014 one
male was seen strutting, even though
the lek sites were surveyed intensely in
both years (USGS 2013b, p. 25; USGS
2014b, p. 1).
Overall, this population represents
approximately 6 percent of the DPS. The
population in the Pine Nut PMU has
some level of connectivity with the
Desert Creek-Fales PMU and potentially
also with the Bodie and Mount Grant
PMUs. Urbanization, grazing
management, wildfire, invasive species,
infrastructure, and mineral development
are affecting this population, and the
scope and severity of most of these
impacts are likely to increase into the
future based on the proximity of the
PMU to expanding urban areas,
agricultural operations, road networks,
and power lines; altered fire regimes;
new mineral entry proposals; and
increasing recreational off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use on public lands.
Because of the current small population
size and the ongoing and potential
future magnitude of habitat impacts if
left unchecked, the sage-grouse
population in the Pine Nut PMU (i.e.,
the northernmost population within the
range of the bi-State DPS) is at a greater
risk of extirpation than populations in
other PMUs within the bi-State area.
Threats to the Pine Nut PMU and risk
of extirpation are reduced as a result of
effective ongoing and future
conservation efforts associated with the
BSAP that are occurring within this
PMU, such as (but not limited to):
restoring habitat (e.g., reducing pinyonjuniper encroachment, reducing the
spread of cheatgrass, improving broodrearing habitat) reducing wild horse
grazing impacts, reducing infrastructure
impacts (e.g., temporary or permanent
road closures, fencing maintenance or
marking), and potentially conducting
future translocation of sage-grouse from
stable populations. Discussion of the
various conservation efforts that are
partially completed and planned for the
future can be found in our detailed
PECE analysis (available at
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(2) The Desert Creek-Fales PMU
straddles the Nevada-California border
and contains two populations, one in
each State. The two populations
(including the Desert Creek breeding
complex and the Fales breeding
complex) have ranged in size from
approximately 638 to 2,061 birds
between 2004 and 2014 (Table 1, above).
A recent analysis suggests population
growth was slightly positive in the
Desert Creek breeding complex between
2003 and 2012 (Coates et. al. 2014a, p.
14). The Fales breeding complex has
remained small since 1981, and a recent
analysis suggests population growth was
slightly negative between 2003 and 2012
(Coates et. al. 2014a, p. 14).
The populations in the Desert CreekFales PMU have some level of
connectivity with the Pine Nut PMU
and potentially also with the Bodie and
Mount Grant PMUs. The most
significant impacts in this PMU are
wildfire, invasive species (specifically
conifer encroachment), infrastructure,
and urbanization. Private-land
acquisitions in California and conifer
removal in Nevada and California have
mitigated some of the impacts within
this PMU. However, urbanization and
woodland succession remain a concern
based on the lack of permanent
protection for important brood-rearing
(summer) habitat that occurs primarily
on irrigated private pasture lands and
continued Pinus monophylla (pinyon
pine) and various Juniperus (juniper)
species encroachment that is contracting
distribution of the populations and
connectivity between populations.
While some of these impacts are more
easily alleviated than others (e.g.,
conifer encroachment), the existing
condition would likely worsen in the
future (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 24–25)
if conservation efforts were not
conducted. However, impacts to
populations within this PMU are
reduced as a result of effective ongoing
and future conservation efforts that are
associated with the BSAP, such as (but
not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g.,
reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment,
reducing the spread of cheatgrass
(which in turn is reducing the threat of
wildfire), improving brood-rearing
habitat, establishing conservation
easements in critical brood-rearing
habitat areas, improving grazing
management conditions, and reducing
infrastructure impacts (e.g., permanent
road closures). Discussion of the various
conservation efforts that are partially
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
completed or proposed for the future
can be found in our detailed PECE
analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(3) The Mount Grant PMU contains
one population, with population
estimates between 2004 and 2014
ranging from approximately 171 to
3,058 birds (Table 1, above). The
population in the Mount Grant PMU has
some level of connectivity with the
Bodie PMU and potentially also with
the Desert Creek-Fales and Pine Nut
PMUs. Habitat impact sources in this
PMU include woodland encroachment,
renewable energy and mineral
development, infrastructure, and the
potential for wildfire. Woodland
encroachment, mineral development,
and infrastructure currently fragment
habitat in this PMU and, in the future,
these as well as wildfire (if it occurs)
may reduce or eliminate connectivity to
the sage-grouse population in the
adjacent Bodie PMU. Long-term
persistence of the sage-grouse
population in the Mount Grant PMU is
less likely than in the other PMUs that
currently harbor larger populations of
sage-grouse in the bi-State area without
successful implementation of additional
conservation measures.
Population estimates for the Mount
Grant PMU (Service 2015a, Table 1) are
highly uncertain due to survey
methodology and inconsistencies. Thus,
while the PMU appears to harbor a
significant number of birds, we consider
this estimate to be biased significantly
high (albeit to an unknown degree), and
further, it appears the PMU is
experiencing negative growth (NDOW
2014a, unpublished data). Long-term
persistence of the sage-grouse
population in the Mount Grant PMU is
uncertain, particularly if conservation
efforts are not conducted. However,
impacts to populations within this PMU
are reduced as a result of effective
ongoing and future conservation efforts
that are associated with the BSAP, such
as (but not limited to): restoring habitat
(e.g., reducing pinyon-juniper
encroachment, improving brood-rearing
habitat), reducing direct and indirect
potential energy development and
mining impacts, establishing
conservation easements in critical
brood-rearing habitat areas, reducing
grazing impacts through wild horse
management, implementing wildfire
prevention and suppression strategies,
and reducing infrastructure impacts
(e.g., permanent road closures).
Discussion of the various conservation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
efforts that are partially completed or
proposed for the future can be found in
our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(4) The Bodie PMU contains one
population (Bodie Hills), which is one
of the two core (largest) populations for
the bi-State DPS. Population estimates
for this PMU between 2004 and 2014
range from 640 to 2,466 individuals
(Table 1, above). This PMU typically has
the highest number of active leks (i.e.,
13) of all the PMUs. The population in
the Bodie PMU has some level of
connectivity with the Mount Grant PMU
and potentially also with the Desert
Creek-Fales and Pine Nut PMUs.
Woodland succession is estimated to
have caused a 40 percent reduction in
sagebrush habitat throughout the Bodie
PMU, and encroachment into sagebrush
habitat is expected to continue to some
degree both from woodland edge
expansion and infilling. The potential of
future wildfire and subsequent habitat
loss by conversion to annual grasses is
of greatest concern based on the
increased understory presence of
cheatgrass, specifically in Wyoming big
sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata spp.
wyomingensis) communities within the
Bodie PMU (e.g., Bodie Hills). In
addition, the potential for loss (largely
restricted to date) of sage-grouse habitat
to exurban development (small, usually
prosperous community situated beyond
the suburbs of a city) on unprotected
private lands in the Bodie PMU is also
a concern because these lands provide
summer- and winter-use areas and
connectivity for sage-grouse among the
Bodie, Mount Grant, and Desert CreekFales PMUs. Current impacts posed by
infrastructure, grazing, and mineral
extraction are of minimal severity in the
Bodie PMU. However, impacts to
populations within this PMU are
reduced as a result of effective ongoing
and future conservation efforts that are
associated with the BSAP, such as (but
not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g.,
reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment,
improving brood-rearing habitat,
restoration of areas invaded by
cheatgrass), reducing direct and indirect
potential energy development and
mining impacts; establishing
conservation easements in critical
brood-rearing habitat areas, reducing
grazing impacts through wild horse
management, implementing wildfire
prevention and suppression strategies,
and reducing infrastructure impacts
(e.g., permanent road closures).
Discussion of the various conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22833
efforts that are partially completed or
proposed for the future can be found in
our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(5) The South Mono PMU contains
three populations (Long Valley, Granite
Mountain, and Parker Meadows). The
Long Valley population is one of the
two largest (core) populations for the biState DPS. Population estimates for this
PMU between 2004 and 2014 range from
965 to 2,005 individuals (Table 1). The
South Mono PMU typically has had the
highest estimated population size of all
the PMUs. This PMU is considered to be
largely isolated from the other PMUs.
Currently, the most significant
impacts in the South Mono PMU are
infrastructure and recreation, with the
potential for increased wildfire. An
indirect impact of infrastructure to the
sage-grouse population in Long Valley is
predation, likely associated with the
local landfill. Predation (primarily from
ravens) appears to reduce sage-grouse
nest success in Long Valley, but the
population nevertheless appears stable.
The Parker Meadows population
currently has one active lek and is quite
small; from 2002 to 2014, male sagegrouse counts have ranged between 3
and 17 (CDFW 2014a, in litt.). This
population has the lowest reported
genetic diversity in the bi-State area,
and it is experiencing high nest failure
rates due to nonviable eggs (Gardner
2009, pers. comm.), potentially
indicative of genetic challenges. The
Granite Mountain population consists of
two leks (‘‘Adobe’’ and ‘‘Gaspipe’’) and
is also quite small. The Adobe lek
averaged 11 males between 1984 and
1994 before numbers began to decline in
1995, and subsequently the site became
inactive in 2001 (CDFW 2014a, in litt.).
The Gaspipe lek averaged seven males
between 1990 and 2008, and the site
became inactive in 2009 (CDFW 2014a,
in litt.). However, in 2013 and 2014 four
and seven males were counted,
respectively.
Impacts to populations within this
PMU are reduced as a result of effective
ongoing and future conservation efforts
that are associated with the BSAP, such
as (but not limited to): restoring habitat
(e.g., reducing pinyon-juniper
encroachment, improving brood-rearing
habitat), reducing direct and indirect
human disturbance related to recreation
or activities associated with potential
development, reducing predation
impacts (e.g., removing a landfill),
establishing conservation easements in
critical brood-rearing habitat areas, and
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22834
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
reducing infrastructure impacts (e.g.,
seasonal or permanent road closures,
maintenance and/or removal of fencing).
Discussion of the various conservation
efforts that are partially completed or
proposed for the future can be found in
our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(6) The White Mountains PMU
contains one population. No recent
population estimate for this
southernmost PMU is available, and,
overall, information on population
status and impacts is limited. The area
is remote and difficult to access, and
most data are from periodic
observations rather than comprehensive
surveys. The population in the White
Mountains PMU is considered to be
largely isolated from the other PMUs.
Current impacts such as exurban
development (e.g., Chiatovich Creek
area (Bi-State Lek Surveillance Program
2012, p. 38)), grazing, recreation, and
invasive species may be influencing
portions of the population and are likely
to increase in the future, but current
impacts are considered minimal due to
the remote locations of most known
sage-grouse use areas. Potential future
impacts from infrastructure (power
lines, roads) and mineral developments
could lead to the loss of the remote,
contiguous nature of the habitat if
conservation efforts were not
conducted.
As stated above, while some of the
impacts occurring in the six PMUs are
more easily alleviated than others (e.g.,
conifer encroachment), the existing
condition (without intervention) would
likely worsen in the future (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, pp. 24–25) if conservation
efforts were not conducted. As a result,
significant conservation efforts that are
associated with the BSAP are currently
under way (partially completed) or are
planned for the future that are reducing
or eliminating impacts, including (but
not limited to): reducing infrastructure
impacts (e.g., permanent road closures),
reducing human disturbance associated
with urbanization, restoring habitat
(e.g., reducing pinyon-juniper
encroachment, improving brood-rearing
habitat), and reducing grazing impacts
through wild horse management.
Discussion of the various conservation
efforts that are partially completed or
proposed for the future can be found in
our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species
Section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists 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) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, singly or in combination.
Each of these factors is discussed below.
A threats analysis for the bi-State DPS
is included in the Species Report
(Service 2015a, entire) associated with
this document (and available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072). All potential
threats of which we are aware that are
acting upon the bi-State DPS currently
or in the future (and consistent with the
five listing factors identified above)
were evaluated and addressed in the
Species Report, and are summarized in
the following paragraphs.
Many of the impacts to sage-grouse
populations and sagebrush habitats in
the bi-State DPS are present throughout
the DPS’s range, although they (at the
time of the proposed listing and
currently) affect the DPS to varying
degrees. Specifically, the populations
and habitat in the northern extent of the
bi-State area, including the Pine Nut,
Desert Creek-Fales, and Mount Grant
PMUs, are now and will likely continue
to be most at risk from the various
threats acting upon the bi-State DPS and
its habitat. Without future conservation
efforts (i.e., the partially completed and
future actions summarized in the Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section below), we would anticipate loss
of some populations and contraction of
the ranges of others in these three PMUs
(see Species Information section above
and Bi-State DPS Population Trends
section of the Species Report (Service
2015a, pp. 31–33)), which will leave
them more susceptible to extirpation
from stochastic events such as wildfire,
drought, and disease. We would expect
(again, assuming no interventions or
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
increased protections) that two
populations in the Bodie and South
Mono PMUs (i.e., the Bodie Hills and
Long Valley populations, respectively)
will persist into the future (Aldridge et
al. 2008, entire; Wisdom et al. 2011,
entire). Significant ongoing and future
conservation efforts are reducing or
eliminating impacts; discussion of these
conservation efforts can be found in our
detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
If left unchecked, the impacts that are
of high current or future scope and
severity within the DPS (i.e., the most
significant threats overall across the
range of the bi-State DPS) include those
that are resulting in the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range, and
other natural or manmade threats
affecting the DPS’s continued existence.
These more significant threats include
infrastructure (i.e., fences, power lines,
and roads) (Factors A and E);
urbanization and human disturbance
(Factors A, B, C, and E); the spread of
nonnative, invasive and native plants
(e.g., pinyon-juniper encroachment,
cheatgrass) (Factors A and E); wildfires
and altered fire regime (Factors A and
E); and the small size of the DPS (both
the number of individual populations
and their size), which generally makes
such species more susceptible to
extirpation (Factor E). These impacts,
along with those that are currently
considered minor, have the potential to
act together to negatively affect the biState DPS. However, completed,
ongoing and planned conservation
actions have reduced the scope and
severity of these impacts. Following a
thorough analysis of the best available
information, we determined that
hunting, scientific and educational uses,
pesticides and herbicides, and
contaminants have negligible impacts to
the bi-State DPS at this time.
The bi-State DPS is experiencing
multiple impacts to individual
populations and sagebrush habitats that
are ongoing (and expected to continue
into the future) in many areas
throughout the DPS’s range.
Individually, each of these impacts is
unlikely to affect persistence across the
entire bi-State DPS, but each may act
independently to affect persistence of
individual populations. However, we
note that the level of impact these
threats may have on the DPS’s habitat
are lessened overall today as compared
to the time of the proposed listing rule
due to the continued implementation of
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the BSAP. We believe the future impacts
of these threats are significantly reduced
due to the expected implementation and
effectiveness of the partially completed
and future conservation efforts
associated with the BSAP (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below).
Additional, less significant impacts to
the bi-State DPS or its habitat may be
occurring, but not everywhere across the
DPS at this time (such as, but not
limited to, grazing and rangeland
management; mining; renewable energy
development; or West Nile virus (WNv)
infections). We do not consider these
impacts to have serious consequences
for the bi-State DPS or its habitat.
Moreover, these less-significant impacts
to the bi-State DPS are reduced overall
today and into the future as compared
to the time of the proposed listing rule
due the continued implementation of
the BSAP, and the expected
implementation and effectiveness of the
partially completed and future
conservation efforts associated with the
BSAP (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) below).
Following are summary evaluations of
16 potential threats to the bi-State DPS,
including: Invasive nonnative and
native plants (Factor A and E); wildfires
and altered fire regime (Factors A and
E); infrastructure, including roads,
power lines, fences, communication
towers, and landfills (Factors A and E);
grazing and rangeland management
(Factors A, C, and E); small population
size and population structure (Factor E);
urbanization and habitat conversion
(Factor A); mining (Factors A and E);
renewable energy development and
associated infrastructure (Factors A and
E); disease or predation (Factor C);
climate change, including drought
(Factors A and E); recreation (Factors A
and E); overutilization (including
commercial and recreational hunting)
(Factor B); scientific and educational
uses (Factor B); pesticides and
herbicides (Factor E); and contaminants
(Factor E). The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms was also
evaluated (Factor D). Please see the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 45–
142) for a full evaluation, including but
not limited to, an evaluation of the
scope, severity, and timing of each
potential threat (including many
literature citations).
Invasive Nonnative and Native Plants
Nonnative, invasive plants negatively
impact sagebrush ecosystems by altering
plant community structure and
composition, productivity, nutrient
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek 1990,
p. 7) (Factor A), and may cause declines
in native plant populations through
competitive exclusion and niche
displacement, among other mechanisms
(Mooney and Cleland 2001, p. 5446)
(Factor E). They can create long-term
changes in ecosystem processes (Factor
A), such as fire cycles (see Wildfires and
Altered Fire Regime section below, and
in the Species Report (Service 2015a,
pp. 84–91)) and other disturbance
regimes that persist even after an
invasive plant is removed (Zouhar et al.
2008, p. 33). A variety of nonnative
annuals and perennials are invasive to
sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al.
2004, pp. 7–107 to 7–108; Zouhar et al.
2008, p. 144). Cheatgrass is considered
most invasive in Wyoming sagebrush
communities (which is a subspecies of
sagebrush that occurs in the bi-State
area), while medusahead rye
(Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.)
Nevski) fills a similar niche in more
mesic communities with heavier clay
soils (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5–9).
Some native tree species are also
invading sagebrush habitat and affect
the suitability of the habitat for the
various life processes of the bi-State
DPS. Pinyon-juniper woodlands are a
native vegetation community dominated
by pinyon pine and various juniper
species that can encroach upon, infill,
and eventually replace sagebrush
habitat (Factors A and E). Some portions
of the bi-State DPS’s range are also being
adversely affected by Pinus jeffreyi
(Jeffrey pine) encroachment. Woodland
encroachment has caused significant,
measurable habitat loss throughout the
range of the bi-State DPS. However,
techniques to address this habitat
impact are available and being
implemented. Woodlands have
expanded by an estimated 20,234 to
60,703 hectares (ha) (50,000 to 150,000
acres (ac)) over the past decade in the
bi-State area, but woodland treatments
have been implemented on 7,904 ha
(19,533 ac) (Service 2013b, unpublished
data; Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.), and
continued treatments are one of the
keystone conservation measures of the
BSAP and will continue to reduce the
impact of woodland encroachment.
In general, nonnative plants are not
abundant in the bi-State area, with the
exception of cheatgrass, which occurs in
all PMUs throughout the range of the
DPS (although it is currently most
extensive in the Pine Nut PMU).
Alteration of the fire ecology of the biState area is of concern. Land managers
have had little success preventing
cheatgrass invasion in the West, and
elevational barriers to occurrence are
becoming less restrictive (Miller et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22835
2011, p. 161; Brown and Rowe 2004, in
litt., entire). The best available data
suggest that future conditions, mostly
influenced by precipitation and winter
temperatures, will remain hospitable for
cheatgrass (Bradley 2009, p. 201).
Cheatgrass is a challenge to the
sagebrush shrub community and its
spread would be detrimental to sagegrouse in the bi-State area. However,
these impacts can be offset through a
reduction of other threats, such as
reducing the likelihood of wildfires that
can result in shortened fire frequency
intervals (favorable to cheatgrass) by
removing source material, such as
pinyon-juniper woodlands (see
Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime
section below). Through ongoing and
planned implementation of the BSAP
removal of pinyon-juniper woodlands
will remove source materials for fires
and help reduce the threat of cheatgrass
expansion.
In addition, the encroachment of
native woodlands (particularly pinyonjuniper) into sagebrush habitats is
occurring throughout the bi-State area.
We predict that future woodland
encroachment will continue across the
entire bi-State area, but recognize this is
a potentially manageable threat through
treatment and management actions,
such as those included in the BSAP.
Overall, invasive nonnative and
native plants occur throughout the
entire bi-State DPS’s range. We
concluded in the proposed listing rule
that their spread was a significant factor
for proposing to list the DPS as a
threatened species based on the
extensive amount of pinyon-juniper
encroachment and cheatgrass invasion
that is occurring throughout the DPS’s
range, and the interacting impact these
invasions have on habitat quality (e.g.,
reduces foraging habitat, increases
likelihood of wildfire) and habitat
fragmentation. Conservation efforts that
address the impacts from increasing
nonnative, invasive and native plants
have continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to):
conducting conifer (pinyon-juniper)
removal; restoring critical meadow/
riparian habitat areas; and conducting
weed treatments for invasive, nonnative
plants such as cheatgrass. With
continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the
BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire),
impacts from increasing nonnative,
invasive and native plants are
significantly reduced. See the
Nonnative, Invasive and Native
Increasing Plants section of the Species
Report for further discussion (Service
2015a, pp. 78–84).
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22836
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to) the spread
of nonnative, invasive and native plants.
Because we have determined that the
partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we find the spread of nonnative,
invasive and native plants is no longer
a significant impact into the future.
Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime
Wildfire is the principle disturbance
mechanism affecting sagebrush
communities, although the nature of
historical fire patterns, particularly in
Wyoming big sagebrush vegetation
communities, is not well-understood
and historically infrequent (Miller and
Eddleman 2000, p. 16; Zouhar et al.
2008, p. 154; Baker 2011, pp. 189, 196).
The historical sagebrush systems likely
consisted of extensive sagebrush habitat
dotted by small areas of grassland that
were maintained by numerous small
fires with long interludes between fires,
which accounted for little burned area,
and that were punctuated by large fire
events (Baker 2011, p. 197). In general,
fire extensively reduces sagebrush
within burned areas, and the most
widespread species of sagebrush can
take decades to reestablish and much
longer to return to pre-burn conditions
(Braun 1998, p. 147; Cooper et al. 2007,
p. 13; Lesica et al. 2007, p. 264; Baker
2011, pp. 194–195).
When intervals between wildfire
events become unnaturally long in
sagebrush communities, woodlands
have the ability to expand (allowing
seedlings to establish and trees to
mature (Miller et al. 2011, p. 167)) when
they are adjacent to or are present (in
small quantities) within sagebrush
habitat. Conifer woodlands have
expanded into sagebrush ecosystems
throughout the sage-grouse’s range over
the last century (Miller et al. 2011, p.
162). Alternatively, a shortened fire
frequency interval within sagebrush
habitat can result in the invasion of
nonnative, invasive, annual grasses,
such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye;
once these nonnatives are established,
wildfire frequency within sagebrush
ecosystems can increase (Zouhar et al.
2008, p. 41; Miller et al. 2011, p. 167;
Balch et al. 2013, p. 178).
While multiple factors can influence
sagebrush persistence, wildfire can
cause large-scale habitat losses that lead
to fragmentation and isolation of sagegrouse populations (Factors A and E). In
addition to loss of habitat, wildfire can
fragment sage-grouse habitat and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
contribute to isolation of populations,
making them more susceptible to
extirpation from other threats (Knick
and Hanser 2011, p. 395; Wisdom et al.
2011, p. 469). Thus, while direct loss of
habitat due to wildfire is a significant
factor associated with population
persistence for sage-grouse (Beck et al.
2012, p. 452), the indirect effect from
loss of connectivity among populations
may expand the influence of this threat
beyond the physical fire perimeter.
Wildfire is considered a relatively
high risk across all the PMUs in the biState area due to its ability to affect large
landscapes in a short period of time (BiState TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 26, 32, 37, 41,
49). Furthermore, the future risk of
wildfire is exacerbated by the presence
of people, invasive species, and climate
change. While dozens of wildfires have
occurred in the Pine Nut, Desert CreekFales, Bodie, and South Mono PMUs
(fewer in the Mount Grant and White
Mountains PMUs) over the past 20
years, to date there have been relatively
few large-scale events. In general,
although current data do not indicate an
increase of wildfires in the bi-State DPS,
based on likely future habitat
conditions, we predict an increase in
wildfires over time.
Changes in fire ecology over time
have resulted in an altered fire regime
in the bi-State area, presenting future
wildfire risk in all PMUs (Bi-State TAC
2012a, pp. 19, 26, 32, 37, 41, 49). On
one hand, a reduction in fire occurrence
has facilitated the expansion of
woodlands into montane sagebrush
communities in all PMUs (see
Nonnative, Invasive and Native Plants,
above). Meanwhile, a pattern of
increased wildfire occurrence in
sagebrush communities is apparent in
the Pine Nut PMU. Each of these
alterations to wildfire regimes has
contributed to fragmentation of habitat
and the isolation of the sage-grouse
populations (Bi-State Local Planning
Group 2004, pp. 95–96, 133).
Fire is one of the primary factors
linked to population declines of sagegrouse across the West because of longterm loss of sagebrush and frequent
conversion to monocultures of
nonnative, invasive grasses (Connelly
and Braun 1997, p. 7; Johnson et al.
2011, p. 424; Knick and Hanser 2011, p.
395). Within the bi-State area, the BLM
and U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
currently manage the area to limit the
loss of sagebrush habitat (BLM 2012,
entire; USFS 2012, entire). Based on the
best available information, historical
wildfire events have not removed a
significant amount of sagebrush habitat
across the bi-State area, and conversion
of sagebrush habitat to a nonnative,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
invasive vegetation community has been
restricted (except for the Pine Nut
PMU).
Restoration of altered sagebrush
communities following fire can be
difficult, requires many years, and may
be ineffective in the presence of
nonnative, invasive grass species.
Additionally, sage-grouse are slow to
recolonize burned areas even if
structural features of the shrub
community have recovered (Knick et al.
2011, p. 233). However, impacts from
wildfire are addressed through
restoration actions outlined in the
BSAP, including fuels reduction and
rehabilitation efforts, which require
long-term monitoring to assure
conservation objectives are met for
restoring potential habitats post-wildfire
(Arkle et al. 2014).
While it is not currently possible to
predict the extent or location of future
fire events in the bi-State area, and
historical wildfire events have not
removed a significant amount of
sagebrush habitat across the bi-State
area to date, we anticipated in the
proposed listing rule and reconfirm here
that fire frequency may increase in the
future due to the increasing presence of
cheatgrass and people, and the projected
effects of climate change. If offsetting
conservation measures are not
implemented, increasing wildfires in
sagebrush habitats could adversely
affect the DPS.
Overall, the potential threat of
wildfire and the existing altered fire
regime occurs throughout the bi-State
DPS’s range. We concluded in the
proposed listing rule that significant
impacts would be expected to continue
or increase in the future based on a
continued fire frequency pattern that
exacerbates pinyon-juniper
encroachment into sagebrush habitat in
some locations, but also an increased
fire frequency in other locations that
promotes the spread of cheatgrass and
other invasive species that in turn can
hamper recovery of sagebrush habitat.
Conservation efforts that address the
impacts from the threat of wildfire and
the existing altered fire regime have
continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to):
conducting conifer (pinyon-juniper)
removal; and conducting weed
treatments for invasive, nonnative
plants such as cheat grass. With
continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the
BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire),
impacts from wildfire are significantly
reduced. See the Wildfires and Altered
Fire Regime section of the Species
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Report for further discussion (Service
2015a, pp. 84–91).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to) wildfire
ignition risks and catastrophic fire.
Therefore, fuels reduction projects and
rehabilitation efforts post-wildfire have
been and will continue to be
implemented into the future to address
the potential impacts from wildfire.
Because we have determined that the
partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we conclude that wildfires and
altered fire regime are no longer a
significant impact into the future.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure is described in the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 51–
65) to include features that assist or are
required for the pursuit of humaninitiated development or an associated
action. Five infrastructure features are
impacting the bi-State DPS: three linear
features (roads, power lines, and fences)
and two site-specific features (landfills
and communication towers). While
there may be other features that could
be characterized as infrastructure (such
as railroads or pipelines), these are not
present in the bi-State area, and we are
unaware of any information suggesting
they would impact the bi-State DPS in
the future.
In the bi-State area, linear
infrastructure impacts each PMU both
directly and indirectly to varying
degrees. Existing roads, power lines,
and fences degrade and potentially
fragment sage-grouse habitat (such as
Braun 1998, pp. 145, 146) (Factor A),
and contribute to direct mortality
through collisions (such as Patterson
1952, p. 81) (Factor E). In addition,
roads, power lines, and fences deter the
sage-grouse’s use of otherwise suitable
habitats adjacent to current active areas,
and increase predators (by providing
additional perches) and invasive plants
(through increased traffic volume to
facilitate spread of invasive plants)
(such as Forman and Alexander 1998,
pp. 207–231 and Connelly et al. 2000a,
p. 974).
Given current and future development
(based on known energy resources), the
Mount Grant, Desert Creek-Fales, Pine
Nut, and South Mono PMUs are most
likely to be impacted by new power
lines and associated infrastructure.
Wisdom et al. (2011, p. 463) reported
that across the entire range of the greater
sage-grouse, the mean distance to
highways and transmission lines for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
extirpated populations was
approximately 5 kilometers (km) (3.1
miles (mi)) or less. In the bi-State area,
64 percent of annually occupied leks are
within 5 km (3.1 mi) of paved secondary
highways, and 38 percent are within
this distance to existing transmission
lines (Service 2013b, unpublished data).
Therefore, the apparent similarity
between existing bi-State conditions and
extirpated populations elsewhere
suggests that persistence of substantial
numbers of leks within the bi-State DPS
would likely be negatively influenced
by these anthropogenic features if it
were not for the ongoing and planned
implementation of measures included in
the BSAP to reduce impacts of these
features.
The geographic extent, density, type,
and frequency of linear infrastructure
disturbance in the bi-State area have
changed over time. While substantial
new development of some of these
features (e.g., highways) is unlikely,
other infrastructure features may
increase (unimproved roads, power
lines, fencing, and communication
towers), at least until such time as the
BLM and USFS updated Land Use Plans
are fully implemented. With the
increase of OHV usage within the range
of the bi-State DPS, the potential impact
to the sage-grouse and its habitat caused
by continued use of secondary or
unimproved roads may become of
greater importance as traffic volume
increases rates of disturbance and the
spread of nonnative invasive plants in
areas that traditionally have been
traveled relatively sporadically.
Other types of non-road infrastructure
(e.g., cellular towers and landfills) also
appear to be adversely impacting the biState DPS. At least eight cellular tower
locations are currently known to exist in
occupied habitat (all PMUs) in the biState area. Wisdom et al. (2011, p. 463)
determined that cellular towers likely
contribute to population extirpation,
and additional tower installations may
occur in the near future as development
continues. The landfill facility in Long
Valley (within the South Mono PMU)
may be influencing sage-grouse
population demography in the area, as
nest success is comparatively low and
subsidized avian nest predator numbers
are high (Kolada et al. 2009a, p. 1,344).
This large population of sage-grouse
(i.e., one of two core populations in the
bi-State area) currently appears stable.
Recovery following any potential future
perturbations affecting other vital rates
(i.e., brood survival and adult survival)
could be limited by nesting success if
offsetting conservation measures (such
as the planned removal of the landfill in
Long Valley) are not implemented.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22837
Overall, infrastructure occurs in
various forms throughout the bi-State
DPS’s range and has adversely impacted
the DPS. We concluded in the proposed
listing rule that infrastructure impacts
(particularly fencing, power lines, and
roads) were a significant factor for
proposing to list the DPS as a threatened
species. If left unchecked, these impacts
would be expected to continue or
increase in the future and result in
habitat fragmentation; limitations for
sage-grouse recovery actions due to an
extensive road network, power lines,
and fencing; and a variety of direct and
indirect impacts, such as loss of
individuals from collisions or structures
that promote increased potential for
predation. Collectively, these threats
may result in perturbations that
influence both demographic vital rates
of sage-grouse (e.g., reproductive
success and adult sage-grouse survival)
and habitat suitability in the bi-State
area.
Importantly, conservation efforts that
address infrastructure impacts have
continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to): removing
power lines; implementing both
permanent and seasonal road closures;
removing racetrack fencing; and
conducting initial procedures to remove
the landfill in Long Valley. With
continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the
BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire),
infrastructure-related impacts are
significantly reduced. See the
Infrastructure section of the Species
Report for further discussion (Service
2015a, pp. 51–65).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to)
infrastructure. Because we have
determined that the partially completed
and future conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe impacts associated
with infrastructure may no longer be
considered a significant impact into the
future.
Grazing and Rangeland Management
Livestock grazing continues to be the
most widespread land use across the
sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003, p.
616; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–29; Knick
et al. 2011, p. 219), including within the
bi-State area. However, links between
grazing practices and population levels
of sage-grouse are not well-studied
(Braun 1987, p. 137; Connelly and
Braun 1997, p. 231). Improperly
managed domestic livestock
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22838
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
management has the potential to result
in sage-grouse habitat degradation
(Factor A). Grazing can adversely
impact nesting and brood-rearing
habitat by decreasing vegetation used
for concealment from predators (Factors
A and C). If improperly managed,
grazing also compacts soils; decreases
herbaceous vegetation abundance; alters
soil characteristics and increases soil
erosion; and increases the probability of
invasion of nonnative, invasive plant
species (Factor A). Livestock
management and associated
infrastructure (such as water
developments and fencing) can degrade
important nesting and brood-rearing
habitat, reduce nesting success, and
facilitate the spread of WNv (Factors A,
C, and E). However, despite numerous
documented negative impacts, some
research suggests that, under specific
conditions, grazing domestic livestock
can benefit sage-grouse (Klebenow 1981,
p. 121). Other research conducted in
Nevada found that cattle grazing can be
used to stimulate forbs important as
sage-grouse food (Neel 1980, entire;
Klebenow 1981, entire; Evans 1986,
entire).
Similar to domestic livestock, grazing
and management of feral horses have
the potential to negatively affect sagegrouse habitats by decreasing grass
cover, fragmenting shrub canopies,
altering soil characteristics, decreasing
plant diversity, and increasing the
abundance of invasive cheatgrass
(Factor A). Native ungulates (mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) and pronghorn
antelope (Antilocapra americana)) coexist with sage-grouse in the bi-State
area, but we are not aware of significant
impacts from these species on sagegrouse populations or sage-grouse
habitat. However, the impacts from
different ungulate taxa may have an
additive negative influence on sagegrouse habitats (Beever and Aldridge
2011, p. 286) if offsetting conservation
measures are not implemented. Cattle,
horses, mule deer, and pronghorn
antelope each use the sagebrush
ecosystem somewhat differently, and
the combination of multiple ungulate
species may produce a different result
than a single species.
There are localized areas of habitat
degradation in the bi-State area
attributable to past grazing practices that
indirectly and, combined with other
impacts, cumulatively affect sage-grouse
habitat. In general, upland sagebrush
communities in the Pine Nut and Mount
Grant PMUs deviate from desired
conditions for sage-grouse due to lack of
understory plant species, while across
the remainder of the PMUs localized
areas of meadow degradation are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
apparent, and these conditions may
influence sage-grouse populations
through altering nesting and broodrearing success. Currently, there is little
direct evidence linking grazing effects
and sage-grouse population responses.
Analyses for grazing impacts at the
landscape scales important to sagegrouse are confounded by the fact that
almost all sage-grouse habitat has at one
time been grazed, and thus, no ungrazed
control areas exist for comparisons
(Knick et al. 2011, p. 232). Across the
bi-State area, we anticipate rangeland
management will continue into the
future, and some aspects (such as feral
horses) will remain difficult to manage.
Currently, livestock management in the
bi-State area meets desired BLM
Rangeland Health Standards or their
equivalent (i.e., the standards used by
Federal agencies to assess habitat
condition; BLM 2014b, in litt.).
Remaining impacts caused by historical
practices will linger as vegetation
communities and disturbance regimes
recover.
Overall, impacts from past grazing
and rangeland management occur
within localized areas throughout the
bi-State DPS’s range (i.e., all PMUs,
although impacts are more pronounced
in some PMUs than others). We
concluded in the proposed listing rule
that grazing and rangeland management
was a factor (albeit not significant) for
proposing to list the DPS as a threatened
species as a result of ongoing habitat
degradation impacts that may affect
sage-grouse habitat indirectly and
cumulatively in the bi-State area,
resulting in an overall reduction in
aspects of habitat quality (e.g.,
fragmentation, lack of understory plants,
increased presence of nonnative plant
species), especially in the Pine Nut and
Mount Grant PMUs.
Importantly, conservation efforts that
address the impacts from grazing and
rangeland management have continued
to be implemented since publication of
the proposed listing rule, including (but
not limited to): (1) Completing drafts
and beginning to implement the new
BLM and Forest Service Land Use Plan
amendments (USDI and USDA 2015,
entire), which are a considerable
improvement for conservation of the biState DPS and its habitat; repairing
watering facilities, irrigation structures,
and fencing around natural riparian
areas to control grazing activity;
increasing monitoring and management
of horse and burrow herds; and
restoring meadow/riparian habitat in
critical brood-rearing habitat areas. With
continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the
BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire),
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
impacts from grazing and rangeland
management are significantly reduced.
See the Grazing and Rangeland
Management section of the Species
Report for further discussion (Service
2015a, pp. 71–78).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to) livestock
and wild horse grazing. Because we
have determined that the partially
completed and future conservation
efforts will be implemented and
effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we
believe impacts associated with grazing
and rangeland management are no
longer be a concern into the future.
Small Population Size and Population
Structure
Sage-grouse have low reproductive
rates and high annual survival
(Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 11, 14;
Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 969–970),
resulting in slower potential or intrinsic
population growth rates than is typical
of other game birds. Also, as a
consequence of their site fidelity to
seasonal habitats (Lyon and Anderson
2003, p. 489), measurable population
effects may lag behind negative habitat
impacts (Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p.
666). Sage-grouse populations have been
described as exhibiting multi-annual
fluctuations, meaning that some
mechanism or combination of
mechanisms is causing populations to
fluctuate through time
The bi-State DPS comprises
approximately 43 active leks
representing 3 to 6 relatively discrete
populations (see Species Information,
above, and the Current Range/
Distribution and Population Estimates/
Annual Lek Counts section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 17–
31)). Fitness and population size, across
a variety of taxa, are strongly correlated,
and smaller populations are more
challenged by stochastic environmental
and demographic events (Keller and
Waller 2002, pp. 239–240; Reed 2005, p.
566). When coupled with mortality
stressors related to human activity (e.g.,
infrastructure, recreation) and
significant fluctuations in annual
population size, long-term persistence
of small populations is uncertain (Traill
et al. 2010, entire). The Pine Nut PMU
has the smallest number of sage-grouse
of all bi-State area PMUs (usually fewer
than 100 individuals, and ranging from
less than 100 to 608 individuals as
observed from data collected between
2004 and 2014 (Table 1, above),
representing approximately 5 percent of
the DPS). However, each population in
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the bi-State DPS is relatively small and
may be below the theoretical minimum
threshold (as interpreted by sage-grouse
experts and not statistically proven
(Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30;
Garton et al. 2011, pp. 310, 374)) for
long-term persistence, as is the entire
DPS on average (estimated 2,497 to
9,828 individuals). Nonetheless, the
populations comprising the bi-State DPS
have continued to persist despite
relatively small numbers of birds and
annual fluctuations.
Overall, small population size and a
discontinuous population structure
occur throughout the bi-State DPS’s
range, which could make the bi-State
DPS more susceptible to threats
described herein both currently and
likely in the future if offsetting
conservation measures are not
implemented. Some literature (i.e.,
Franklin and Frankham 1998, entire;
Traill et al. 2010, entire) suggest that
greater than 5,000 individuals are
required for any species’ populations to
have an acceptable degree of resilience
in the face of environmental
fluctuations and catastrophic events,
and for the continuation of evolutionary
processes. This conservation biology
rule-of-thumb (that more than 5,000
individuals are required to provide
ample resiliency) may be useful as a
general guideline when assessing a
species’ resiliency, but should not be
applied without consideration of a
particular species’ life history and
specific population-level stressors to
determine its status. In this context,
conservation efforts addressing the
threats acting upon these small
populations have been implemented
since publication of the proposed listing
rule, including (but not limited to)
restoring critical brood-rearing habitat
areas and addressing invasive nonnative
and native plants. Because we expect
conservation implementation to
continue under the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), impacts affecting small
populations are significantly reduced.
Resiliency, Redundancy, and
Representation
In this section, we synthesize the
information above to evaluate
resiliency, redundancy, and
representation as they relate to the biState DPS. Resiliency refers to the
capacity of an ecosystem, population, or
organism to recover quickly from
disturbance by tolerating or adapting to
changes or effects caused by a
disturbance or a combination of
disturbances. Redundancy, in this
context, refers to the ability of a species
to compensate for fluctuations in or loss
of populations across the species’ range
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
such that the loss of a single population
has little or no lasting effect on the
structure and functioning of the species
as a whole. Representation refers to the
conservation of the diversity of a
species, including genetic makeup.
The degree of resiliency of a species
is influenced by both the degree of
genetic diversity across the species, and
the number of individuals. Resiliency
increases with increasing genetic
diversity and/or a higher number of
individuals; it decreases when the
species has less genetic diversity and/or
fewer individuals. In the case of the biState DPS resiliency may be lower to
some degree because the total
population size is relatively small (e.g.,
compared to the population size of
many upland game birds), with some
populations having low numbers or
negative population trends. From a
genetics standpoint, sage-grouse in the
bi-State area contain a large number of
unique genetic haplotypes not found
elsewhere within the range of the
species (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 306;
Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,300;
Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 92;
Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 5), and
genetic diversity of the bi-State DPS
does not appear to be low. The genetic
diversity present in the bi-State area
population is comparable to other
populations of sage-grouse, suggesting
that the differences are not due to a
genetic bottleneck or founder event
(Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91).
These studies provide evidence of
geographic isolation from the remainder
of the species, as the present genetic
uniqueness exhibited by bi-State area
sage-grouse developed over thousands
and perhaps tens of thousands of years,
hence, prior to the Euro-American
settlement (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308;
Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,307).
This information suggests that while
resiliency of the bi-State DPS may be
reduced to some degree as a result of
relatively small total population size,
the genetic diversity in the bi-State area
improves the capacity of the DPS to
recover from disturbance, or adapt to
changes or effects caused by a
disturbance or a combination of
disturbances. Moreover, conservation
actions already completed, underway,
and planned for the future pursuant to
the BSAP have reduced threats to the
DPS now and into the future, and thus
have reduced the likelihood of future
significant disturbances to the bi-State
DPS.
Multiple, interacting populations
across a broad geographic area provide
insurance against the risk of extinction
caused by catastrophic events
(redundancy). Population redundancy
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22839
currently exists across the bi-State DPS,
but could be a concern into the future.
The most recent genetic data analyses
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2014;
Tebbenkamp 2014) support our
determination that there are between
three and six populations (or groups of
birds) in the bi-State area that largely
operate demographically independent of
each other. Long-term projections (30
years) suggest that the two core
populations (Bodie Hills (Bodie PMU)
and Long Valley (South Mono PMU))
have a relative high probability of
maintaining long-term genetic and
demographic viability (Garton et al.
2011, p. 310). However, the viability of
the smaller populations, such as Pine
Nut or Parker Meadows, is less certain
(Lande 1988, pp. 1456–1457; Stephens
et al. 1999, p. 186; Frankham et al. 2002,
pp. 312–317; Coates et al. 2014, p. 15).
If a population is permanently lost, the
DPS’ population redundancy would be
lowered, thereby decreasing the DPS’
chances of survival in the face of
potential environmental, demographic,
and genetic stochastic factors and
catastrophic events (extreme drought,
wildfire, disease, etc.). However,
conservation measures included in the
BSAP which are ongoing and planned
for the future have reduced the level of
threats faced by the population that
make up the bi-State DPS and have thus
decreased the probability that any of the
smaller populations will be extirpated.
The aggregate number of individuals
across multiple populations increases
the probability of demographic
persistence and preservation of overall
genetic diversity by providing an
important genetic reservoir
(representation). Representation across
the bi-State DPS is moderate to high,
with three to six genetically different
groups across the bi-State area (OylerMcCance et al. 2014; Tebbenkamp
2014). In general, genetic diversity in
the bi-State area is comparable to the
levels of genetic diversity found
elsewhere across the greater sage-grouse
range (Oyler–McCance and Quinn 2011,
p. 91). Among populations in the biState area genetic diversity varies with
the lowest diversity apparent in the
White Mountains (White Mountain
PMU) and Parker Meadows (South
Mono PMU) populations. We expect the
risks associated with reduced genetic
diversity to be moderated by the
ongoing and continued restoration of
habitat, which will improve
connectivity and minimize habitat
fragmentation, thereby potentially
increasing gene flow and improving
genetic diversity. There is some risk that
one or more of the smaller, less secure
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22840
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
populations (e.g., Pine Nut, Fales, and
Parker Meadows) could become
extirpated in the future, but the
moderate to high level of representation
across the bi-State DPS, and ongoing
and planned conservation actions in the
BSAP reduces the likelihood of future
extirpations.
Small population size is not a threat
to a species by itself. A species with a
relatively small number of small
populations may be a concern when
there are significant threats to the
species such that one or more
populations could be permanently lost.
The bi-State sage-grouse is comprised of
a relatively few number of populations
of various sizes but with most being
considered small in size. By addressing
the most significant stressors on the biState DPS, ongoing and planned
implementation of the BSAP has
ameliorated threats to this species to the
point where our previous concerns
about the DPS’ resiliency, redundancy
and representation have been
significantly reduced. Therefore, we
conclude loss of representation is not a
significant threat to the bi-State DPS
now or into the future.
Summary of Small Population Size and
Population Structure
Overall, small population size and a
discontinuous population structure
occur throughout the bi-State DPS’s
range. We concluded in the proposed
listing rule that impacts associated with
small population size are a concern both
currently and likely in the future based
on our understanding of the overall DPS
population size and the apparent
isolation among subpopulations
contained within the DPS. Conservation
efforts that address various impacts
acting upon these small populations
have continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to) restoring
critical brood-rearing habitat areas and
addressing invasive nonnative and
native plants. With continued
implementation of conservation actions
associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), impacts affecting small
populations are significantly reduced.
See the Small Population Size and
Population Structure section of the
Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 120–126).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
including (but not limited to) small and
isolated populations. Because we have
determined that the partially completed
and future conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
below), we believe impacts associated
with small population size within the
bi-State area may no longer be
considered a significant impact into the
future.
Urbanization and Habitat Conversion
Historical and recent conversion of
sagebrush habitat on private lands for
agriculture, housing, and associated
infrastructure (Factor A) within the biState area has negatively affected sagegrouse distribution and population
extent in the bi-State DPS. These
alterations to habitat have been most
pronounced in the Pine Nut and Desert
Creek-Fales PMUs and to a lesser extent
the Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono,
and White Mountains PMUs. Although
only 11 percent of suitable sage-grouse
habitat occurs on private lands in the biState area, and only a subset of that
could potentially be developed,
conservation actions on adjacent public
lands could be compromised due to the
significant percentage (up to
approximately 40 percent (Casazza et al.
2009, pp. 19, 27, 35; NDOW 2011, in
litt.)) of late brood-rearing habitat that
occurs on the private lands. Sage-grouse
display strong site-fidelity to traditional
seasonal habitats and loss of specific
sites (such as mesic meadow or spring
habitats that frequently occur on
potentially developable private lands in
the bi-State area) can have pronounced
population impacts (Connelly et al.
2000a, p. 970; Atamian et al. 2010, p.
1533). The influence of land
development and habitat conversion on
the population dynamics of sage-grouse
is greater than a simple measure of
spatial extent because of the indirect
effects from the associated increases in
human activity, as well as the
disproportionate importance of some
seasonal habitat areas, such as mesic
areas for brood-rearing.
Although not considered a significant
threat at the time of the proposed rule
nor currently, urbanization and habitat
conversion is not universal across the
bi-State area, but localized areas of
impacts have been realized throughout
the DPS’s range, and additional future
impacts would be expected if left
unchecked. It is important to note that
conservation efforts that address the
impacts associated with urbanization
and human disturbance have continued
to be implemented since publication of
the proposed listing rule, including (but
not limited to): acquisition and
permanent protection of critical sagegrouse brood-rearing habitat, and
implementing new sage-grouse policies
in applicable Mono County plans and
programs. With continued
implementation of conservation actions
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), impacts from
urbanization and habitat conversion are
significantly reduced. See the
Urbanization and Habitat Conversion
section of the Species Report for further
discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 45–51).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to) urbanization
and human disturbance. Because we
have determined that the partially
completed and future conservation
efforts will be implemented and
effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we
believe that urbanization and human
disturbance is not a significant impact
into the future.
Mining
Surface and subsurface mining for
mineral resources (gold, silver,
aggregate, and others) results in direct
loss of habitat when it occurs in
sagebrush habitats (Factor A). The direct
impact from surface mining is usually
greater than it is from subsurface
mining, and habitat loss from both types
of mining can be exacerbated by the
storage of overburden (soil removed to
reach subsurface resource) in otherwise
undisturbed habitat. Sage-grouse and
nests with eggs could be directly
affected by crushing or vehicle collision
(Factor E). Sage-grouse also could be
impacted indirectly from an increase in
human presence, land use practices,
ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air
quality, degradation of water quality
and quantity, and changes in vegetation
and topography (Moore and Mills 1977,
entire; Brown and Clayton 2004, p. 2)
(Factor E). Although potential effects are
many, information relating actual sagegrouse response to mineral
developments is not extensive, and
information available to us does not
lead us to conclude that mining is a
significant threat in the bi-State
population area.
Currently, operational surface and
subsurface mining activities are not
impacting the two largest (core)
populations within the bi-State DPS.
Areas in multiple PMUs are open to
mineral development, and mining
operations are currently active in the
Mount Grant, Bodie, South Mono, and
Pine Nut PMUs, including some
occupied habitat areas. There is
potential for additional mineral
developments to occur in the bi-State
area in the future based on known
existing mineral resources and recent
permit request inquiries with local land
managers. We are aware of four active
Plans of Operations for mining that
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
overlap bi-State DPS habitat and on the
order of 20,000 active mine claims
(USFS and BLM 2014, pp. 112–113;
USDI and USDA 2015, pp. 117–129).
We note, however, that a mining claim
does not equate to an actual mining
proposal. While all six PMUs have the
potential for mineral development,
based on current land designations and
past activity, the Pine Nut and Mount
Grant PMUs are most likely to see new
and additional activity.
Overall, mining currently occurs in
limited locations within four PMUs,
including small-scale activities such as
gold and silver exploration (Pine Nut,
Bodie, and South Mono PMUs), and two
open pit mines (Mount Grant PMU).
Additionally, new proposals being
considered for mining activity in the
Pine Nut PMU could, if approved,
impact the single active lek remaining
in the north end of the Pine Nut PMU.
In general, potential exists for mining
operations to expand both currently and
into the future, but the scope of impacts
from these proposals and existing
mining is not considered extensive. We
concluded in the proposed listing rule,
and reaffirm here, that by itself, mining
is not considered a significant impact to
the bi-State population. If left
unchecked, impacts to sage-grouse and
its habitat outside of the two largest
(core) populations would be expected to
continue or increase in the future. See
the Mining section of the Species Report
for further discussion (Service 2015a,
pp. 65–68).
Conservation efforts that address the
impacts from mining have continued to
be implemented since publication of the
proposed listing rule, such as reducing
human-related disturbances (e.g., road
noise/traffic). The BSAP includes
conservation actions targeting
development and human distrubances
that will reduce the the minor or
potential impacts from mining (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, entire). Because we have
determined that the partially completed
and future conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe impacts associated
with mining in the bi-State population
area are not a concern into the future.
Renewable Energy Development
Renewable energy facilities (including
geothermal facilities, wind power
facilities, and solar arrays) require
structures such as power lines and roads
for construction and operation, and
avoidance of such features by sagegrouse (Factor E) and other prairie
grouse is documented (Holloran 2005, p.
1; Pruett et al. 2009, p. 6; see
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
discussions regarding roads and power
lines in the Infrastructure section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 52–
60)). Assuming no intervention or
increased protections, renewable energy
development and expansion could
result in direct loss of habitat and
indirect impacts affecting sage-grouse
and their habitat (e.g., habitat
degradation and population isolation)
(Factor A).
Minimal direct habitat loss has
occurred in the bi-State DPS due to
renewable energy development,
specifically from the only operational
geothermal facility in the bi-State area,
which is within the South Mono PMU.
However, the likelihood of additional
renewable energy facility development,
especially geothermal, in the bi-State
area is high based on current Federal
leases. Inquiries by energy developers
(geothermal, wind) have increased in
the past several years (Dublino 2011,
pers. comm.). There is strong political
and public support for energy
diversification in Nevada and
California, and the energy industry
considers the available resources in the
bi-State area to warrant investment
(Renewable Energy Transmission
Access Advisory Committee 2007, p. 8).
Based on our current assessment of
development probability, the Mount
Grant PMU and to a lesser degree the
Desert Creek-Fales PMU are most likely
to be negatively affected by renewable
energy development. However, interest
by developers of renewable energy
changes rapidly, making it difficult to
predict potential outcomes.
Overall, renewable energy
development has minimally impacted
one location in the South Mono PMU to
date, and could potentially result in
impacts in other parts of the bi-State
DPS’s range in the future based on
current leases. The best available data
indicate that several locations in the biState area (Pine Nut and South Mono
PMUs) have suitable wind resources
based on recent leasing and inquiries by
facility developers (although no active
leases currently occur), and it appears
the Mount Grant PMU and to a lesser
degree the Desert Creek–Fales PMU are
likely to be most negatively affected. We
are uncertain of the probability of future
inquires or development of wind energy
in the bi-State area. We concluded in
the proposed listing rule, and reaffirm
here, that by itself, renewable energy
development is not considered a
significant impact at this time.
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
to the bi-State DPS; although renewable
energy development is not specifically
addressed in the BSAP, as minimal
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22841
habitat loss due to renewable energy
projects has occurred historically
(Service 2015a, pp. 68–71). The BSAP
(Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), contains
conservation efforts that would address
potential impacts from renewable
energy if a project were to be proposed,
such as reducing human-related
disturbances (e.g., road noise/traffic).
With continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the
BSAP, the potential impacts from
renewable enegery are minimized. See
the Renewable Enegy section of the
Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 68–71). Further, the
Bi-State TAC and LAWG (which
includes Service participation) are
examining all potential impacts to the
bi-State DPS and its habitat, as
demonstrated through the agencies
implementation of an Adaptive
Management Strategy (Bi-State EOC
2014, in litt.) and the CPT. Because we
have determined that the partially
completed and future conservation
efforts will be implemented and
effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we
believe impacts associated with
renewable energy development may no
longer be a concern into the future.
Disease
Sage-grouse are hosts for a variety of
parasites and diseases (Factor C)
including macroparasitic arthropods,
helminths (worms), and microparasites
(protozoa, bacteria, viruses, and fungi)
(Thorne et al. 1982, p. 338; Connelly et
al. 2004, pp. 10–4 to 10–7; Christiansen
and Tate 2011, p. 114), which can have
varying effects on populations. Connelly
et al. (2004, p. 10–6) note that, while
parasitic relationships may be important
to the long-term ecology of sage-grouse,
they have not been shown to be
significant to the immediate population
status across the range of the DPS.
However, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 10–
3) and Christiansen and Tate (2011, p.
126) suggest that diseases and parasites
may limit isolated sage-grouse
populations as they interact with other
demographic parameters such as
reproductive success and immigration,
and thus, the effects of diseases require
additional study.
Viruses (such as coronavirus and
WNv) are serious diseases that are
known to cause death in grouse species,
potentially influencing population
dynamics (Petersen 2004, p. 46) (Factor
C). Efficacy and transmission of WNv in
sagebrush habitats is primarily regulated
by environmental factors including
temperature, precipitation, and
anthropogenic water sources, such as
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22842
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
stock ponds and coal-bed methane
ponds that support mosquito vectors
(Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309; Walker and
Naugle 2011, pp. 131–132). WNv can be
a threat to some sage-grouse
populations, and its occurrence and
impacts are likely underestimated due
to lack of monitoring. The impact of this
disease in the bi-State DPS is likely
currently limited by ambient
temperatures that do not allow
consistent vector and virus maturation.
As noted in the proposed listing rule,
predicted temperature increases
associated with climate change may
result in this threat becoming more
consistently prevalent. We have no
indication that other diseases or
parasites are impacting the bi-State DPS.
Overall, multiple diseases have the
potential to occur in the bi-State area,
although WNv appears to be the only
identified disease that warrants concern
for sage-grouse in the bi-State area. We
concluded in the proposed listing rule,
and reaffirm here, that by itself, WNv is
not considered a significant impact at
this time because it is currently limited
by ambient temperatures that do not
allow consistent vector and virus
maturation. However, WNv could be a
concern for the future if predicted
temperature increases associated with
climate change result in this threat
becoming more consistently prevalent.
With continued implementation of
conservation actions (WNv surveillance
and mosquito abatement measures)
associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), the minor or potential
impacts from WNv are reduced to the
point that we find disease is not a
significant threat to the bi-State DPS.
Predation
Predation of sage-grouse is the most
commonly identified cause of direct
mortality during all life stages
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et
al. 2000b, p. 228; Casazza et al. 2009, p.
45; Connelly et al. 2011, p. 65) (Factor
C). However, sage-grouse have coevolved with a variety of predators, and
their cryptic plumage and behavioral
adaptations have allowed them to
persist (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10;
Coates 2007, p. 69; Coates and
Delehanty 2008, p. 635; Hagen 2011, p.
96). Within the bi-State DPS, predation
facilitated by habitat fragmentation
(fences, power lines, and roads) and
other human activities may be altering
natural population dynamics in specific
areas of the bi-State DPS. Data suggest
certain populations are exhibiting
deviations in vital rates below those
anticipated (Koloda et al. 2009, p. 1344;
Sedinger et al. 2011. p. 324). For
example, within the Long Valley
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
population of the South Mono PMU,
known nest predators associated with a
county landfill may be the cause of the
reportedly low nesting success. In
addition, low adult survival estimates
for the Desert Creek-Fales PMU suggest
predators may be influencing
population growth there. However, we
generally consider habitat alteration as
the root cause of these results; teasing
apart the interaction between predation
rate and habitat condition is difficult.
Overall, predation is currently known
to occur throughout the bi-State DPS’s
range. It is facilitated by habitat
fragmentation (fences, power lines, and
roads) and other human activities that
may be altering natural population
dynamics in specific areas throughout
the bi-State DPS’s range. We concluded
in the proposed listing rule, and
reaffirm here, that by itself, predation is
not considered a significant impact at
this time. Conservation efforts that
address the impacts from predation
have continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to): removing
structures that attract predators (e.g.,
fencing, power lines), and conducting
initial procedures to remove the landfill
in Long Valley. With continued
implementation of conservation actions
associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), impacts from predation
are significantly reduced. See the
predation discussion under the Disease
or Predation section of the Species
Report for further discussion (Service
2015a, pp. 114–120).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to) the extent
of predation risks to the bi-State DPS.
Because we have determined that the
partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe that the risk of
predation is not a concern into the
future.
Climate
Climate change projections in the
Great Basin suggest a hotter and stableto-declining level of precipitation and a
shift in precipitation events to the
summer months; fire frequency is
expected to accelerate; fires may become
larger and more severe; and fire seasons
will be longer (Brown et al. 2004, pp.
382–383; Neilson et al. 2005, p. 150;
Chambers and Pellant 2008, p. 31;
Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States 2009, p. 83). With these
projections, drought (which is a natural
part of the sagebrush ecosystem) is
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
likely to be exacerbated. Drought
reduces vegetation cover (Milton et al.
1994, p. 75; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–
18), potentially resulting in increased
soil erosion and subsequent reduced
soil depths, decreased water infiltration,
and reduced water storage capacity
(Factor A). Drought can also exacerbate
other natural events such as defoliation
of sagebrush by insects (Factor A).
These habitat component losses can
result in declining sage-grouse
populations due to increased nest
predation and early brood mortality
(Factor E) associated with decreased
nest cover and food availability (Braun
1998, p. 149; Moynahan et al. 2007, p.
1781).
In the bi-State area, drought is a
natural part of the sagebrush ecosystem,
and available information does not
indicate that drought has influenced
long-term population dynamics of sagegrouse under historical conditions.
There are known occasions, however,
where reduced brood-rearing habitat
conditions due to drought have resulted
in little to no recruitment within certain
PMUs (Bodie and Pine Nut PMUs
(Gardner 2009, pers. comm.)). If these
conditions were to persist longer than
the typical adult life-span, drought
could have significant ramifications on
population persistence. Further, drought
impacts on the sage-grouse may be
exacerbated when combined with other
habitat impacts that reduce cover and
food (Braun 1998, p. 148).
Based on the best available scientific
and commercial information, the threat
of climate change is not known to
currently impact the bi-State DPS to
such a degree that the viability of the
DPS is at stake. A recent analysis
conducted by NatureServe, which
incorporates much of the information
presented above, suggests a substantial
contraction of both sagebrush and sagegrouse range in the bi-State area by 2060
(Comer et al. 2012, pp. 142, 145).
Specifically (for example), this analysis
suggests the current extent of suitable
shrub habitat will decrease because of a
less suitable climate condition for
sagebrush and may improve suitability
for woodland and drier vegetation
communities, which are not favorable to
the bi-State DPS. The NatureServe
predictions notwithstanding, while it is
reasonable to assume the bi-State area
will experience vegetation changes into
the future, we do not know with a
reasonable degree of certainty the nature
of these changes or ultimately the effect
this will have on the bi-State DPS.
It is possible that changes in
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,
temperature, precipitation, and timing
of snowmelt could act synergistically
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
with other threats (such as wildfire and
nonnative, invasive plant species) to
produce yet unknown but likely
negative effects to sage-grouse
populations in the bi-State area. The
overall impact of climate change to the
bi-State DPS in the future could be
moderate if existing threats (such as
wildfire, and nonnative, invasive plant
species) continue unabated, and climate
changes exacerbate those threats.
By itself, climate change is not
considered a significant impact at this
time. We concluded in the proposed
listing rule that climate change will
potentially act in combination with
other impacts to the bi-State DPS,
further diminishing habitat (Factor A)
and increasing isolation of populations
(Factor E), making them more
susceptible to demographic and genetic
challenges or disease. Since the
publication of the proposed rule,
ongoing implementation of various
conservation measures in the BSAP has
reduced the significance of the threat of
wildfire and invasive plants (e.g.,
through removal of pinyon-juniper
woodland). Continued implementation
of the BSAP further reduces the impacts
of these threats to the bi-State sagegrouse. Therefore, even should climate
change increase the threat of wildfire
and invasive plants to some degree, we
no longer conclude that climate change
acting in concert with these other
threats constitutes a significant threat to
the bi-State DPS. See the Climate
section of the Species Report for further
discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 91–99).
Recreation
Non-consumptive recreational
activities (such as fishing, hiking,
horseback riding, and camping as well
as more recently popularized activities,
such as OHV use and mountain biking)
occur throughout the range of the
greater sage-grouse, including
throughout the bi-State DPS area. These
activities can degrade wildlife
resources, water, and land by
distributing refuse, disturbing and
displacing wildlife, increasing animal
mortality, and simplifying plant
communities (Boyle and Samson 1985,
pp. 110–112) (Factor E). For example,
disruption of sage-grouse during
vulnerable periods at leks, or during
nesting or early brood-rearing, could
affect reproduction and survival
(Baydack and Hein 1987, pp. 537–538).
In addition, indirect effects to sagegrouse from recreational activities
include impacts to vegetation and soils,
and the facilitation of the spread of
invasive species (Factor A). Impacts
caused by recreational activities may be
affecting sage-grouse populations in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
bi-State area, and there are known
localized habitat impacts.
Overall, recreation occurs throughout
the bi-State DPS’s range, although we do
not have data that would indicate
impacts to sage-grouse or their habitat
are significant. We concluded in the
proposed listing rule and reaffirm here
that by itself, recreation is not
considered a significant impact at this
time. However, if left unchecked, some
forms of recreation could become a
concern based on anticipated increases
of recreational use within the bi-State
area in the future. Populations of sagegrouse in the South Mono PMU are
exposed to the greatest degree of
pedestrian recreational activity,
although they appear relatively stable at
present. Conservation efforts that
address recreational impacts have
continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to): reducing
human-related disturbances in high-use
recreation areas (e.g., installing sagegrouse educational signs), conducting
seasonal closures of lek viewing areas,
and implementing both permanent and
seasonal road closures. With continued
implementation of conservation actions
associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), impacts from recreation
are significantly reduced. See the
Recreation section of the Species Report
for further discussion (Service 2015a,
pp. 102–106).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire) was designed to counter effects
such as (but not limited to) human
disturbance to the bi-State DPS,
including recreation-related impacts.
Because we have determined that the
partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe impacts associated
with recreation are no longer a concern
into the future.
Overutilization Impacts
Potential overutilization impacts
include recreational hunting (Factor B).
Sage-grouse have not been commercially
harvested in the bi-State area since the
1930s, and they are not expected to be
commercially harvested in the future.
Limited recreational hunting, based on
the concept of compensatory mortality,
was allowed across most of the DPS’s
range with the increase of sage-grouse
populations by the 1950s (Patterson
1952, p. 242; Autenrieth 1981, p. 11). In
recent years, hunting as a form of
compensatory mortality for upland
game birds (which includes sage-grouse)
has been questioned (Connelly et al.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22843
2005, pp. 660, 663; Reese and Connelly
2011, p. 111).
Recreational hunting is currently
limited in the bi-State DPS and within
generally accepted harvest guidelines.
In the Nevada portion of the bi-State
area, NDOW regulates hunting of sagegrouse. Most hunting of sage-grouse in
the Nevada portion of the bi-State area
is closed. NDOW closed the shotgun
and archery seasons for sage-grouse in
1997, and the falconry season in 2003
(NDOW 2012, in litt., p. 4). Hunting of
sage-grouse may occur on tribal
allotments located in the Pine Nut PMU
where the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California has authority. There are
anecdotal reports of harvest by tribal
members, but currently the Washoe
Tribe Hunting and Fishing Commission
does not issue harvest permits for
greater sage-grouse (Warpeha 2009, pers.
comm.). In the California portion of the
bi-State area, CDFW regulates hunting of
sage-grouse. Hunting historically
occurred and continues to occur in the
Long Valley (South Mono PMU) and
Bodie Hills (Bodie PMU) areas (known
as the South Mono and North Mono
Hunt Units, respectively). As a result of
work by Gibson (1998, entire) and
documented population declines in the
bi-State DPS, CDFW has significantly
reduced the number of permits issued
(Gardner 2008, pers. comm.).
As stated in the proposed listing rule
and reaffirmed here, it is unlikely that
the scope and severity of hunting
impacts would act in an additive
manner to natural mortality of the biState DPS across its range due to the
conservative approach that the State
agencies employ in the single location
(Long Valley) where hunting is
permitted (specifically, harvest levels
are below 5 to 10 percent of the fall
population). In the bi-State area,
hunting is limited to such a degree that
it is not apparently restrictive to overall
population growth currently nor
expected to become so in the future
(CDFW 2012, in litt.). Furthermore, we
are unaware of any information to
indicate that poaching significantly
impacts bi-State sage-grouse
populations.
Overall, sport hunting is currently
limited and within generally accepted
harvest guidelines. We concluded in the
proposed listing rule and reaffirm here
that it is unlikely that hunting will ever
again reach levels that would act in an
additive manner to mortality. In the biState area, hunting is limited to such a
degree that it is not apparently
restrictive to overall population growth.
Furthermore, we are unaware of any
information indicating that
overutilization is significantly
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22844
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
impacting sage-grouse populations in
the bi-State area. Given the current level
and location of harvest, and expected
continued management into the future,
we find the impact this factor has on
population persistence is negligible. See
the Overutilization Impacts section of
the Species Report for further
discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 99–105).
Scientific and Educational Uses
Mortality and behavioral impacts to
sage-grouse may occur as a result of
scientific research activities (Factor B).
Sage-grouse in the bi-State area have
been subject to several scientific
research efforts over the past decade
involving capture, handling, and
subsequent banding or radio-marking.
Much remains unknown about the
impacts of research on sage-grouse
population dynamics. However, the
available information indicates that very
few individuals are disturbed or die as
a result of handling and marking.
Therefore, we concluded in the
proposed listing rule and reaffirm here
that the potential impacts associated
with scientific and educational uses are
considered negligible to the bi-State
DPS at this time and are expected to
remain so into the future. See the
Scientific and Educational Uses section
of the Species Report for further
discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 105–
108).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Pesticides and Herbicides
Although few studies have examined
the effects of pesticides to sage-grouse,
direct mortality of sage-grouse as a
result of pesticide applications (such as
insecticides and pesticides applied via
cropland spraying) has been
documented (Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142;
Blus and Connelly 1998, p. 23) (Factor
E). In addition, herbicide applications
can kill sagebrush and forbs important
as food sources for sage-grouse (Carr
1968, as cited in Call and Maser 1985,
p. 14) (Factor E). Although pesticides
and herbicides can result in direct and
indirect mortality of individual sagegrouse, we are unaware of information
that would indicate that the current
usage or residue from past applications
in the bi-State area are having negative
impacts on populations, nor do we have
information that indicates levels of use
will increase in the future. Therefore,
we concluded in the proposed listing
rule and reaffirm here that the potential
impacts associated with pesticide and
herbicide use are considered negligible
to the bi-State DPS at this time, and are
expected to remain so into the future.
See the Pesticides and Herbicides
section of the Species Report for further
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 126–
128).
Contaminants
Sage-grouse exposure to various types
of environmental contaminants
(concentrated salts, petroleum products,
or other industrial chemicals) may occur
as a result of agricultural and rangeland
management practices, mining, energy
development and pipeline operations,
and transportation of hazardous
materials along highways and railroads.
In the bi-State area, exposure to
contaminants associated with mining is
the most likely to occur (see Mining,
above). Exposure to contaminated water
in wastewater pits or evaporation ponds
could cause mortalities or an increased
incidence of sage-grouse disease
(morbidity) (Factor E). Within the biState DPS, sage-grouse exposure to
potential contaminants is currently
limited and most likely associated with
a few existing mining operations in the
Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs.
Future impacts from contaminants (if
present) would most likely occur in
these same PMUs due to their potential
for future mineral development;
however, at this time we are unaware of
information to indicate that
contaminants are a problem currently or
in the future. Therefore, we concluded
in the proposed listing rule and reaffirm
here that the potential impacts
associated with contaminants are
considered negligible to the bi-State
DPS at this time, and are expected to
remain so into the future. See the
Contaminants section of the Species
Report for further discussion (Service
2015a, pp. 128–129).
Synergistic Impacts
Many of the impacts described here
and in the accompanying Species
Report may cumulatively or
synergistically affect the bi-State DPS
beyond the scope of each individual
stressor. For example, the future loss of
additional significant sagebrush habitat
due to wildfire in the bi-State DPS is
could occur because of the synergistic
interactions among fire, people and
infrastructure, invasive species, and
climate change. Predation may also
increase as a result of the increase in
human disturbance and development.
Conservation efforts that address the
most significant threats to the bi-State
DPS have continued to be implemented
since publication of the proposed listing
rule, including (but not limited to):
removal of pinyon-juniper woodlands;
reducing human-related disturbances in
high-use recreation areas (e.g., installing
sage-grouse educational signs); weed
treatments for nonnative, invasive
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
species; removing power lines; fencing
around riparian areas to minimize
grazing impacts; and implementing both
permanent and seasonal road closures.
With continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the
BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire),
impacts from threats to bi-State sagegrouse and their habitats are
significantly reduced. Therefore,
possible cumulative and/or synergistic
effects of the various threats are also
significantly reduced.
In summary, we have determined that
the threats potentially causing the most
significant impacts on the bi-State DPS
currently and in the future are
urbanization and habitat conversion
(Factor A); infrastructure (Factors A and
E); grazing (Factors A, C, and E); the
increase of nonnative, invasive and
native plants (e.g., cheatgrass, pinyonjuniper encroachment) (Factors A and
E); wildfires and altered fire regime
(Factors A and E); and small population
size and population structure (Factor E).
Other threats impacting the DPS across
its range currently and in the future, but
to a lesser degree than those listed
above, include renewable energy
development and associated
infrastructure (Factors A and E); climate
change, including drought (Factors A
and E); recreation (Factors A and E); and
disease and predation (Factor B).
Numerous threats may be acting
synergistically and cumulatively to
further contribute to the challenges
faced by several bi-State DPS
populations now and into the future.
Since the publication of the proposed
listing rule, implementation of many
conservation measures included in the
BSAP that target the most significant
threats to the bi-State DPS have reduced
significantly the severity of threats—
individually, cumulatively, and
synergistically.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Bi-State sage-grouse conservation has
been addressed in some local, State, and
Federal plans, laws, regulations, and
policies. An examination of regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) for both the biState DPS and sagebrush habitats in
general reveals that some mechanisms
exist that either provide or have the
potential to provide a conservation
benefit to the bi-State DPS, such as (but
not limited to): Various county or city
regulations outlined in general plans;
Nevada State Executive Order, dated
September 26, 2008; Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), which requires
development of resource management
plans for BLM lands; the National Forest
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
seq.), which requires Land and Resource
Management Plans (LRMPs) for USFS
lands; and the Sikes Act Improvement
Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a et seq.),
which requires integrated natural
resources management plans for
military installations (see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 129–
142)). However, supporting documents
for some of these regulations are many
years old and have not been updated,
calling into question their consistency
with our current understanding of the
DPS’s life-history requirements, and the
DPS’s conservation needs. In addition,
the conservation actions that have been
implemented to date according to the
existing regulatory mechanisms vary
across the bi-State area, although
managing agencies are beginning to
work more collaboratively across
jurisdictional boundaries. The degree to
which these existing regulatory
mechanisms conserve the DPS is largely
dependent on current and future
implementation, which can vary
depending on factors such as the
availability of staff and funding.
Regulations in some counties identify
the need for natural resource
conservation and attempt to minimize
impacts of development through zoning
restrictions, but to our knowledge these
regulations neither preclude
development nor do they provide for
monitoring of the loss of sage-grouse
habitats. Similarly, State laws and
regulations are general in nature and
provide flexibility in implementation,
and do not provide specific direction to
State wildlife agencies, although they
can occasionally afford regulatory
authority over habitat preservation (e.g.,
creation of habitat easements and land
acquisitions).
The bi-State area is largely composed
of federally managed lands. Historically,
land use plans, as they pertain to sagegrouse, have been general in nature and
afforded relatively broad latitude to land
managers. The BLM (Carson City and
Tonopah Field Offices) and USFS
(Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest)
issued a Final Environmental Impact
Statement in February, 2015 to support
their respective proposed RMP and
LRMP amendments. These proposed
amendments include improved
management direction that provide a
conservation benefit for the bi-State DPS
and its habitat (USDI and USDA 2015,
entire). The proposed amendments
identify goals for desired habitat
condition at both the site and landscape
scale. These goals and the specific
direction needed to achieve them (e.g.,
grazing allotment management plans)
direct management focus and funding to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
address specific habitat threats affecting
the bi-State DPS (i.e., an increase in
nonnative, invasive and native plants;
wildfire and altered wildfire regime;
and rangeland management) by
improving habitat condition through
increasing the resilience and resistance
of the native sagebrush ecosystem. The
proposed amendments also provide
clear direction to managers faced with
decisions on discretionary actions, such
as infrastructure development projects,
to consider the needs of sage-grouse in
the decision making process. The
proposed amendments restrict the
development of anthropogenic features
in bi-State DPS habitat and thereby the
potential risk these features can exert on
sage-grouse in the future. We would like
to further note that land use plan
revisions are called for in the BSAP to
improve regulatory effectiveness and
consistency for discretionary agency
actions affecting the bi-State DPS. The
proposed amendments will make the
plan language consistent with the BSAP
goals, further reinforcing the
commitments by the agencies to
implement the plans, however we do
not rely on the draft plans when
analyzing the BSAP. See the discussion
about the proposed Land Use Plan
amendments in the detailed PECE
analysis available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No.
FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072).
In our proposed rule, we stated that
the existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) were not considered adequate
to remove the threats such that listing
under the Act would not be necessary.
However, since that proposal, we have
fully evaluated the BSAP and
determined that it ameolirates threats to
the species, lessening the need for
regulatory mechanisms to manage
stressors. The currently proposed BLM
and Forest Service Land Use Plan
amendments will provide more
specificity and certainty with regard to
the conservation of the bi-State DPS and
its habitat. We mention the draft plans
in this document to recognize that the
BLM and the USFS have taken steps to
draft such plans, which will make their
language consistent with the actions
being undertaken in the BSAP.
However, we are not relying on them as
part of this review because they are not
finalized and would require speculation
on the Service’s part as to the final
outcomes of the plans. Since we have
determined that the ongoing and future
conservation efforts under the BSAP are
removing the threats to the bi-State DPS
as discussed above, we find that the
currently existing regulatory
mechanisms are adequate.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22845
Ongoing and Future Conservation
Efforts
Below we summarize the current plan
that provides conservation benefit to the
bi-State DPS, i.e., the BSAP (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, entire). We describe the
significant conservation efforts that are
already occurring and those that are
expected to occur in the future. For
future conservation efforts (i.e., projects
that have been initiated but are not yet
complete or have not yet been shown to
be effective or projects that are proposed
for the future), we present an analysis
pursuant to our Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100;
March 28, 2003).
Prior to the bi-State DPS becoming a
candidate species in 2010, a variety of
conservation initiatives were put in
place to conserve the DPS and its
habitat. The most significant initiative
was the creation of the Nevada
Governor’s Sage Grouse Conservation
Team in June 2002 who, in cooperation
with local stakeholders (i.e., the Bi-State
Local Area Working Group (LAWG)),
developed the first edition of the Greater
Sage Grouse Conservation Plan for the
bi-State area in 2004 (Bi-State Local
Planning Group 2004, entire) to begin a
cooperative effort to address threats to
the bi-State DPS and its habitat. The
2004 Action Plan served as the
foundation for the conservation of the
bi-State DPS and its habitat. These
efforts were later enhanced by both
local- and national-level conservation
strategies for sage-grouse conservation
(including in the Bi-State area)
associated with organizations including
the Sage Grouse Initiative, and the BiState LAWG, the latter of which is
specifically focused on bi-State DPS
conservation.
In December 2011, the Bi-State
Executive Oversight Committee (EOC)
was formed (as recommended at that
time by Ken Mayer (NDOW) and Raul
Moralez (BLM)) to leverage collective
resources and assemble the best
technical support to achieve long-term
conservation of the bi-State DPS and its
habitat. The EOC comprises resource
agency representatives from the Service,
BLM, USFS, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), USGS,
NDOW, and CDFW. Recognizing that
conservation efforts were already
underway by this point in time, the EOC
directed a bi-State TAC, comprising
technical experts/members from each
agency, to summarize the conservation
actions completed since 2004, and to
develop a comprehensive set of
strategies, objectives, and actions that
would be effective for the long-term
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22846
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
conservation of the bi-State DPS and its
habitat. These strategies, objectives, and
actions comprise the 2012 BSAP (BiState TAC 2012a, entire), which is
actively being implemented by the
signatory agencies identified above, as
well as Mono County, who is committed
to implementing all relevant actions
within the county (which harbors the
two core populations of the bi-State
DPS). Numerous conservation efforts
outlined in the BSAP have already been
implemented (see the proposed listing
rule (78 FR 64358) and sections 2.2 and
2.3 of the Action Plan (Bi-State TAC
2012a, pp. 4–13)). Additional
conservation actions have been
implemented since the plan was signed
between 2012 and the present. For a
comprehensive discussion of past and
ongoing management efforts
implemented according to the BSAP,
see the Past and Ongoing Management
Efforts discussion in the Species Report
(Service 2015a, pp. 36–43), and
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072).
Despite the positive accomplishments
of various entities implementing the
2012 BSAP, the proposed rule (78 FR
64358; October 28, 2013) described
several threats that were identified as
interacting synergistically on the biState DPS and its habitat and resulting
in increasingly fragmented habitat for
this long-lived habitat specialist,
specifically: urbanization and habitat
conversion (Factor A); infrastructure
(Factors A and E); mining (Factors A
and E); renewable energy development
and associated infrastructure (Factors A
and E); grazing (Factors A, C, and E); the
increase of nonnative, invasive and
native plants (e.g., cheatgrass, pinyonjuniper encroachment) (Factors A and
E); wildfires and altered fire regime
(Factors A and E); and small population
size and population structure (Factor E).
Other threats described in the proposed
listing rule that impact the DPS across
its range to a lesser degree than those
listed above included: climate change,
including drought (Factors A and E);
recreation (Factors A and E); and
disease and predation (Factor B) (78 FR
64358). Synergistic, cumulative impacts
identified in the proposed rule
primarily involved: (1) Woodland
encroachment; (2) existing and potential
near-term impacts of cheatgrass and
wildfire that will likely escalate further
with climate change; and (3) impacts
from infrastructure, urbanization, and
recreation on already fragmented habitat
and small populations (78 FR 64358).
Based on information provided in the
proposed rule and discussions with the
EOC, TAC, and LAWG, signatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
agencies provided a package of
information examining their
commitments, including staffing and
funding, to implement the actions
needed for conservation of the bi-State
DPS and its habitat, as outlined in the
BSAP. They also provided an updated
prioritization of various conservation
actions and site-specific locations in
which to implement such actions, as
needed, based on utilization of the CPT
(i.e., linked, data-driven predictive
models and interactive maps that
identify and rank areas for management
actions and provide a basis to evaluate
those actions) and the BSAP’s Adaptive
Management Strategy (Bi-State EOC
2014, in litt.). The agency commitment
letters (which were one component of
the information provided by the EOC,
i.e. BLM 2014c, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in
litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.; NDOW
2014b, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.; and
USGS 2014c, in litt.) outlined many
partially completed or new conservation
actions that will be implemented and
completed to address the threats that
were identified in our October 28, 2013,
proposed rule (78 FR 64538).
The EOC evaluated the [then current]
bi-State DPS survey and trend
information and concluded that their
unified and collaborative approach
addresses the conservation needs of the
bi-State DPS (Bi-State EOC 2014, in
litt.). Additionally, the EOC concluded
that each partner agency is committed to
implementing the BSAP and providing
the necessary resources to do so
regardless of the outcome of the
Service’s listing decision (Bi-State EOC
2014, in litt.).
The information provided by the EOC
indicates significant conservation efforts
are currently being implemented and
further actions are proposed for
implementation in the future. These
combined actions address the threats
that (synergistically) are resulting in the
most severe impacts on the DPS and its
habitat now and into the future. These
conservation actions are described in
our detailed PECE analysis that is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and summarized
below.
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE)
The purpose of PECE (68 FR 15100;
March 28, 2003) is to ensure consistent
and adequate evaluation of recently
formalized conservation efforts when
making listing decisions. The policy
provides guidance on how to evaluate
conservation efforts that have not yet
been implemented or have not yet
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
demonstrated effectiveness. The
evaluation focuses on the certainty that
the conservation efforts will be
implemented and the effectiveness of
the conservation efforts to contribute to
make listing a species unnecessary. The
policy presents nine criteria for
evaluating the certainty of
implementation and six criteria for
evaluating the certainty of effectiveness
for conservation efforts. These criteria
are not considered comprehensive
evaluation criteria. The certainty of
implementation and the effectiveness of
a formalized conservation effort may
also depend on species-specific, habitatspecific, location-specific, and effortspecific factors. We consider all
appropriate factors in evaluating
formalized conservation efforts. The
specific circumstances will also
determine the amount of information
necessary to satisfy these criteria.
To consider that a formalized
conservation effort contributes to
forming a basis for not listing a species,
or listing a species as threatened rather
than endangered, we must find that the
conservation effort is sufficiently certain
to be (1) implemented, and (2) effective,
so as to have contributed to the
elimination or adequate reduction of
one or more threats to the species
identified through section 4(a)(1)
analysis under the Act. The elimination
or adequate reduction of section 4(a)(1)
threats may lead to a determination that
the species does not meet the definition
of threatened or endangered, or is
threatened rather than endangered.
An agreement or plan may contain
numerous conservation efforts, not all of
which are sufficiently certain to be
implemented and effective. Those
conservation efforts that are not
sufficiently certain to be implemented
and effective cannot contribute to a
determination that listing is
unnecessary, or a determination to list
as threatened rather than endangered.
Regardless of the adoption of a
conservation agreement or plan,
however, if the best available scientific
and commercial data indicate that the
species meets the definition of
‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened
species’’ on the day of the listing
decision, then we must proceed with
appropriate rulemaking activity under
section 4 of the Act. Further, it is
important to note that a conservation
plan is not required to have absolute
certainty of implementation and
effectiveness in order to contribute to a
listing determination. Rather, we need
to be reasonably certain that the
conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective such that the
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
threats to the species are reduced or
eliminated.
Using the criteria in PECE (68 FR
15100, March 28, 2003), we evaluated
the certainty of implementation (for
those measures not already
implemented) and effectiveness of
conservation measures in the BSAP.
Below is a summary of our full PECE
analysis, which can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072).
We have determined that the
conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
the PECE criteria with regard to
certainty of implementation because of
(but not limited to): (1) The agency
commitments of staffing and significant
funding (i.e., over $45 million over the
next 10 years); and (2) continued
participation on the Bi-State EOC, TAC,
and LAWG to ensure the most important
conservation efforts are occurring at any
given time considering ongoing research
and monitoring that may influence
changes in management strategies, as
outlined in the BSAP’s Science-based
Adaptive Management Plan and through
use of the CPT. Additionally, we have
certainty of implementation by the
various agencies for conservation efforts
that address many different impacts. In
particular, we have certainty of
implementation for those conservation
efforts expected to provide the most
significant conservation value to the biState DPS and its habitat, including
actions (as outlined in the agencies 2014
commitment letters and work plans, and
the comprehensive project database (BiState TAC 2014a, in litt.) that:
(1) Protect and restore critical broodrearing habitat (reduces impacts from
development/habitat conversion,
grazing and rangeland management, and
effects resulting from climate change).
Lead agencies under the BSAP
implementing conservation actions to
reduce these impacts are NRCS (e.g.,
conservation easements, riparian/
meadow restoration), USFS (e.g.,
private-public land exchanges, riparian/
meadow restoration or improvement,
grazing management, wild horse
management), BLM (e.g., riparian/
meadow restoration, meadow irrigation
and structure repair, racetrack fence
removal, wild horse management), and
Mono County (e.g., fencing
modification).
(2) Restore habitat impacted by the
spread of invasive, nonnative plants and
pinyon-juniper encroachment (reduces
impacts from nonnative, invasive and
certain native plants, wildfire,
predation, and effects resulting from
climate change). Lead agencies under
the BSAP implementing conservation
actions to reduce these impacts are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
NRCS (e.g., pinyon-juniper removal),
USFS (e.g., pinyon-juniper removal,
riparian/meadow restoration, invasive
weed treatments), BLM (e.g., pinyonjuniper removal, riparian/meadow
restoration, invasive weed treatments,
wildfire fuel break treatments, fencing
removal), and Mono County (e.g.,
closure and relocation of the Long
Valley landfill, predator deterrents and
reduction of attractants).
(3) Ensure stable or increasing sagegrouse populations and structure, etc.,
to (a) Prioritize management actions
related to synergistic impacts on already
fragmented habitat, such that
management efforts occur in locations
that benefit the DPS the most (reducing
impacts such as infrastructure,
urbanization, and recreation), and (b)
develop and implement sage-grouse
translocation from stable
subpopulations to other small
subpopulations that may be
experiencing a high risk of extirpation
(reduces impacts from small population
size and population structure). Lead
agencies under the BSAP implementing
conservation actions to reduce these
impacts are USGS, NDOW, and CDFW
(e.g., conducting telemetry, research, or
monitoring surveys that inform the CPT
of adjustments to the BSAP
conservation strategy that provide the
greatest benefit to the DPS or its habitat
(see section 6.5 in the BSAP (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, pp. 75–76); implementing
translocation programs from stable
subpopulations to subpopulations that
may be at high risk of extinction), BLM
(e.g., permanent and seasonal road
closures, nesting habitat seasonal
closures, fencing removal or marking),
USFS (e.g., permanent and seasonal
road closures, power line removal), and
Mono County (coordinate with private
landowners to encourage reduced
infrastructure).
We also note that BLM, USFS, NRCS,
and Mono County have provided
specific plans and timetables laying out
various conservation efforts for
implementation over the next 10 years
(BLM 2014c, in litt.; Mono County 2014,
in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.), while
CDFW, NDOW, and USGS have
provided textual descriptions of their
intended actions and contributions over
the next 10 years (CDFW 2014b, in litt.;
NDOW 2014b, in litt.; USGS 2014c, in
litt.). Additionally, the collaboration
between the Service, BLM, USFS,
NRCS, Mono County, USGS, NDOW,
and CDFW requires regular meetings
and involvement from the parties,
whether at the level of the Bi-State EOC,
TAC, or LAWG, in order to implement
the BSAP fully.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22847
We are confident that the
conservation efforts (as outlined in the
BSAP, Agency commitment letters, and
our detailed PECE analysis (all of which
are available at https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072)), as well as the TAC
comprehensive project database) will
continue to be implemented because (to
date) we have a documented track
record of active participation and
implementation by the signatory
agencies, and commitments to continue
implementation into the future.
Conservation measures, such as (but not
limited to) pinyon-juniper removal,
establishment of conservation
easements for critical brood-rearing
habitat, cheatgrass removal, permanent
and seasonal closure of roads near leks,
removal and marking of fencing, and
restoration of riparian/meadow habitat
have been occurring over the past
decade, are currently occurring, and
have been prioritized and placed on the
agency’s implementation schedules for
future implementation. Agencies have
committed to remain participants and
continue conservation of the DPS and
its habitat. The BSAP has sufficient
methods (i.e., science advisors, the CPT,
and a Science-based Adaptive
Management Strategy) for determining
the type and location of the most
beneficial conservation actions to be
implemented, including continued
receipt of new population and threats
information in the future that will guide
conservation efforts.
We have determined that the
conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
the PECE criteria with regard to
certainty of effectiveness to remove or
reduce threats facing the bi-State DPS
because of, but not limited to, past
project effectiveness within the bi-State
area or within sagebrush habitat areas
across the range of the greater sagegrouse, and documented effective
methodologies for addressing the threats
identified as impacting the bi-State DPS.
For example (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.;
Espinosa 2014, in litt.):
(1) Development and Habitat
Conversion—Conservation efforts to
reduce development and habitat
conversion are anticipated to occur in
critical brood-rearing habitats across
five PMUs, including through
conservation easements and land
exchanges (see detailed PECE analysis,
Section 3.0). These areas include highpriority targets identified in the BSAP,
and are consistent with the
Conservation Objectives Team (COT)
Report’s ex-urban conservation objective
to limit urban and exurban development
in sage-grouse habitats (Service 2013c,
p. 50). These actions are considered
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22848
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
effective at reducing impacts from
development and habitat conversion
because conserving and managing lands
in perpetuity are the most successful
tools for permanent protection of critical
sage-grouse habitat (as demonstrated by
Pocewicz et al. (2011) in Wyoming).
(2) Invasive Nonnative and Native
Plants—Because both invasive plants
and particularly native plants (pinyonjuniper encroachment) displace the
sagebrush ecosystem that the bi-State
DPS relies on, significant conservation
efforts are being and will continue to be
implemented to address these problems.
With regard to invasive, nonnative
plants, the Bi-State EOC and TAC
recognize that effective control
programs can be labor intensive and
costly; however, the Bi-State EOC and
TAC believes there is value for the biState DPS in being strategic in
implementing the conservation efforts
that potentially reduce the impact these
plants have on the DPS’s habitat (e.g.,
treating nonnative, invasive plants in
strategic areas to potentially reduce the
likelihood of an outbreak or improve a
priority habitat area) (Espinosa 2014, in
litt.). Six BLM and USFS projects are
either partially completed or planned
for the future that target invasive,
nonnative plants on more than 257 ha
(634 ac) in the Desert Creek-Fales,
Mount Grant, and Pine Nut PMUs, the
latter two of which cheatgrass is
considered a moderate and high threat,
respectively, compared to other PMUs.
The USFS will control at least 40.5 ha
(100 ac) of cheatgrass each year over the
next 10 years in the Pine Nut PMU
(USDA 2014, in litt.). Finally,
adjustments to grazing and upland
habitats, when necessary, can reduce
the risk of cheatgrass dominance on a
site.
With regard to pinyon-juniper
encroachment, ecologists have
developed clear and effective
recommendations to target appropriate
phases of encroachment (i.e., specific
age and density structure) to ensure
restoration occurs in sagebrush and
sage-grouse habitat areas that are most
meaningful (e.g., critical brood-rearing
habitat, corridors in fragmented areas)
(e.g., Bates et al. 2011, pp. 476–479;
Davies et al. 2011, pp. 2577–2578).
Accordingly, BLM, USFS, and NRCS are
strategically targeting phase I and II
pinyon-juniper encroachment in the biState area, which is supported by
literature as effective with careful
planning and execution (e.g., Bates et al.
2011, pp. 476–479; Davies et al. 2011,
pp. 2577–2578). At this time,
approximately 82,284 ha (203,329 ac)
across all PMUs are identified by the BiState TAC to be examined and treated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
for pinyon-juniper encroachment (BiState TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(3) Infrastructure—Conservation
efforts to reduce infrastructure are
focused on roads, power lines, fencing,
and a landfill. Permanent road closures
over a minimum of 1,339 km (832 mi)
in the Bodie, Desert Creek-Fales, Mount
Grant, and Pine Nut PMUs and seasonal
road closures over approximately 1,429
km (888 mi) in the South Mono PMU
will reduce the likelihood of mortality
and improve vital rates for sage-grouse
near leks, including nesting and broodrearing areas (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.). Power line and fencing removal
projects will occur at three sites in the
Bodie or South Mono PMUs, in addition
to three projects that will mark and
modify fencing in the Pine Nut or South
Mono PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.). A landfill in the Long Valley area
of the South Mono PMU is a significant
source of predators for one of the two
core populations of the bi-State DPS;
Mono County is currently undergoing
the initial stages of closing and
relocating this landfill (Bi-State TAC
2014a, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in
litt.).
Removing or modifying the types of
infrastructure described above will be
effective at reducing the amount of
invasive plants present along or around
developed areas (Manier et al. 2014, pp.
167–170), reducing existing habitat
fragmentation and potential vectors for
invasive plants (Gelbard and Belnap
2003, pp. 424–431); removing some
edge effects that can lead to avoidance
of nesting in suitable habitat areas
(Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 516–
523); reducing or removing
anthropogenic noise that disturbs
normal behavior patterns of sage-grouse
(Blickley 2013, pp. 54–65); reducing
collision-related mortalities (associated
specifically with fencing) (Stevens et al.
2012, pp. 299–302); and making
currently undesirable habitat areas (that
attract predators) favorable by sagegrouse as nest and brood sites by
reducing predator attractants (e.g.,
power lines, landfill) (Dinkins et al.
2012, pp. 605–608).
(4) Wildfire—Fires have consumed
some important habitat areas within the
range of the bi-State DPS, primarily
within the Pine Nut PMU, but also
recently as a result of the Spring Peak
fire within the Bodie and Mount Grant
PMUs (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Site
restoration activities are planned to be
implemented following wildfires by
utilizing the CPT to identify sites that
are the best candidates for enhancing or
returning sagebrush habitats to
conditions that benefit sage-grouse
(Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Restoration
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
efforts will be tracked for success,
noting that some actions (e.g., seeding)
vary in success rate, given variables
such as elevation, precipitation, and
site-conditions prior to a fire (Espinosa
2014, in litt.). Recovery of functional
sagebrush habitats following wildfire
and restoration actions can take decades
(potentially several sage-grouse
generations) to be realized, and requires
monitoring to assure conservation
objectives are met (such as ensuring
appropriate levels of sagebrush and
native herbs are established, and
reducing nonnative plant dominance)
(Arkle et al. 2014, p. 17). Additionally,
the Bi-State TAC currently utilizes the
CPT and field reconnaissance to
maximize the likelihood of enhancing
the desired sagebrush community
composition post-fuels reduction
treatment activities (Espinosa 2014, in
litt.). See the discussion above regarding
‘‘Nonnative, Invasive and Native Plants’’
for activities currently occurring or
planned for the future to help reduce
the existing fuel loads that promote
wildfires.
(5) Small Population Size and
Population Structure—The BSAP
specifically identifies a strategy (MER7)
to address small population size issues
in the bi-State area, by identifying
potential sage-grouse population
augmentation and reintroduction sites,
developing translocation guidelines,
and potentially implementing
augmentation and reintroduction efforts
(Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 93). Specific
actions include developing contingency
plans for the Parker Meadows and
Gaspipe Spring subpopulations in the
South Mono PMU, and populations in
the Pine Nut PMU; and evaluating the
need for augmentation for the Fales
population of the Desert Creek-Fales
PMU, the Powel Mountain area of the
Mount Grant PMU, the McBride Flat/
Sagehen Spring area in the Truman
Meadows portion of the White
Mountains PMU, and Coyote Flat of the
South Mono PMU.
Prior to conducting translocation
efforts, the Bi-State TAC and LAWG
must concentrate significant efforts in
conducting lek counts and surveys, and
developing a standardized sage-grouse
monitoring program throughout the biState area (CDFW 2014b, in litt.). These
initial activities do not directly reduce
any threats, although they are important
to ensure effectiveness of many
conservation efforts, particularly
translocation efforts. Currently, CDFW
is developing a plan to translocate sagegrouse from stable subpopulations in
the bi-State area to the Parker Meadows
subpopulation (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.). Efforts on
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
this current action are directly relevant
to future conservation efforts for other
unstable subpopulations. It is
reasonable to assume future
translocations in the bi-State area have
a high likelihood of effectiveness given
careful consideration to all the variables
(including translocation that would
occur concurrent with other threat
reduction activities, such as predator
control), and published literature that
indicates success of translocated sagegrouse when successful translocation
methodology is followed (Musil et al.
1993, pp. 89–90; Reese and Connelly
1997, pp. 239–240; Hennefer 2007, pp.
33–37; Baxter et al. 2008, pp. 184–185).
We will have an ongoing role in
monitoring the implementation and
effectiveness of the partially completed
and future conservation efforts given
our regular participation with the BiState EOC, TAC, and LAWG,
participation in providing updated
versions of the BSAP, and by reviewing
any monitoring and research reports.
We are satisfied that the conservation
efforts evaluated will be effective in
reducing threats to the bi-State DPS and
its habitat; however, in order to do so
they do not need to be applied on every
acre of suitable and unsuitable sagegrouse habitat. For instance, not all of
the native pinyon-juniper vegetation
needs to be removed, such as in areas
within the range of the bi-State DPS
where pinyon-juniper historically
occurred. Rather the effort needs, and is
expected, to be implemented in areas
that are most likely to support sagegrouse (post-removal) and critical areas
that address habitat fragmentation or
reduced-connectivity issues. These
efforts need to occur at a rate that
significantly reduces further habitat
losses, which is consistent with the
objective to address pinyon-juniper
expansion provided in the March 22,
2013, COT Report for conservation of
the greater sage-grouse (Service 2013c,
pp. 47–48), including the bi-State DPS.
We have determined that the agencies
resource commitments (e.g., staffing and
funding, including more than $45
million over the next 10 years), and a
demonstrated record of implementation
will ensure continued conservation of
habitat for the bi-State DPS. The BSAP
has sufficient monitoring and reporting
requirements to ensure that the
proposed future conservation measures
are implemented as planned, and are
effective at removing threats to the DPS
and its habitat. The collaboration
between the Service, BLM, USFS,
NRCS, Mono County, USGS, and the
States of Nevada and California requires
regular team meetings (Bi-State EOC,
TAC, and EOC), and continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
involvement of all parties will occur (BiState EOC 2014, in litt.) in order to
implement the BSAP fully. We find that
the future conservation efforts in the
BSAP meet the PECE criteria for
certainty of implementation and
effectiveness, and can be considered as
part of the basis for our final listing
determination for the bi-State DPS.
In conclusion, we find that the
conservation efforts in the BSAP, and as
outlined in the agencies’ June 2014
commitment letters, meet the PECE
criteria with regard to certainty of
implementation (for those measures not
already implemented) and effectiveness
and can be considered as part of the
basis for our final listing determination
for the bi-State DPS. Our full analysis of
the 2012 BSAP, and additional materials
submitted to the Service as mentioned
above, pursuant to PECE can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket
No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072).
Determination
As required by the Act, we considered
the five factors listed in section
4(a)(1)(b) of the Act in assessing
whether the bi-State DPS of greater sagegrouse meets the definition of a
threatened or endangered species. We
examined the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and
foreseeable future threats faced by the
DPS. For the purposes of this
determination, we consider foreseeable
future to be 30 years based on the
probability of population persistence
analyzed and described by Garton et al.
(2011, entire), and based on the time
horizons for which the various threats
can be reliably projected into the future
(as described under the various threats
analysis discussions in the Species
Report (Service 2015a, pp. 45–142)).
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the current
threats are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that
the bi-State DPS is in danger of
extinction (endangered). In our
proposed listing rule we determined
that the bi-State DPS is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened). However, after
consideration of new information
regarding partially completed and
ongoing conservation measures and
planned future conservation efforts that
we conclude will be implemented and
effective (as described in our detailed
PECE analysis available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072), we now conclude
that the bi-State DPS is not likely to
become endangered within the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22849
foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range (see Significant Portion of the
Range, below). Therefore, the bi-State
DPS of greater sage-grouse does not
meet the definition of a threatened or
endangered species, and we are
withdrawing the proposed rule to list
the DPS as a threatened species. Our
rationale for this finding is outlined
below.
The best available information
indicates that the current overall sagegrouse population trend across the DPS
is stable, and likely to improve based on
the implementation and effectiveness of
ongoing and future conservation actions
associated with the BSAP. The
likelihood of persistence of viable
populations of both core PMUs
(according to species experts) is
considered high for the two largest
(core) populations that comprise greater
than 67 percent of all strutting males
(Service 2015a, Table 1; CDFW 2014a,
unpublished data; NDOW 2014a,
unpublished data). Additionally, all
populations or subpopulations across
the six PMUs have persisted as viable
populations in their current distribution
in spite of many stressors.
Ongoing and future conservation
efforts are likely to increase habitat
quantity, quality, and connectivity. This
will likely increase the number of sagegrouse and resilience of the bi-State DPS
overall. These efforts to stop and reverse
habitat loss and fragmentation will
make small populations of bi-State sagegrouse less susceptible to the effects of
habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation. These efforts will expand
the amount of protected habitat in
critical brood-rearing habitat areas as
well as restore currently unsuitable
habitat in areas utilized for dispersal
and colonization. These measures are
expected to increase resilience to
possible future random, stochastic
events or impacts. Further, the DPS’s
current distribution encompasses and is
representative of the genetic diversity
known to exist across the range of the
DPS. As such, the sage-grouse within
this DPS: (1) Are widely distributed
such that the DPS as a whole is wellprotected from stochastic events, and (2)
the DPS spans the known genetic
diversity such that the populations are
not in danger of a genetic bottleneck.
We expect the DPS to continue to
remain viable throughout its current
overall distribution. We also expect that
ongoing and planned conservation
efforts will improve habitat quality and
quantity and allow the populations to
expand. Thus, we conclude that the biState DPS will have sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22850
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
representation such that it does not
meet the definition of a threatened or
endangered species under the Act.
Since publication of our proposed
listing rule (78 FR 64358; October 28,
2014), new information (e.g., survey
data, habitat conditions, trends analysis,
and Bi-State EOC commitments) has
become available and additional
conservation efforts have been
implemented to help further our
understanding of the DPS’s abundance,
habitat trends, and overall status across
its range. New information received has
resulted in:
(1) Corrections or clarifications of
miscellaneous life-history information
(see Species Information above and the
Biological Information section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 7–
33)).
(2) A more accurate assessment of
suitable habitat throughout the bi-State
area (see Service 2015a, p. 18).
(3) A more accurate assessment of
population trends in the bi-State area
(see Species Information above and
Current Range/Distribution and
Population Estimates/Annual Lek
Counts section of the Species Report
(Service 2015a, pp. 17–31)).
Without the conservation measures
being implemented now and planned
for the future as described in the BSAP,
the stressors that rise to a level of being
a threat as identified in the proposed
rule to the bi-State DPS would remain
at a level that would warrant listing of
the DPS as a threatened species.
However, based primarily on
information received from the action
agencies implementing the BSAP,
including commitments of funding and
other resources, we are able to utilize
the PECE policy to evaluate
conservation actions that are either
implemented and not yet shown to be
effective and those proposed for the
future.
As outlined in the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section above, we evaluated the
certainty of implementation and
effectiveness of the BSAP’s ongoing and
future conservation efforts pertaining to
the bi-State DPS. We have determined
that the agencies implementing this
plan (i.e., the BLM, USFS, NRCS, USGS,
Mono County, NDOW, and CDFW) are
committed to and will continue
conservation efforts into the future to
benefit the bi-State DPS and its habitat.
The BSAP also has sufficient monitoring
and reporting requirements to ensure
that the proposed future conservation
measures are implemented as planned,
and are effective at reducing or
ameliorating stressors such that they are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
no longer a threat to the DPS and its
habitat. As a result, we find that the
future conservation efforts in the BSAP
meet the PECE criteria for certainty of
implementation and effectiveness, and
can be considered as part of the basis for
our final listing determination for the biState DPS.
Since the time of our proposed listing,
the BSAP signatory agencies, in
cooperation with the Bi-State EOC,
TAC, and LAWG, have made significant
efforts to develop and refine (through
adaptive management and utilization of
the CPT) work plans for the next 10
years to implement conservation efforts
targeted at the most important current
and future conservation needs within
the DPS (BLM 2014c, in litt.; CDFW
2014b, in litt.; Espinosa 2014, in litt.;
Mono County 2014, in litt.; NDOW
2014b, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.; USGS
2014c, in litt.). These conservation
efforts are focused on:
(1) Protecting and restoring critical
brood-rearing habitat (reduces impacts
from development/habitat conversion,
grazing and rangeland management, and
effects resulting from climate change).
(2) Restoring habitat impacted by
nonnative, invasive species (e.g.,
cheatgrass) and pinyon-juniper
encroachment (reduces impacts from
nonnative, invasive and certain native
plants, wildfire, predation, and effects
resulting from climate change).
(3) Improving our understanding of
sage-grouse populations, structure, etc.,
to: (a) Prioritize management actions
related to synergistic impacts on already
fragmented habitat (reduced impacts
such as infrastructure, urbanization, and
recreation), such that management
efforts occur in locations that benefit the
DPS the most; and (b) develop and
implement sage-grouse translocations
from stable subpopulations to other
small subpopulations that may be
experiencing a high risk of extirpation
(reduces impacts from small population
size and population structure).
We find that by concentrating BSAP
conservation efforts on the threats that
are cumulatively and synergistically
having the greatest impact on the biState DPS and its habitat, these efforts
have reduced impacts, and will
continue to reduce the magnitude of
impacts in the foreseeable future such
that the DPS no longer meets the
definition of a threatened or endangered
species. Some of the conservation efforts
that will be implemented to address
these most significant concerns include
(but are not limited to):
(1) Establishing conservation
easements, private-public land
exchanges, or land acquisitions within
the Pine Nut, Bodie, Desert Creek-Fales,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Mt. Grant, and South Mono PMUs,
including a minimum of approximately
3,875 ha (9,576 ac) of conservation
easements containing critical sagegrouse brood-rearing habitat, and a
minimum of approximately 1,325 ha
(3,274 ac) of private-public land
exchanges (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.;
CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County
2014, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.).
(2) Evaluating 82,284 (ha) (203,329 ac)
of habitat throughout all six PMUs for
potential treatment to reduce pinyonjuniper encroachment (Bi-State TAC
2014a, in litt.). This is being
accomplished by using the CPT, thereby
concentrating habitat restoration efforts
in areas throughout the DPS’s range that
would be most beneficial to the DPS and
most effective on-the-ground (e.g.,
avoiding areas that birds are not likely
to utilize, focusing on areas that reduce
habitat fragmentation in corridor areas).
These conservation efforts not only
address encroachment of pinyon-juniper
(and loss of sagebrush habitat), but they
also reduce predation impacts (i.e.,
removal of predator perches) and
wildfire impacts associated with fuels
accumulation (given that infrequent
fires facilitate conifer encroachment and
too frequent fires promote invasive,
nonnative annual grasses).
(3) Implementing new grazing
standards on all allotments that address
grazing and wild horse management
issues (BLM 2014c, in litt.; USDA 2014,
in litt.; Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
Conservation efforts include (but are not
limited to) improving water facilities,
restoring meadow habitat, and
improving fence conditions across
multiple PMUs.
(4) Identifying and implementing
sage-grouse population augmentation
and reintroduction sites, developing
translocation guidelines, and potentially
implementing augmentation and
reintroduction efforts (Bi-State TAC
2012a, p. 93). Specific actions include
developing contingency plans for the
Parker Meadows and Gaspipe Spring
subpopulations in the South Mono
PMU, and populations in the Pine Nut
PMU; and evaluating the need for
augmentation for the Fales population
of the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, the
Powel Mountain area of the Mount
Grant PMU, the McBride Flat/Sagehen
Spring area in the Truman Meadows
portion of the White Mountains PMU,
and Coyote Flat of the South Mono
PMU. At this time, efforts are
specifically under way and focused on
developing a translocation plan for the
Parker Meadows subpopulation (CDFG
2014, in litt.; Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.).
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Additional details on partially
completed projects and future
conservation efforts are outlined in the
Agency’s June 2014 commitment letters
and workplans (BLM 2014c, in litt.;
CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County
2014, in litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.;
USDA 2014, in litt.; USGS 2014c, in
litt.), the Bi-State TAC comprehensive
project database (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.), and our detailed PECE analysis, all
of which are available at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072.
Of greatest significance and note
(since publication of the proposed
listing rule), the BSAP recognized 79
projects and the need for $38 million
over a 10-year period to address
immediate conservation needs of the biState DPS and its habitat (Bi-State TAC
2014b, in litt.). At this time, all of those
projects are either being implemented
(currently underway) or will be
implemented in the future. A total of
$45 million has been pledged by the
agencies with a high level of certainty
of both implementation and
effectiveness, which exceeds the $38
million estimated/called for by the
BSAP.
Overall, the partially completed and
future conservation efforts (i.e., those
identified in the 10-year work plans and
utilized in the Bi-State TAC’s
comprehensive project database (BiState TAC 2014a, in litt.)) have been
designed to address current and
expected future synergistic impacts.
Although the majority of the
conservation efforts will address the
most significant impacts synergistically
impacting the DPS (i.e., woodland
encroachment, infrastructure,
urbanization, recreation, and existing
and potential near-term impacts of
cheatgrass and wildfire that may
potentially escalate climate change in
the future), some of the partially
completed and future conservation
efforts are addressing less significant
(overall) impacts (e.g., WNv surveillance
and mosquito abatement (disease),
human disturbance to leks associated
with existing renewable energy and
geothermal sites). Examples of how the
partially completed and future
conservation actions will continue to
reduce threats include:
(1) Permanent protection (primarily
through NRCS efforts) of sage-grouse
habitat within the Pine Nut, Bodie,
Desert Creek-Fales, Mt. Grant, and
South Mono PMUs, including at least
approximately 3,875 ha (9,576 ac) of
conservation easements containing
critical sage-grouse brood-rearing
habitat, and at least approximately 1,325
ha (3,274 ac) of private-public land
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
exchanges (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
These conservation measures reduce the
threat of losing this important habitat to
urbanization and development, and any
associated infrastructure (Factor A).
(2) Reduction of grazing impacts by
BLM and USFS, such as repairing
watering sites in the Bodie PMU,
maintaining or restoring riparian/
meadow sites impacted by grazing
animals across multiple PMUs, and
removing racetrack fencing or marking/
modifying fencing (Bi-State TAC 2014a,
in litt.). These conservation measures
reduce the threats of grazing-related
impacts, including (but not limited to)
reduced sage-brush habitat quality,
reduced nesting and reproductive
success, and reduced food availability
(Factor A). Conservation efforts focused
on water development can also reduce
facilitating the spread of WNv (Factor
C).
(3) Reduction of pinyon-juniper
encroachment by BLM, USFS, and
NRCS, including current evaluation of
approximately 82,284 ha (203,329 ac) of
Phase I or II areas (using the CPT) across
all PMUs for prioritizing treatment areas
(Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). These
conservation measures reduce the threat
of habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor
A), facilitated woodland encroachment
(Factor A), and predation risks (Factor
C).
(4) Implementation of six BLM and
USFS projects that target invasive,
nonnative plants on more than 257 ha
(634 ac) in the Desert Creek-Fales,
Mount Grant, and Pine Nut PMUs, the
latter two of which cheatgrass is
considered a moderate and high threat,
respectively, compared to other PMUs.
Additionally, the USFS will control at
least 40.5 ha (100 ac) of cheatgrass each
year over the next 10 years in the Pine
Nut PMU (USDA 2014, in litt.).
Adjustments to grazing in upland
habitats, when necessary, are also likely
to reduce the risk of cheatgrass
dominance on sites. These conservation
measures reduce the threat of habitat
loss and fragmentation, and potentially
the increased frequency of wildfires
associated with cheatgrass and other
invasives that can hamper recovery of
sagebrush habitat (Factor A).
(5) Removal of a landfill in the Long
Valley area of the South Mono PMU,
which is a significant source of
predators for one of the two core
populations of the bi-State DPS. Mono
County is currently undergoing the
initial stages of relocating this landfill
(Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.; Mono
County 2014, in litt.). This conservation
measure reduces the threat of predation
(Factor C).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22851
(6) Permanent BLM and USFS road
closures over a minimum of 1,339 km
(832 mi) in the Bodie, Desert CreekFales, Mount Grant, and Pine Nut
PMUs, and seasonal road closures over
approximately 1,429 km (888 mi) in the
South Mono PMU, which will reduce
the likelihood of mortality and improve
vital rates for sage-grouse near leks,
including nesting and brood-rearing
areas (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
These conservation measures reduce the
threats of predation (Factor C) and loss
of individuals associated with collisions
(Factor E).
Please see our PECE analysis (section
3.0) for a detailed discussion of the
nature and extent of threats addressed
by the BSAP, which is available on the
Internet at www.regulations.gov (Docket
No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072).
An important aspect of the BSAP for
reducing threats to the bi-State DPS and
its habitat is the development and
implementation of a Science-Based
Adaptive Management Plan that
includes the CPT, which: (1) Includes
data-driven predictive models and
interactive maps that identify and rank
areas that necessitate management
action; and (2) provides a basis to
evaluate those actions, all of which are
focused on areas that are most
meaningful for the bi-State DPS
populations. The CPT is currently being
used to inform which actions are most
beneficial and in the best targeted
locations (thus linking the outcome of
management actions to the response of
sage-grouse populations).
In summary, we conclude that the
BSAP conservation efforts have
sufficient certainty of implementation
and effectiveness that they can be relied
upon in this final listing determination.
Further, we conclude that the BSAP
reduces or eliminates current and future
threats to the bi-State DPS and its
habitat to the point that the species is
no longer in danger of extinction now or
in the foreseeable future. We conclude
that the conservation efforts (including
funding and staffing commitments) that
are currently partially completed and
those proposed for the future (as
outlined in the agency’s commitment
letters (BLM 2014c, in litt.; CDFW
2014b, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in
litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.; UDSA 2014,
in litt.; USGS 2014c, in litt.) and the BiState TAC’s active project database (BiState TAC 2014a, in litt.)) improve the
status of the DPS and its habitat
conditions to such a degree that the
current level of impacts are significantly
reduced (in other words, the DPS is not
likely to be in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future). Therefore, we
are withdrawing our proposed rule to
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22852
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
list the bi-State DPS as a threatened
species, and consequently, we are also
withdrawing the associated proposed
4(d) and critical habitat rules.
We will continue to monitor the
status of the bi-State DPS through
monitoring requirements in the BSAP,
and our evaluation of any other
information we receive. These
monitoring requirements will not only
inform us of the amount of bi-State DPS
habitat conserved and reclaimed, but
will also help inform us of the status of
the populations. Additional information
will continue to be accepted on all
aspects of the bi-State DPS and its
habitat. If at any time new information
indicates that the provisions of the Act
may be necessary to conserve the biState sage-grouse, we can initiate listing
procedures, including, if appropriate,
emergency listing pursuant to section
4(b)(7) of the Act. For example, we
could initiate listing procedures if we
become aware of declining
implementation or participation in the
BSAP, or noncompliance with the
conservation measures, or if there are
new threats or increasing stressors that
rise to the level of a threat.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act
defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any
species which is ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened
species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ The
term ‘‘species’’ includes ‘‘any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants,
and any distinct population segment
[DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when
mature.’’ We published a final policy
interpreting the phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of its Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR
37578). The final policy states that (1)
if a species is found to be an endangered
or a threatened species throughout a
significant portion of its range, the
entire species is listed as an endangered
or a threatened species, respectively,
and the Act’s protections apply to all
individuals of the species wherever
found; (2) a portion of the range of a
species is ‘‘significant’’ if the species is
not currently an endangered or a
threatened species throughout all of its
range, but the portion’s contribution to
the viability of the species is so
important that, without the members in
that portion, the species would be in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
danger of extinction, or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, throughout
all of its range; (3) the range of a species
is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time FWS
or NMFS makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout an SPR, and the
population in that significant portion is
a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather
than the entire taxonomic species or
subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status
determinations, including analyses for
the purposes of making listing,
delisting, and reclassification
determinations. The procedure for
analyzing whether any portion is an
SPR is similar, regardless of the type of
status determination we are making.
The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its
status throughout all of its range. If we
determine that the species is in danger
of extinction, or likely to become so in
the foreseeable future, throughout all of
its range, we list the species as an
endangered (or threatened) species and
no SPR analysis will be required. If the
species is neither an endangered nor a
threatened species throughout all of its
range, we determine whether the
species is an endangered or a threatened
species throughout a significant portion
of its range. If it is, we list the species
as an endangered or a threatened
species, respectively; if it is not, we
conclude that listing the species is not
warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis,
we first identify any portions of the
species’ range that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and either an endangered or a
threatened species. To identify only
those portions that warrant further
consideration, we determine whether
there is substantial information
indicating that (1) the portions may be
significant and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction in those portions or
likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. We emphasize that
answering these questions in the
affirmative is not a determination that
the species is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout a
significant portion of its range—rather,
it is a step in determining whether a
more detailed analysis of the issue is
required. In practice, a key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are
affecting it uniformly throughout its
range, no portion is likely to warrant
further consideration. Moreover, if any
concentration of threats apply only to
portions of the range that clearly do not
meet the biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that
portion clearly would not be expected to
increase the vulnerability to extinction
of the entire species), those portions
will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may
be both (1) significant and (2)
endangered or threatened, we engage in
a more detailed analysis to determine
whether these standards are indeed met.
The identification of an SPR does not
create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the
species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We
must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species in
the SPR. While some of these impacts
are more easily alleviated than others
(e.g., conifer encroachment), the existing
condition, if left unchecked, is likely to
worsen in the future (Bi-State TAC
2012a, pp. 24–25).
Depending on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it may be more efficient to address
the ‘‘significant’’ question first, or the
status question first. Thus, if we
determine that a portion of the range is
not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to
determine whether the species is an
endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species
is not an endangered or a threatened
species in a portion of its range, we do
not need to determine if that portion is
‘‘significant.’’
Because we determined that the biState DPS is neither endangered nor
threatened throughout all of its range
following application of the PECE
policy and as described above in the
Determination section, we must next
determine whether the bi-State DPS may
be endangered or threatened in a
significant portion of its range. To do
this, we must first identify any portion
of the DPS’s range that may warrant
consideration by determining whether
there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
significant, and (2) the DPS may be in
danger of extinction in those portions or
is likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. We note that a
positive answer to these questions is not
a determination that the DPS is
endangered or threatened within a
significant portion of its range, but
rather a positive answer to these
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
questions confirms whether a more
detailed analysis is necessary.
Given the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and
White Mountains PMUs are now and
will continue to be most at risk from the
various stressors acting upon the birds
and their habitat (see the foreseeable
future discussion above in the
Determination section), we identify this
portion of the range for further
consideration. The Pine Nut, Mount
Grant, and (to the extent known) White
Mountains PMUs comprise the fewest
numbers of birds and leks within the
range of the bi-State DPS, with the Pine
Nut PMU harboring the fewest number
of birds and leks overall (the majority
(67 percent) of the sage-grouse in the biState area occur within the Bodie and
South Mono PMUs).
We analyzed whether stressors in
these three PMUs (i.e., Pine Nut, Mount
Grant, and White Mountains PMUs) rise
to the level such that the sage-grouse is
likely to become an endangered species
in the foreseeable future (threatened) in
these three PMUs combined. We
determined that none of the stressors
within these three PMUs either
independently or collectively is
believed to have reduced, destroyed, or
fragmented sagebrush habitat such that
the DPS is not in danger of extinction
or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future. We note that data do indicate
that impacts from nonnative, invasive
and certain native plants, and thus the
threat of wildfire, in the Pine Nut PMU
are more extensive than in the Mount
Grant and White Mountains PMUs.
While these stressors continue in the
Pine Nut PMU and may increase,
monitoring continues to document sagegrouse in some historically occupied
areas within the PMU. Also, the Pine
Nut PMU currently holds the fewest
number of birds and leks of all
populations, and the potential loss of
this already small population is not
expected to impact the bi-State DPS to
the extent that the remaining two PMUs
with the smallest populations (i.e.,
Mount Grant and White Mountains
PMUs) or the DPS as a whole is in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future.
In general, the combination of the biState DPS small population size,
isolation due to fragmented habitat,
peripheral locations, and the presence
of several stresors to the sage-grouse in
the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White
Mountains PMUs makes these PMUs
more vulnerable than the Bodie, Desert
Creek-Fales, and South Mono PMUs, but
not to the degree that sage-grouse are in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future in these
PMUs. This is demonstrated by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
population data from each of these three
smaller PMUs (i.e., the Pine Nut, Mount
Grant, and White Mountains PMUs)
indicating that: (1) Multiple sage-grouse
are still observed through monitoring
activities, (2) one to eight active leks are
present within each PMU, (3) stresors
acting upon these small populations are
not geographically concentrated and
exist in all six PMUs throughout the
range of the bi-State DPS; and (4) a
recent 10-year trend analysis by Coates
et al. (2014a, entire) between 2003 and
2012 found that several of the
populations in the bi-State area
(including but not limited to the core
populations) are stable (as opposed to
declining).
Even though we have determined that
this portion of the bi-State DPS’s range
(i.e., the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and
White Mountains PMUs) is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future, there is
information available that may lead
some to believe that the populations in
these three PMUs are at risk of
becoming endangered in the foreseeable
future. However, the best available
information currently indicates that a
substantial amount of conservation
effort is currently being applied (and
will be carried out in the future) within
the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White
Mountains PMUs, as well as throughout
the entire range of the DPS. These
conservation efforts are targeted at the
stressors that are resulting in the
greatest synergistic impacts on the
populations (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE), above) both
currently and in the future. Significant
efforts are being applied in these three
PMUs including (but not limited to)
reducing impacts from: (1)
Infrastructure (permanent road closures,
fence maintenance/marking), pinyonjuniper encroachment (pine burn and
conifer removal), invasive plants (weed
management, including livestock
control; cheatgrass removal),
urbanization and habitat conversion
(riparian/meadow restoration of broodrearing habitat, establishment of
conservation easements), and grazing
management (management of wild horse
herds, establishing/repairing riparian
exclosures). Application of these
conservation efforts across the range of
the DPS over the next 10 years that we
determine to have both certainty of
implementation and effectiveness, as
described in our detailed PECE analysis
(available at www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072),
changes the trajectory from a point
where the DPS was previously
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22853
considered to be a threatened species, to
a point where the best available
information related to current and
future conservation efforts indicates the
entire range of the DPS, including the
specific portion of the DPS’s range in
the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White
Mountains PMUs, does not meet the
definition of a threatened species or an
endangered species.
In conclusion, we find that substantial
information indicates that: (1) There are
no portions of the bi-State DPS that may
be significant, and (2) the DPS is not
likely to become an endangered species
in the foreseeable future in the portion
of its range that harbors the least
number of birds (i.e., the Pine Nut,
Mount Grant, and White Mountains
PMUs). Therefore, we find that listing
the bi-State DPS is not warranted.
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on
October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358), we
requested that all interested parties
submit written comments on the
proposal by December 27, 2013. This
comment period was subsequently
extended an additional 45 days, as
announced on December 20, 2013 (78
FR 77087), and closed on February 10,
2014. The comment period was
reopened on April 8, 2014 (79 FR
19314), announcing two public hearings
and a 6-month extension of the final
determination of whether or not to list
the bi-State DPS due to substantial
disagreement regarding the sufficiency
or accuracy of the available data
relevant to the proposed listing, making
it necessary to solicit additional
information. This second comment
period on the proposed listing rule
closed on June 9, 2013. Finally, a third
and final comment period was opened
on August 5, 2014 (79 FR 45420), and
closed on September 4, 2014, to give the
public the opportunity to review and
provide comments on new information
received regarding population trends as
well as State and Federal agency
funding and staffing commitments for
various conservation efforts associated
with the BSAP.
We contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and
organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on
the proposal. We also received requests
for public hearings. We held one public
hearing in Minden, Nevada on May 28,
2014, and one public hearing held in
Bishop, California, on May 29, 2014.
Newspaper notices inviting general
public comment and advertisement of
the information and public hearings was
published in The Inyo Register, The
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22854
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Record Courier, and the Reno-Gazette
Journal.
During the three comment periods, we
received more than 6,400 comment
letters directly addressing the proposed
listing of the bi-State DPS. Submitted
comments were both for and against
listing the DPS with designated critical
habitat. During the May 28 and 29,
2014, public hearings, 11 individuals or
organizations commented on the
proposed rules; 3 were opposed to the
proposed listing, and the remaining
individuals or organizations did not
express an explicit opinion on the
listing proposal, but articulated issues
they considered to need more attention
(e.g., economic impacts associated with
the proposed critical habitat). All
substantive information provided
during the comment periods has either
been incorporated directly into this
withdrawal or addressed below. We also
received a few comments related to the
proposed 4(d) rule, and more than 200
comment letters both in support of and
opposition to the proposed critical
habitat designation; however, given the
decision to withdraw the listing
proposal (see Determination above), no
further assessment of the proposed 4(d)
rule and critical habitat designation is
necessary at this time.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review
policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinion
from five appropriate and independent
specialists with scientific expertise that
included familiarity with sage-grouse,
the bi-State DPS and their habitat,
including biological needs and threats.
We received responses from four of the
peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received
from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the listing of the bi-State DPS. Peer
reviewer comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated
into this withdrawal document as
appropriate.
Peer Review Comments Received
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer
requested clarification on our
assumption that there are ‘‘four to eight
demographically independent
populations’’ in the bi-State area.
Our Response: Our understanding of
the population structure of sage-grouse
in the bi-State area is evolving and
primarily informed by telemetry and
genetic research. However, even with
these data available, there remains
uncertainty in our understanding. There
is likely a continuum across the bi-State
area in the degree of isolation among
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
populations and not a simple connected
versus non-connected status that can be
assigned to a group of birds. Over the
past decade, traditional VHF telemetry
approaches suggested little bird
movement among populations in the biState area, leading to our assumption
that there was on the order of eight
generally discrete populations of birds.
While these studies were not designed
to address bird movement among
populations and ultimately were likely
biased because mostly adult birds were
marked (as opposed to juvenile birds
that are more likely to disperse) and
limited searching for ‘‘lost’’ birds (VHF
receivers have a restricted detection
distance) occurred, they have
demonstrated differing vital rates (e.g,
adult and nest survival) among
populations in the bi-State area
suggesting some degree of demographic
independence. More recently, limited
GPS telemetry has demonstrated
movements between the Pine Nut
population and the Desert Creek-Fales
population, which previously were
assumed to be isolated from one
another. Furthermore, two recent and
independent genetic evaluations have
concluded there are between three and
four (Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p. 8)
or five (Tebbenkamp 2014, p. 18) unique
genetic clusters in the bi-State area. In
addition, Tebbenkamp (2014, p. 12) did
not evaluate the Pine Nut population,
which Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p. 8)
found to be unique. Thus, presumably
Tebbenkamp (2014, entire) would have
differentiated six populations had these
data been available. Based on this
information, we presume that there are
likely three to six populations or groups
of birds in the bi-State area that largely
operate demographically independent of
one another. We have refined our
Species Report to reflect these new data.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer
requested clarification on how lek
counts were used to derive the
population size estimates we report in
Table 1 of our proposed rule.
Our Response: We relied on the lek
count data and population estimators
provided by NDOW and CDFW; both
agencies use the estimator described in
Connelly et al. (2003, p. 22), whereby
they adjust the maximum number of
males counted by dividing by 0.75 (to
account for unseen males) and then
multiply this number by 2.0 (assuming
2:1 sex ratio of females to males) to
derive total birds. NDOW then adjusts
this number to account for undetected
leks by dividing the total bird estimate
by varying ratios (from 0.75 to 0.90)
depending on specific knowledge (or
lack of knowledge) of the population of
interest. Similarly, CDFW adjusts the
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
total bird estimate to account for
undetected leks but uses a ratio between
0.85 and 0.95.
We recognize that there is uncertainty
in translating counts of males displaying
on breeding grounds (lek counts) into
estimates of population size (Connelly
et al. 2003, p. 22; Walsh et al. 2004,
entire). Nevertheless, we believe these
data can provide a general context to the
bi-State DPS in the absence of more
precise information.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer
asked how we concluded that there was
a reduction in available sage-grouse
habitat in the bi-State area by 50
percent.
Our Response: Based on a Geographic
Information System (GIS) modelling
approach that was informed by research
on woodland succession in the Great
Basin, an estimated 390,000 ha (963,000
ac) of sagebrush habitat has converted to
woodland vegetation over the past 150
years, resulting in a reduction of
sagebrush habitat from slightly over
1,044,000 ha (2,580,000 ac) in 1850 to
approximately 664,890 ha (1,643,000 ac)
today across the range of the bi-State
DPS (USGS 2012, unpublished data).
Additionally, a resource selection
function (RSF) model was developed to
estimate currently suitable sage-grouse
habitat across the bi-State area (Bi-State
TAC 2012b, unpublished data). The RSF
model included a combination of biotic,
abiotic, and anthropogenic features that
best explain sage-grouse selection or
avoidance of a specific area. The RSF
model predicated that suitable sagegrouse habitat in the bi-State area
amounted to slightly less than 435,440
ha (1,076,000 ac). Taking the average of
these two quotients (i.e., 664,890 ha
(1,643,000 ac) and 435,440 ha
(1,044,000 ac)) led us to the conclusion
that sage-grouse habitat availability in
the bi-State area has been reduced by
approximately 50 percent. We recognize
that there are uncertainties associated
with these data and that the amount of
uncertainty is not known. However, we
note that our assumption of a 50 percent
decline can be either an overestimate or
an underestimate. Despite the
uncertainty, we believe this is a
reasonable estimate of habitat loss based
on the best available scientific and
commercial information.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer
asked how we concluded that there has
been a reduction in the overall sagegrouse population in the bi-State area by
more than 50 percent.
Our Response: Based on our analysis
of historical habitat loss (see our
response to Comment 3), we assumed a
1:1 ratio of bird loss to habitat loss. We
also considered the remaining sagebrush
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
habitat in the bi-State area to be
variously compromised by a variety of
stressors, thereby reducing the
suitability of these habitats for sagegrouse and ultimately the habitats
carrying capacity for sage-grouse.
Furthermore, there are documented
accounts of population extirpation or
population reductions in the bi-State
area (USFS 1966, p. 4; Hall et al. 2008,
p. 96; Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 24).
Therefore, we assumed that population
loss exceeded habitat loss and
concluded that population loss was
likely greater than 50 percent.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer
stated that higher-elevation mountain
sagebrush communities are generally
more resilient than lower-elevation
Wyoming big sagebrush communities
and as such are more likely to persist.
Further, they stated that each of these
community types differ in their
susceptibility to invasive and increasing
species (i.e., cheatgrass and woodland
succession). They requested an
evaluation as to the proportion of the biState DPS existing within each of these
general sagebrush systems.
Our Response: We utilized a base
vegetation layer developed by the BiState TAC, which also informed the RSF
modeling effort, to inform this
discussion (Bi-State TAC 2012b,
unpublished data). Additional detail on
this product is available in the Species
Report (see Appendix B).
Across the entire bi-State area
(delineated by PMU boundaries),
approximately 664,944 ha (1,643,114 ac)
(36 percent of the bi-State area) are
composed of sagebrush communities.
Additionally, there are approximately
26,870 ha (66,399 acres) (1.5 percent) of
higher-elevation mountain shrub
communities, which includes other
shrub species besides sagebrush such as
bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata),
snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.), and
desert peach (Prunus anersonii), among
others. We included this additional
shrub community as part of the
mountain big sagebrush evaluation
because these other species have been
shown to be important to sage-grouse in
the bi-State area (Kolada et al. 2009b, p.
1,336) and they often co-occur with
mountain big sagebrush; therefore, we
anticipate they will respond to invasive
or increasing species in a similar
manner. Partitioning these communities
further, there are approximately 183,860
ha (454,330 ac) (27 percent of available
sagebrush) of higher-elevation mountain
big sagebrush (including mountain
shrub community), 373,747 ha (923,550
ac) (54 percent) of lower-elevation
Wyoming big sagebrush, and 134,207 ha
(331,633 ac) (19 percent) of low
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
sagebrush, such as black sagebrush
(Artemisia nova) and little sagebrush
(Artemisia arbuscula). We recognize the
importance of this information to the
discussion and have added information
to the Species Report (see Sagebrush
Ecosystem section), specifically the
proportion of these communities
contained within individual PMUs.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer
asked how the BLM RMPs, the BSAP,
and the plans developed by the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP) are used in evaluating existing
regulatory mechanisms.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act
stipulates that one of the factors the
Secretary shall use to determine
whether any species is an endangered or
threatened species is the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. In
addition to those identified above,
existing regulatory mechanisms that
could provide some protection for
greater sage-grouse in the bi-State area
include: (1) Local land use laws,
processes, and ordinances; (2) State
laws and regulations; and (3) Federal
laws and regulations. Regulatory
mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude
the need for listing if such mechanisms
are judged to adequately address the
threats to the species such that listing is
not warranted. Conversely, threats on
the landscape continue to affect the
species and may be exacerbated when
not addressed by existing regulatory
mechanisms, or when the existing
mechanisms are not adequate (or not
adequately implemented or enforced).
We use an inherently qualitative
approach to evaluate existing regulatory
mechanisms. In general, this means that
we assess language in an existing plan
as well as any pertinent decisions based
on such language (track record) and
evaluate it against the best available
science informing species conservation.
Regulations in some counties identify
the need for natural resource
conservation and attempt to minimize
impacts of development through zoning
restrictions, but to our knowledge
neither preclude development nor do
they provide for monitoring of the loss
of sage-grouse habitats. Similarly, State
laws and regulations are general in
nature and provide flexibility in
implementation, and do not provide
specific direction to State wildlife
agencies relative to sage-grouse
conservation, although they can
occasionally afford regulatory authority
over habitat preservation (e.g., creation
of habitat easements and land
acquisitions).
In the proposed rule, we found that
most existing Federal regulatory
mechanisms (not including the BLM
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22855
and USFS Land Use Plan amendments)
were sufficiently vague as to offer
limited certainty as to managerial
direction pertaining to sage-grouse
conservation, particularly as they relate
to addressing the threats that are
significantly impacting the bi-State DPS
(e.g., nonnative, invasive and certain
native plants; wildfire and altered
wildfire regime; infrastructure).
However, we have determined that the
BSAP ameloriates the threats to the BiState DPS and its habitat (see additional
Land Use Plan amendment discussion
in the Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) section above,
and our detailed PECE analysis
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0042). In addition, the
proposed BLM and USFS Land Use Plan
amendments (USDI and USDA 2015,
entire) will reinforce the conservation
commitments made in the BSAP;
however, we note that we do not rely on
them for our determination. We also
note that the BLM Bishop Field Office’s
RMP has proven to be an effective
regulatory mechanism for the bi-State
DPS and its habitat. For additional
detail, see the Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms section in the Species
Report (Service 2015a, pp. 153–154).
State Comments Received
(7) Comment: The State of Nevada
questioned how the Service could list
the bi-State DPS given that more than a
decade of conservation and restoration
initiatives have been implemented or
initiated, particularly given that over the
past 12 years sage-grouse populations
have been stable-to-increasing.
Our Response: We recognize the
significant efforts of all of our partners
in the conservation of the bi-State DPS,
and these conservation efforts and the
manner in which they are helping to
ameliorate threats to the DPS are
considered in our final agency action.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us
to take into account those efforts being
made by any State or foreign nation, or
any political subdivision of a State or
foreign nation, to protect such species,
within any area under its jurisdiction.
However, the Act requires us to make
determinations based on the best
scientific and commercial data available
‘‘at the time of listing’’ after conducting
a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account those efforts, if
any, being made to protect such species.
Furthermore, we are encouraged by the
recent information provided by the U.S.
Geological Survey (Coates et al. 2014, p.
19), which generally concludes that
populations with the bi-State area have
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22856
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
been stable between 2003 and 2012.
Additionally, these data predict that
over the next 5 years the majority of
populations are anticipated to grow. We
do note, however, that the Parker
Meadows and Fales populations are
projected to decline and further that the
White Mountains and Mount Grant
populations were not analyzed due to
lack of data. The Nevada Department of
Wildlife reports the latter population
has been in decline. Also, while we
place a high degree of confidence in the
USGS analysis, within the Pine Nuts
PMU, a population projected to
increase, the sole lek site used to
partially inform the model has been
largely inactive in the last 2 years, and
these data were not incorporated into
the USGS analysis.
While the bi-State DPS’s population
trend information is highly informative
and can assist us in informing our
listing decision, the Act stipulates that
the Secretary shall make a decision to
list a species as an endangered or
threatened species based on any one or
more of five factors: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Assuming current conditions
continue into the future in the bi-State
area, we have identified the threats
across the range of the bi-State DPS that
are resulting in the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range, and
other natural or manmade threats
affecting the DPS’s continued existence.
Many of these impacts are cumulatively
acting upon the bi-State DPS and,
therefore, increase the risk of extinction.
However, after consideration of partially
completed projects and future
conservation efforts that we conclude
will be implemented and effective (see
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE) section, above), we believe the
bi-State DPS is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, the bi-State DPS of greater
sage-grouse does not meet the definition
of a threatened or endangered species,
and we are withdrawing the proposed
rule to list the DPS as a threatened
species.
(8) Comment: The listing of the biState DPS will not enhance or expedite
conservation as it will call for the same
conservation measures already
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
identified by the BSAP. Further, the
listing action would alienate groups
working on bi-State sage-grouse
conservation.
Our Response: The Act mandates that
the Secretary shall determine whether
any species is an endangered or
threatened species based on any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Therefore, the Service does
not have the ability to consider public
perception when evaluating a listing
decision. We remain committed to
ensure conservation of the bi-State DPS
through continued cooperation with our
partners currently and into the future.
We recognize the significant efforts of
all of our partners in the conservation of
the bi-State DPS. While we would be
disappointed by a reduction in
participation and commitment of
resources for various conservation
efforts, we also recognize that there is a
potential for this result to be realized
regardless of the outcome of our final
agency action as outlined within this
document.
Other Comments Received
(9) Comment: A few commenters
suggest that the bi-State DPS is not a
genetically unique subspecies or that
this population does not meet our
standard for recognition as a DPS.
Our Response: In our 12-month
finding on petitions to list three entities
of sage-grouse (75 FR 13910), we found
that the bi-State population of sagegrouse meets our criteria as a DPS of the
greater sage-grouse under Service policy
(61 FR 4722). This determination was
based principally on genetic
information, where the DPS was found
to be both discrete, and significant to
the remainder of the sage-grouse taxon.
The bi-State DPS defines the far
southwestern limit of the species’ range
along the border of eastern California
and western Nevada (Stiver et al. 2006,
pp. 1–11). Sage-grouse in the bi-State
area contain a large number of unique
genetic haplotypes not found elsewhere
within the range of the species
(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 306; OylerMcCance et al. 2005, p. 1,300; OylerMcCance and Quinn 2011, p. 92, OylerMcCance et al. 2014, p. 7). The genetic
diversity present in the bi-State area
population is comparable to other
populations, suggesting that the
differences are not due to a genetic
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
bottleneck or founder event (OylerMcCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91; OylerMcCance et al. 2014, p. 8). These studies
provide evidence that the present
genetic uniqueness exhibited by bi-State
area sage-grouse developed over
thousands and perhaps tens of
thousands of years, hence, prior to the
Euro-American settlement (Benedict et
al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al.
2005, p. 1,307; Oyler-McCance et al.
2014, p. 9). The available genetic
information demonstrates that the biState sage-grouse are both discrete from
other greater sage-grouse populations,
and are genetically unique. Therefore,
we believe the best scientific and
commercial data available clearly
demonstrate that the bi-State sagegrouse meet both the discreteness and
significance criteria to be designated as
a distinct population segment.
(10) Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that habitat
conservation efforts may be hampered
due to potential additional regulatory
requirements and uncertainty as to
which activities would require
consultation with the Service under the
Act, as it pertains to take of the species
and adverse modification or destruction
of critical habitat. Specifically,
commenters were concerned that
funding for on-the-ground activities
could be reduced due to additional costs
associated with consultation under the
Act.
Our Response: Section 7 of the Act
states that each Federal agency shall
consult with the Secretary of the Interior
to insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agency is
not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any endangered or
threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
delineated critical habitat. The duty to
consult under Section 7 includes all
actions that may affect a listed species,
even those that may improve habitat
condition and ultimately positively
influence species conservation. We
recognize that the mandate of the Act,
may at times, divert funding and effort
away from on-the-ground activities.
However, our responsibility is to ensure,
through consultation, that activities
which may affect listed species are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered and threatened
species. With regard to the bi-State DPS,
no additional regulatory requirements
will occur because we have determined
the DPS does not meet the definition of
a threatened or endangered species.
(11) Comment: Several commenters
indicated that the proposed listing of
the bi-State DPS was premature. These
commenters submit that adequate time
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
should be provided to determine if
conservation efforts, such as those
identified in the 2012 BSAP, are
sufficient to maintain a viable sagegrouse population in the bi-State area.
Our Response: We recognize the
significant efforts of all of our partners
in the conservation of the bi-State DPS,
and these conservation efforts and the
manner in which they are helping to
ameliorate threats to the DPS are
considered in our final agency action.
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us
to take into account those efforts being
made by any State or foreign nation, or
any political subdivision of a State or
foreign nation, to protect such species,
within any area under its jurisdiction.
However, the Act requires us to make
determinations based on the best
scientific and commercial data available
‘‘at the time of listing’’ after conducting
a review of the status of the species and
after taking into account those efforts, if
any, being made to protect such species.
Concern from a variety of private,
Tribal, industry, State, Federal, and
non-governmental entities over the
conservation of the bi-State DPS has
been apparent since the late 1990’s (BiState Local Planning Group 2004, p. 1).
This is reflected by the NDOW decision
to suspend hunting in the area in 1999
(Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, p.
59). Significant effort was expended in
the early 2000’s and culminated in 2004
with the first edition of a greater sagegrouse conservation plan for the bi-State
area of Nevada and eastern California
(Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004).
Since this time, many conservation
efforts have been completed, while
many others are in progress. After
consideration of partially completed
projects and future conservation efforts
that we have found to be sufficiently
certain to be implemented and effective
(see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) section,
above), we believe the bi-State DPS is
not in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the
proposed rule to list the DPS as a
threatened species.
(12) Comment: Several commenters
stated that listing the bi-State DPS
would be counterproductive to ongoing
Bi-State LAWG conservation efforts by
affecting participation and funding.
Our Response: We recognize the
significant efforts of all of our partners
in the conservation of the bi-State DPS.
While we would be disappointed by a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
reduction in participation and
commitment of resources for various
conservation efforts, we also recognize
that there is a potential for this result to
be realized regardless of the outcome of
our final agency action as outlined
within this document. The Act
mandates that the Secretary shall
determine whether any species is an
endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present
or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Therefore, the Service does
not have the ability to consider public
perception when evaluating a listing
decision. However, after consideration
of partially completed projects and
future conservation efforts that we have
found to be sufficiently certain to be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section, above), including efforts that
involve the LAWG, we find the DPS is
not in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the
proposed rule to list the DPS as a
threatened species. We remain
committed to ensure conservation of the
bi-State DPS through continued
cooperation with our partners currently
and into the future.
(13) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the proposal for listing
should better recognize current and
ongoing voluntary conservation efforts
in addition to conservation measures
that are in place to minimize potential
adverse effects resulting from activities
including livestock grazing, mineral
development, and recreation and fire
management.
Our Response: We analyzed the best
scientific and commercial information
available on both current and future
conservation efforts, and conservation
measures intended to minimize
potential adverse effects to the bi-State
DPS and its habitat (see Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, Ongoing and
Future Conservation Efforts, and Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
sections). Any conservation-related
actions, protection measures, and
commitments provided by partners and
commenters were taken into
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22857
consideration for this final agency
action.
(14) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the proposed rule dismisses
past conservation measures without
fairly addressing their breadth,
effectiveness, and chance of success.
Further they submit the Service must
evaluate the conservation measures
through (at minimum) an analysis
consistent with PECE, and must fully
consider how conservation measures
will reduce or remove threats. The
commenters believe that a fair
evaluation of the past conservation
efforts would demonstrate that they are
sufficient to protect the bi-State DPS.
Alternatively, several commenters
argue that past conservation efforts,
while well-intended, have been
inadequate to provide sufficient
conservation for the DPS. Further, the
commenters contend that the 2012
BSAP is voluntary in nature and does
not meet the PECE standard.
Our Response: We acknowledge and
commend the commitment of many
partners in implementing numerous
conservation actions within the range of
the bi-State DPS. The PECE policy
applies to formalized conservation
efforts that have not yet been
implemented or those that have been
implemented, but have not yet
demonstrated whether they are effective
at the time of listing. Our analysis of all
conservation efforts currently in place
and under development for the future is
described in detail in the Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, Ongoing and
Future Conservation Efforts, and Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
sections of this document. The effect of
such conservation efforts on the status
of a species is considered under the
Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section of this document.
In this document, we considered
whether formalized conservation efforts
are included as part of the baseline
through the analysis of the five listing
factors, or are appropriate for
consideration. After consideration of
partially completed projects and future
conservation efforts that we have found
to be sufficiently certain to be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section, above), we find the bi-State DPS
is not in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22858
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
proposed rule to list the DPS as a
threatened species.
(15) Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that economic
development will be negatively
impacted by listing and suggested that
it is necessary for the Service to conduct
an analysis of the impacts that listing a
species may have on local economies
prior to issuance of a final rule.
Alternatively, one commenter submitted
that the local economy will be
positively benefited.
Our Response: Under the Act, the
Secretary shall make determinations
whether any species is an endangered
species or a threatened species solely on
the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. Thus, the
Service is not allowed to conduct an
analysis regarding the economic impact
of listing endangered or threatened
species. However, the Act does require
that the Service consider the economic
impacts of a proposed designation of
critical habitat. A draft of the economic
analysis for the now withdrawn
proposed critical habitat is available to
the public for informational purposes on
the Internet at www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0042. As
for the Service’s proposal to list the biState DPS, after consideration of
partially completed projects and future
conservation efforts that we have found
to be sufficiently certain to be
implemented and effective (see Policy
for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section, above), we find the bi-State DPS
is not in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the
proposed rule to list the DPS as a
threatened species, and critical habitat
will not be designated.
(16) Comment: Several commenters
stated that potential impacts to the biState DPS and its habitat caused by
roads will vary by road type.
Specifically, the commenters asserted
that small, unimproved dirt roads such
as those typically associated with
transmission line rights-of-ways have no
impact. Therefore, the commenters
believe that extrapolating research
findings such as Forman and Alexander
(1998), Gelbard and Belnap (2003), and
Connelly et al. (2000a) to all roads is not
appropriate.
Our Response: We agree that road
type, the level and timing of traffic
activity, and associated extent of road
maintenance appear to influence the
degree to which a road may affect sage-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
grouse and adjacent sagebrush habitat.
Where appropriate (e.g., Roads sections
of the Species Report and Infrastructure
section of this document), we clarified
our analysis of potential road impacts to
more explicitly differentiate between
road types. There is little direct
evidence regarding impacts caused by
small, unimproved roads such as dirt
two tracks. Consequently, we cannot
provide more definitive information
with regards to these road types.
We maintain that the literature
identified above as well as additional
referenced material including Bui (2009)
and Forman (2000) are the best available
information relative to potential impacts
caused by roads. We believe these
sources are informative because the
types of roads investigated are present
in the bi-State area. Our GIS analysis
(Service 2014, unpublished data)
revealed that out of 55 leks sites
assessed in the bi-State area, 35 are
currently within 5 km (3.1 mi) of paved,
secondary roads and therefore could
potentially be impacted. Analyses of
road impacts to greater sage-grouse leks
documented decreasing lek counts and
population trends (Johnson et al. 2011,
p. 449). The actual mechanism for these
declines remain elusive (Manier et al.
2014, p. 50) but declining habitat
condition and use from the impacts
described in Blickley et al. (2012, pp.
467–469; i.e., noise), Gelbard and
Belnap (2003, p. 426; i.e., invasive
species), and Connelly et al. (2000a, p.
974) have been implicated in declines
from other activities, such as energy
development. Therefore, we anticipate
similar responses from the same impacts
introduced by roads. For further
information, a detailed analysis of the
potential impacts of roads is provided in
the Species Report (available at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072) and summarized
under in this document.
(17) Comment: Two commenters
question our conclusion that the
number of roads in the bi-State area are
likely to increase in the future.
Alternatively, one commenter stated
that roads are likely to increase.
Our Response: As stated in our
proposed rule, we consider substantial
new development of improved (i.e.,
paved) roads unlikely in the bi-State
area (see section Infrastructure in the
proposed rule). With regards to the
potential development of small,
unimproved secondary roads within the
bi-State area, we stated in our proposed
rule (and reaffirm here; see
Infrastructure, above) that development
of small, unimproved roads is likely,
although we do not attempt to quantify
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the extent of potential new road
development.
As stated in our proposed rule, both
the Inyo and Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forests have recently
completed Travel Management Plans
(USFS 2009, entire; USFS 2010, entire).
During these planning processes, nearly
2,000 km (1,225 mi) of previously
unauthorized routes were adopted into
the National Forest System (USFS 2009,
p. 3; USFS 2010, p. 5). While some of
these routes have been in place for
many years, others were reported to be
recent developments. We believe this
suggests a history of unauthorized road
development, apparently due to
enforcement challenges, and to some
extent is suggestive of future activity. In
addition, the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, pp. 18, 31, 36, 41) identifies the
recent or potential future development
of unimproved roads as a concern in
four of the six PMUs. Further, we know
of one recent project proposal to add a
paved road segment to the MammothYosemite Airport in Long Valley (Perloff
2014, pers. comm.) and additional
projects to improve/realign Highway
395 near Bridgeport, California
(Cornwell 2014, pers. comm.). Thus, we
consider this information, collectively,
is an indication that additional
development of unimproved roads is
foreseeable. While we remain
challenged to accurately quantify the
extent of future unimproved road
development, or quantify potential road
improvements, we maintain that the
potential exists and that it is likely to
continue to occur.
Finally, there appears to be
substantial and increasing interest
among recreational users of unimproved
roads in the bi-State area, as well as an
increase in road traffic associated with
a mine site in the Mount Grant PMU (BiState TAC 2012a, p. 36). As a result, we
anticipate that recreational and mining
vehicle traffic will continue to increase,
especially in the Mount Grant and Pine
Nut PMUs (see the roads discussion
under the Infrastructure section of the
Species Report). Based on the best
available literature regarding potential
impacts of road activity on sage-grouse
and their habitat (such as declines in lek
attendance, and alterations to predator
or invasive species occurrence (Gelbard
and Belnap 2003, p. 426; Holloran 2005,
p. 40; Bui 2009, p. 31; Blickley et al.
2012, p. 467)), traffic volume may be
more influential on habitat use by sagegrouse than mere road presence (Gillan
et al. 2013, p. 307), especially as it
pertains to unimproved dirt roads.
Therefore, we consider roads to be a
potential ongoing impact and not
merely a historic one, and as a result,
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
conservation efforts are being
implemented currently and in the future
(e.g., temporary and permanent road
closures) to reduce potential road
impacts (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
The BSAP contains a number of
provisions to eliminate or reduce
impacts assocaited with infrasturcutre
and human disturbance (Bi-State TAC
2012a), including roads, that we have
found to be sufficiently certain to be
implemented and effective in
ameliorating this threat (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section, above).
(18) Comment: Several commenters
submit that feral horses pose an impact
to sagebrush habitat and are a threat to
sage-grouse conservation.
Our Response: We agree with the
commenters that feral horses can
degrade sagebrush habitat and in turn
can have negative impacts on sagegrouse populations in the bi-State area.
As stated in our proposed rule, there are
seven Wild Horse Territories or Herd
Management Areas, as well as one Wild
Horse Unit, which overlap sage-grouse
habitat in the bi-State area (see Grazing
and Rangeland Management, above).
The most significant impacts are
apparent in the Pine Nut, Mount Grant,
and White Mountains PMUs, where
associated horse numbers are currently
above the targeted management levels
(Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 37, 41).
However, we have limited data to infer
the degree of impact to sage-grouse
populations caused by apparent habitat
degradation, and no new information
was received to further inform our
understanding of this potential impact.
Management of herd size by Federal
agencies is an ongoing challenge as
horses reproduce rapidly and
management is expensive and
politically sensitive. Therefore, based on
the current known impacts from feral
horses, we anticipate impacts from wild
horse management could continue into
the future and as a result, conservation
efforts are being implemented currently
and in the future (e.g., evaluate and
manage wild horse herds throughout the
bi-State DPS range) to reduce potential
impacts (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(19) Comment: Several commenters
suggest that impacts caused by hunting
are more severe than we conclude in the
proposed rule. Alternatively, several
other commenters generally agreed with
our conclusions on harvest but submit
that we should consider the confusion
in public perception that is created by
not more fully recognizing an
intentional and controllable form of
mortality.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
Our Response: The allowance of
recreational sage-grouse hunting in the
bi-State area is based on the concepts of
compensatory and additive mortality.
The compensatory mortality hypothesis
contends that populations compensate
for harvest mortality by reducing rates
of natural mortality (e.g., starvation,
predation, or disease); thereby, overall
mortality remains unchanged (Anderson
and Burnham 1976, pp. 5–10). Additive
mortality results in an increase in total
mortality with increasing harvest
mortality.
Results of studies to determine
whether hunting mortality in sagegrouse is compensatory or additive have
been contradictory (Crawford 1982, p.
376; Crawford and Lutz 1985, p. 72;
Braun 1987, p. 139; Johnson and Braun
1999, p. 83; Connelly et al. 2003, p. 337;
Sedinger et al. 2010, p. 329). Thus, an
appropriate harvest level has not been
determined for sage-grouse populations,
including for the bi-State area.
Currently, State wildlife agencies across
the range of the greater sage-grouse
attempt to keep harvest levels below 5
to 10 percent of the fall population
based on recommendations in Connelly
et al. (2000a, p. 976). This harvest level
of the fall populations appears to be the
adopted standard among States and, in
general, species experts agree this level
is compatible with conservation (Reese
and Connelly 2011, entire).
In 1997, NDOW closed the hunting
season for sage-grouse in the bi-State
area (NDOW 2012, in litt., p. 4); thus,
sage-grouse in the bi-State area can only
be harvested in two select locations (i.e,
the North and South Mono Hunt Units,
or the Bodie Hills and Long Valley areas
in Bodie and South Mono PMUs) in
California. Since 1998, CDFW has
annually issued between 20 and 35
single-bird hunting permits for each of
these areas (Bi-State Local Planning
Group 2004, p. 173; CDFW 2012, in
litt.). The estimated harvest from these
permits averages approximately 40 total
birds annually: 20 birds for the North
Mono and 20 birds for the South Mono
Hunt Units (CDFW 2012, in litt.).
Comparing the recent (2011 and 2012)
estimated harvest levels to the estimated
fall population in the California portion
of the DPS over the past decade, harvest
has been on the order of 2 to 4 percent
of the estimated fall population in each
of the Bodie and South Mono PMUs
(CDFW 2012, in litt.). As currently
instituted, the permit system employed
by CDFW is keeping the estimated
harvest rate below the currently
accepted harvest rate of 5 to 10 percent
of the fall population. We believe this
harvest rate is compatible with a
compensatory mortality paradigm and,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22859
therefore, likely has a negligible impact
on the population.
We recognize that the public may be
confused by our conclusion that limited
hunting (as described above and in the
Overutilization Impacts section) is not
currently considered an impact to the
DPS and that this activity has the
potential to lead to an individual’s
perception that we are not fully
recognizing an intentional and
controllable form of mortality. However,
we note that according to section 4(b) of
the Act, we are required to make a
listing determination based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available, which as stated above,
indicates that the existing limited
hunting is not an impact to the DPS at
this time.
(20) Comment: One commenter
provided information that a 1,537-ha
(3,800-ac) conservation easement was
recently completed near the West Fork
Walker River along the boundary
delineating the Desert Creek-Fales and
Pine Nut PMUs.
Our Response: We are aware of this
conservation easement, and (along with
other known conservation easements)
this information was taken into account
during our evaluation of current
conservation efforts and their value at
reducing potential impacts posed by
urbanization and habitat conversion (see
Conservation Efforts section of the
Species Report and the Ongoing and
Future Conservation Efforts section of
this document.
(21) Comment: One commenter
requested clarification as to why we
identified urbanization as a threat in the
White Mountains PMU.
Our Response: Approximately
688,474 ha (1,701,258 ac) or 97 percent
of the White Mountains PMU is publicly
owned. However, there is potential for
future urban development on the
limited private lands present in this
PMU, as demonstrated by the recently
expanded housing developments near
Chiatovich Creek in Nevada (Bi-State
Lek Surveillance Program 2012, p. 38;
Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 41) that are
approximately 8 km (5 mi) south of two
recently identified leks. The best
available data for this area indicate
direct loss of sagebrush habitat, as well
as the potential that this activity may be
influencing connectivity between the
northern and southern portions of this
PMU (Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 41).
Without implementation of
conservation actions, further, additional
habitat loss or fragmentation of this
corridor area could occur, potentially
limiting connectivity between the White
Mountains PMU and Adobe Valley in
the South Mono PMU and leading to
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22860
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
further isolation of the White Mountains
population. See Urbanization and
Habitat Conversion above for further
discussion of the potential impacts of
urbanization and resulting sagebrush
habitat fragmentation concerns and the
conservation actions being implanted to
address those impacts.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated
that additional discussion is needed to
address how urbanization is often
driven by generational tax issues
influenced by increased regulation and
uncertainty of business operation.
Our Response: We recognize that
many factors may influence a private
land owner’s decision to sell or retain
his or her property, including the
potential listing of federally endangered
or threatened species. Further, we also
have concern that the subdivision of
currently intact parcels of private land
may negatively affect sage-grouse
conservation in the bi-State area (BiState TAC 2012a, pp. 18, 24, 31, 41),
thus potentially contributing to
additional loss and fragmentation of
existing sagebrush habitat and reducing
connectivity among populations.
However, we believe that quantifying
the likelihood of a private parcel being
subdivided as a result of our listing
action is speculative. We are unaware of
specific information nor was any
information provided by the commenter
regarding how generational taxes or the
perception of potential increased
regulation as a result of listing the biState DPS might affect a landowner’s
plans for the disposition of his or her
property.
(23) Comment: Numerous
commenters suggested that predators are
a significant threat and that we did not
account for this impact accurately.
Further, many commenters suggested
predator removal programs should be
implemented. Alternatively, several
commenters suggested that predator
control is not sustainable and may have
negative and unintended consequences.
Our Response: We recognize that
predation of sage-grouse is the most
commonly identified cause of direct
mortality during all life stages
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et
al. 2000b, p. 228; Casazza et al. 2009, p.
45; Connelly et al. 2011, p. 65).
However, we note that sage-grouse have
coevolved with a suite of predators
(Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 9–10), yet the
species has persisted. Thus, this form of
mortality is apparently offset by other
aspects of the species life-history under
‘‘normal’’ conditions. However, when
non-endemic predators are introduced
into a system (one with which the prey
species did not evolve (e.g., domestic
cats and dogs)), or when other factors
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
influence the balance between endemic
predator and prey interactions, such
that a predator gains a competitive
advantage, predation may overwhelm a
prey species life-history strategy and
ultimately influence population growth
and persistence (Braun 1998, pp. 145–
146; Holloran 2005, p. 58; Coates 2007,
p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2; Coates and
Delehanty 2010, p. 243; Howe et al.
2014, p. 41). Therefore, we agree that
increases in sage-grouse predator
abundance and predation rates are a
concern by potentially negatively
affecting population growth. However,
we maintain that predation is a
proximal cause of mortality and
increases in predator abundance and
predation rates are ultimately caused by
changes in habitat conditions, which
positively influence predator occurrence
or efficiency. See sections Urbanization
and Habitat Conversion, Infrastructure,
and Predation sections in the associated
Species Report for a detailed analysis on
the impacts of predation.
As a point of clarification, we agree
that targeted, short-term predator
removal programs may be warranted in
instances where habitat restoration
cannot be achieved in a timely manner.
In these instances, predation rates and
predator abundance may be artificially
high and high sage-grouse mortality may
be a concern. However, data do not
appear to suggest that removal programs
are sustainable or that they result in
increased sage-grouse numbers (Hagen
2011, pp. 98–99). We intend to explore
the potential benefits and negative
ramifications caused by predator control
through our continued coordination
efforts with the Bi-State TAC and LAWG
for continued conservation of the biState DPS.
(24) Comment: Several commenters
questioned our conclusion that there
has been a reduction in occupied sagegrouse habitat in the bi-State area.
Our Response: In the proposed rule,
we described that range loss occurred
due to woodland succession,
urbanization and habitat conversion,
infrastructure, and more recently to fire
(see Nonnative, Invasive and Native
Plants, Urbanization and Habitat
Conversion, Infrastructure, and Wildfire
and Altered Fire Regimes sections of the
Species Report (Service 2015a)). Based
solely on woodland succession (see our
response to Comment 3 above), we
conclude that the loss of sagebrush
habitat in the bi-State area has been on
the order of 50 percent. Further, we note
that this estimate does not include
approximately 52,439 ha (129,582 ac) of
habitat altered by fire over the past 20
years nor areas that were known or
could be anticipated to have supported
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sage-grouse historically such as
Minden/Gardnerville, Nevada, Smith
Valley, Nevada, Adobe Valley,
California, and northern Inyo County,
California (USFS 1966, p. 4).
We recognize there will remain
uncertainty concerning historical
occurrence of sage-grouse in the bi-State
area; however, commenters did not
provide any additional information to
demonstrate that the habitat loss did not
occur. Therefore, we reaffirm our
conclusion, based on the best available
scientific and commercial information,
that the occupied habitat for the bi-State
DPS was reduced as a result of habitat
alterations and possibly other
mechanisms (such as local extirpations
of sage-grouse caused by harvest) that
will remain unknown.
(25) Comment: Numerous
commenters suggested that the degree of
impact we assign to specific threat
factors is not accurate. Many of these
commenters provided opinions as to
appropriate revisions. Further, several
commenters identified inconsistencies
in our proposed rule associated with our
assignment of significance level to
specific threats.
Our Response: The threats analysis
and associated discussion of the degree
of impact that is described in the
Species Report (2013 and 2014
versions), our proposed listing rule, and
this document is based upon the best
available scientific and commercial
information. No additional information
or assessments were provided by the
commenters to support their claim that
the analysis and conclusions in our
proposed listing rule were inaccurate.
However, where applicable in our
revised Species Report (Service 2015a)
and this document, we have updated
these threats analysis discussions based
on new information received since the
proposed rule published on October 28,
2013 (78 FR 64358). With regard to
potential inconsistencies in the threats
analysis in the proposed rule, we made
corrections to any inconsistencies
identified and as applicable in both the
revised Species Report (Service 2015a)
and this document.
(26) Comment: Numerous
commenters stated that OHV recreation
is not an impact on sage-grouse or
sagebrush habitat, especially in light of
specific modern management practices
such as sound restrictions, timing
restrictions, and weed awareness
programs.
Our Response: OHV recreation occurs
on an extensive network of roads in the
bi-State area. The activity is generally
difficult to measure and we have little
information to infer the amount of
public participation in OHV recreation.
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Further, specific work assessing effects
of OHV use on sagebrush and sagegrouse have not been conducted.
Therefore, in this document and
associated Species Report, we do not
draw firm conclusions with respect to
the impact this recreational activity may
have on the species. However, we
contend that it is reasonable to
extrapolate relevant research on roads
and vehicle traffic to understand and
anticipate potential impacts from OHV
activity. Potential impacts may include
noise disturbance, spread of invasive
plants that degrades sage-grouse habitat,
sage-grouse displacement or avoidance
behavior, effects to predator and prey
dynamics, collisions with vehicles, and
habitat loss, among others (Bui 2009, p.
31; Knick et al. 2011, p. 219; Blickley et
al. 2012, p. 467).
Therefore, we disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that OHV use has
no impact on sage-grouse or sagebrush
habitats but recognize the level of
impact is more likely influenced by the
degree and timing of the activity. Thus,
specific locations, due to proximity to
roads or extent of use, are likely to be
more negatively influenced as compared
to sites that do not share these
characteristics. In the bi-State area,
impacts appear most apparent in the
Pine Nut PMU, especially on the west
side of the Pine Nut Range, where bird
occurrence is now rare (Bi-State TAC
2012a, pp. 18–19). Whether this
localized reduction in sage-grouse was
the direct result of any single form of
human activity is not known, but it is
likely it was caused by a combination of
factors related to human development.
We note that on the edges of the
residential developments in this area, an
extensive network of user-created roads
has been established and this has
extended the impact beyond the
physical footprint of residential
development.
We appreciate and agree that
minimizing noise associated with
vehicles, establishing timing restrictions
on OHV activity, and educating users
about weeds and the need to minimize
their spread is beneficial for sage-grouse
conservation. The commenters did not
provide specific evidence as to how
these management practices ameliorate
potential impacts to the DPS, nor the
degree to which these recommendations
are embraced by the broader OHV
community. Thus, we could not
evaluate these efforts more thoroughly.
Therefore, while these management
practices have helped address some of
the effects of OHV activity on the biState DPS and its habitat, they have not
eliminated the impacts to the DPS and
its habitat.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
(27) Comment: One commenter
suggested that the potential threat to
sage-grouse posed by fencing can be
mitigated. Alternatively, another
commenter stated that fencing is a major
threat and expressed concern that there
are no programs in place to require
fencing to be removed.
Our Response: We agree that certain
practices, such as making fences more
visible to sage-grouse through the use of
visual markers or employing the use of
alternative fence designs (i.e., let-down
fencing), can reduce certain impacts to
the bi-State DPS caused by fencing,
specifically collision. However, we do
not anticipate that these efforts will
completely ameliorate the threat of
collision. For example, Stevens et al.
(2012, p. 301) found that marking fences
reduced the fence collision rate during
the sage-grouse breeding season by 83
percent. Nevertheless, collisions still
occurred at marked fences, especially
those in close proximity to spring
breeding sites, suggesting marking alone
did not completely resolve the concern.
Furthermore, while direct mortality
through collision may be minimized by
these approaches, indirect impacts
caused by predation and other forms of
habitat degradation may remain (see the
Fencing discussion under the
Infrastructure section of the Species
Report (Service 2015a, pp. 60–62)).
Therefore, a combination of approaches
to managing fences and their impacts
needs to be applied, which may include
removal. These efforts are currently
ongoing in the bi-State area (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, p. 5) as part of the BSAP.
With regards to the comment that
fencing may be considered a major
threat, we have described the impacts
that may occur from fencing based on
the best scientific and commercial
information available. We found that
fencing impacts are widespread but
generally minor. In addition,
management actions are being
undertaken to further ameliorate this
threat. For example, approximately 12
km (8 mi) of fencing has been removed
or modified in the bi-State area affecting
nearly 36 ha (90 ac) of habitat, and
approximately 29 km (18 mi) of fencing
has been marked with visual flight
diverters. Furthermore, the BLM
Resource Management Plan (RMP) and
USFS LRMP draft amendments
prepared by the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest, and the Carson City
District and Tonopah Field Office of the
BLM, specifically identify restrictions
on new fence installation and removal
or marking of fences already in place
within 3.2 km (2 mi) of an active lek
(USDI and USDA 2015, entire).
Although these draft plans contain the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22861
mentioned provisions for fencing, we do
not rely on them for our determination.
We note that there is no requirement
for Federal or non-Federal landowners
to develop a program that would require
fencing to be removed from the bi-State
area. We also believe that the removal
of fencing throughout the bi-State area
is not a reasonable consideration for
land managers. However, consideration
of alternative approaches to traditional
fencing would help reduce impacts of
fencing to sage-grouse (for example, use
of let-down fence designs), and we will
continue to work with partners to
encourage implementation of reduced or
alternative approaches to fencing in
areas that are most important to the biState DPS. Conservation efforts that
either underway currently or planned
forin the future can reduce fencing
impacts in priority areas (e.g., BLM’s
removal of racetrack fencing in Bodie
PMU, marking or modifying fencing in
Pine Nut and South Mono PMUs) (BiState TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(28) Comment: One commenter
disagreed with our characterization of
pinyon-juniper woodlands as a ‘‘native
invasive species.’’ Two additional
commenters suggested woodlands and
woodland expansion is natural and
should be left alone. Specifically,
commenters speculated that forest
occurrence is a reestablishment of sites
that were harvested during historic
mining in the later part of the 1800’s.
Our Response: We agree that the term
‘‘native invasive species’’ is
inappropriately applied to characterize
the current expansion of native tree
species into sagebrush habitats.
Executive Order 13112 defined an
invasive species as an exotic or native
species that is nonnative to the specific
ecosystem under consideration and
whose introduction causes or is likely to
cause economic environmental harm or
harm to human health (64 FR 6183,
February 8, 1999). This definition
includes species native to other parts of
North America; however, Miller et al.
(2011, p. 157) defined ‘‘increasers’’ as
species that occur within the region of
interest. Therefore, we have modified
our language where appropriate in this
document and our revised Species
Report (Service 2015a, entire).
Across the bi-State area,
approximately 40 percent of the
historically available sagebrush habitat
has been usurped by woodland
succession over the past 150 years
(USGS 2012, unpublished data). As
described in the Nonnative Invasive and
Native Increasing Plants section of the
Species Report, the cause of this
increase is likely multifaceted but most
certainly includes recovery from past
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22862
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
disturbances such as mining. However,
the support for this single mechanism is
not apparent. For example, there are
locations within the bi-State area where
there are stumps from harvested trees
that are attributable to the mining era;
however most locations do not contain
evidence of past tree cutting.
Furthermore, genetic evidence suggests
that sage-grouse populations contained
within the bi-State area were
historically more connected and not
until relatively recently have these
connections begun to erode (OylerMcCance et al. 2014, pp. 10–11). Thus,
this suggests that barriers to movement,
such as trees, were less restrictive
historically as compared to today.
Ultimately, the cause of woodland
encroachment becomes less relevant in
light of its implications as the response
to tree presence by sage-grouse is
uniformly negative (Commons et al.
1999, p. 238; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 187;
Freese 2009, pp. 84–85, 89–90; Casazza
et al. 2011, p. 159; Baruch-Mordo et al.
2013, p. 237). Therefore, management of
pinyon-juniper encroachment in
specific areas that would most benefit
the bi-State DPS (e.g., lek sites,
migration corridors, brood-rearing
habitat), and is consistent with our
understanding of a specific site’s
vegetation potential, is an important
consideration by land managers (as
described in the BSAP) to reduce this
impact on the bi-State DPS and its
habitat.
(29) Comment: One commenter
disagreed with our conclusion that
cheatgrass is a significant threat to the
bi-State DPS, which the commenter
believes was a departure from the BSAP
(Bi-State TAC 2012a).
Our Response: We identified
cheatgrass as an impact to the bi-State
DPS and its habitat because it can
replace vegetation essential to sagegrouse and negatively impact sagebrush
ecosystems by altering plant community
structure and composition, productivity,
nutrient cycling, and hydrology
(Vitousek 1990, p. 7; Miller et al. 2011,
pp. 160–164). We maintain that our
assessment and that of the BSAP (BiState TAC 2012a) are largely congruent.
The BSAP recognizes cheatgrass as a
threat in each of the six PMUs,
considering it a low-severity threat in
four PMUs, a moderate threat in one
PMU, and a high-level threat in one
PMU (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 26,
32, 37, 41, 49). We relied significantly
on the assessment in the BSAP to
inform our analysis and discussion in
the Species Report (Service 2013a,
2015a), the proposed listing rule, and
this document. However, we note that
climate change and the interaction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
between this change agent and other
stressors (such as cheatgrass) were not
evaluated during the BSAP assessment.
Thus, our evaluation in the Species
Report (Service 2013a, 2015a), the
proposed listing rule, and in this
document includes an assessment of the
potential influence climate change may
have on cheatgrass occurrence.
Available climate data suggest that
future cheatgrass conditions will be
most influenced by precipitation and
winter temperatures (Bradley 2009, p.
200). Predictions on the timing, type,
and amount of precipitation contain the
greatest uncertainty. In the bi-State area,
model scenarios that result in the
greatest expansion of cheatgrass suggest
much of the area remains suitable to
cheatgrass presence with some
additional high-elevation sites in the
Bodie Hills, White Mountains, and Long
Valley becoming more suitable than
they are today (Bradley 2009, p. 204).
On the opposite end of the spectrum,
model scenarios that result in the
greatest contraction in cheatgrass range
suggest low-elevation sites such as
Desert Creek-Fales and Mount Grant
PMUs become less suitable for this
invasive species, but high-elevation
sites (i.e., Bodie and White Mountains
PMUs) where habitat conditions are
generally marginal today become more
suitable in the future. Therefore, similar
to the BSAP, we recognize that
cheatgrass impacts today vary across the
bi-State region. However, in contrast to
the BSAP, we consider future impacts
will influence this threat and even the
best-case scenario suggests challenges
will persist, although the location of
these challenges may shift. Conservation
efforts that are either currenly under
way or planned for in the future can
reduce potential cheatgrass impacts in
priority areas (e.g., multiple BLM and
USFS invasive weed management
treatments in multiple PMUs) (Bi-State
TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(30) Comment: One commenter
suggested our estimate of woodland
expansion in the bi-State area is an
overestimate.
Our Response: We stated in our
proposed listing rule that across the biState area approximately 40 percent of
the historically available sagebrush
habitat has been usurped by woodland
succession over the past 150 years
(USGS 2012, unpublished data). No
additional information was received by
the commenter or others since the
proposed rule published that would
modify our understanding of this threat.
Therefore, based on the best available
information, we conclude that
woodland expansion is a potential
threat in the bi-State area as it has
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
reduced habitat availability and
negatively influenced population
connectivity. As a result, conservation
efforts that are currently underway or
planned for in the future can reduce
potential woodland succession impacts
in priority areas (e.g., BLM, USFS, and
NRCS treatments of Phase I and II
pinyon-juniper encroachment in all six
PMUs) (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(31) Comment: One commenter
expressed concern that listing the biState DPS would impact culturally
significant resources, specifically
referring to pinyon pine seed collection.
Our Response: We recognize that
many Native American Tribes consider
pinyon pine seed collection to be a
culturally significant resource. Under
the Act, we are required to use the best
available scientific and commercial
information to assess the factors
affecting a species in order to make a
status determination. The Act requires
us to consider all threats and impacts
that may be responsible for declines as
potential listing factors. The evidence
presented in the proposed rule suggests
that pinyon-juniper forest encroachment
is impacting the bi-State DPS and its
habitat to a certain degree (see our
response to Comments 30 and 32 above,
and the Native Increasing Plants section
of the Species Report (Service 2015a,
pp. 78–84)). Furthermore, we do not
believe that it is reasonable (both
ecologically and practicably) that all
pinyon-juniper woodlands will be
removed from the bi-State area.
Ecologists have developed clear
recommendations for targeting
woodland sites amenable to restoration
(based on age class, tree density, soil
type, etc.) and in general these locations
comprise younger age classes of trees,
which do not produce significant seed
crops. Although the Act does not allow
us the discretion to consider culturally
significant resources to inform a listing
decision, there does not appear to be a
remaining concern given our proposed
listing action is being withdrawn.
(32) Comment: Several commenters
suggest that fire is the most significant
threat to the bi-State DPS and post-fire
restoration is difficult. Alternatively,
several other commenters suggest that
fire is a natural process and does not
constitute a complete loss of habitat for
the bi-State DPS because sage-grouse
will use burned areas.
Our Response: In this document, we
address potential habitat changes that
may be related to wildland fires and
post-fire restoration activities. We agree
that fire is a natural process on the
landscape within the bi-State area;
however, we also note that we found
that the ‘‘too-little’’ and ‘‘too-much’’ fire
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
scenarios present challenges for the biState DPS. In other words, in some
locations, the lack of fire has facilitated
the expansion of woodlands, especially
into montane shrub communities. In
other locations, recent fires have been
followed by invasive-weed
establishment facilitating a reoccurring
fire cycle that restricts sagebrush
restoration. These scenarios present
challenges for the species, as habitat
losses outpace habitat gains. Although
fires have occurred across the range of
the bi-State DPS historically and
recently, we acknowledge that suitable
habitat remains for sage-grouse use.
However, in some cases, remaining
suitable habitat is threatened by
additional fire because of adjacent
invasive annual plants and woodland
establishment, which can influence the
frequency and intensity of future fire
events. Further, impacts to remaining
sagebrush habitat may be exacerbated
due to other additive threats that are
acting in the bi-State area (see
Synergistic ImpactsCumulative Effects
section above). To reduce impacts
associated with nonnative, invasive
plants and woodland succession,
conservation efforts are currently
underway and planned for in the future
(e.g., multiple BLM and USFS invasive
weed management treatments in
multiple PMUs), (e.g., BLM, USFS, and
NRCS treatments of Phase I and II
pinyon-juniper encroachment in all six
PMUs) (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
Additionally, while short-term (and
potentially long-term) impacts from fire
events to sage-grouse are known to
occur, including but not limited to
habitat loss and population declines
(Beck et al. 2012, p. 452; Knick et al.
2011, p. 233; Wisdom et al. 2011, p.
469), we agree that some information
suggests sage-grouse use of burned
habitat. Small fires may maintain a
suitable habitat mosaic by reducing
shrub encroachment and encouraging
understory growth. However, without
available nearby sagebrush cover, the
broad utility of these sites is
questionable (Woodward 2006, p. 65).
For example, Slater (2003, p. 63)
reported that sage-grouse using burned
areas were rarely found more than 60 m
(200 ft) from the edge of the burn and
may preferentially use the burned and
unburned edge habitat.
In summary, we recognize that fire is
natural and the primary disturbance
mechanism in the sagebrush ecosystem.
We also recognize that sage-grouse will
selectively utilize portions of burned
habitat. However, the challenge remains
that the sustainability of this system is
questionable where habitat loss
outpaces habitat gain, especially given
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
the currently limited and fragmented
suitable sagebrush habitat in the bi-State
area. Therefore, land managers within
the range of the bi-State DPS are
currently and will continue to
implement conservation efforts into the
future that are expected to reduce the
potential impacts of wildfire as it relates
to nonnative, invasive plants and
pinyon-juniper encroachment (Bi-State
TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(33) Comment: One commenter stated
that the Benton County landfill will
close in 2023. Another commenter
stated that there is no guarantee that the
landfill will close.
Our Response: We identified the
Benton County landfill (located in Long
Valley, California) as a potential threat
factor to the bi-State DPS because the
landfill helps support a significant
population of common ravens and Larus
californicus (California gulls). Common
ravens (and possibly California gulls)
can potentially affect population growth
in sage-grouse by negatively impacting
nesting and brood-rearing success
(Coates et al. 2008, pp. 425–426). While
predation has not been studied
explicitly, data do demonstrate that nest
success in Long Valley (South Mono
PMU) is significantly lower as compared
to other sage-grouse populations within
the bi-State area (Kolada et al. 2009a, p.
1,344) and this result may be
attributable to an increased number of
sage-grouse predators (i.e., ravens and
gulls) subsidized by landfill operations
(Casazza 2008, pers. comm.).
The Benton County landfill is located
on private property owned by the
LADWP and leased by Mono County,
California. The lease is set to expire in
2023 and both the LADWP and Mono
County state the lease will not be
renewed (Weiche 2013, pers. comm.;
Johnston 2014, in litt.).
(34) Comment: One commenter stated
that impacts to the bi-State DPS caused
by cellular towers can be mitigated by
installing anti-perching devices to
prevent perching by avian predators.
Our Response: We identified cellular
towers as an impact to the bi-State DPS
and its habitat because the presence of
this form of infrastructure has been
shown to be correlated with extirpated
range (Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 463).
Furthermore, distance to cellular towers
appeared to be a highly discriminatory
variable explaining extirpation. The
mechanism by which this feature may
lead to sage-grouse extirpation has not
been studied. Thus, whether cellular
towers function in a cause and effect
manner (such as facilitating predation)
or simply are aligned with other
detrimental factors (such as being an
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22863
indicator of intense human
development) is not known.
The Service acknowledges that
installation of anti-perching devices on
tall structures (such as cellular towers)
may influence predation rates. However,
the efficacy of this practice to
discourage raptor and corvid perching is
debatable (Prather and Messmer 2010, p.
798), and increased predation may not
be the mechanism leading to
extirpation. Thus, while we generally
agree that perch deterrents may
ameliorate any increased predation
impacts caused by cellular towers on
sage-grouse, available data do not
support the idea that these devices
(currently) can eliminate the threat
entirely. We will continue to work with
landowners and partners to remove or
reduce impacts from existing or
potential future cellular towers,
especially in proximity to breeding,
nesting, and brood-rearing habitats.
(35) Comment: Several commenters
suggested that climate change poses a
significant impact to the bi-State DPS
and its habitat, including one
commenter that stated we
underestimated the impact that climate
change may have on the DPS.
Our Response: In this document
under Factors A and E, we address
potential impacts associated with
climate change. We found that projected
climate change and its associated
consequences have the potential to
affect sage-grouse, and sagebrush habitat
in the bi-State area. The impacts of
climate change interact with other
stressors such as disease, invasive
species, prey availability, moisture,
vegetation community dynamics,
disturbance regimes, and other habitat
degradations and loss that are already
affecting the species (Global Climate
Change Impacts in the United States
2009, p. 81; Miller et al. 2011, pp. 174–
179; Walker and Naugle 2011, entire;
Finch 2012, pp. 60, 80). We concluded
that without consideration of
conservation actions, the overall impact
of climate change to the bi-State DPS at
this time is moderate. Neither the
commenters nor others provided new
information related to climate change
that would result in a change in our
analysis. However, since the publication
of the proposed rule, ongoing
implementation of various conservation
measures in the BSAP has reduced the
significance of the threat of wildfire and
invasive plants, which could work
synergistically with climate to impact
sage grouse. Continued implementation
of the BSAP further reduces the impacts
of these threats to the bi-State sagegrouse. Therefore, even should climate
change increase the threat of wildfire
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
22864
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and invasive plants to some degree, we
no longer conclude that climate change
acting in concert with these other
threats constitutes a significant threat to
the bi-State DPS. See the Climate
section of the Species Report for further
discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 91–99).
(36) Comment: One commenter stated
that the proposed listing rule violates
Executive Order 13563, as the Service
fails to identify a recovery goal.
Our Response: We disagree that
Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821)
should be interpreted to require the
Service to identify a recovery goal when
proposing a listing rule under the ESA.
The ESA requires the Service to create
recovery plans for all listed species that
contain objective, measurable criteria
that, when met, would lead to removal
of the species from the list. These
recovery plans are created following a
final determination to list a species as
threatened or endangered. In this case,
we are withdrawing our proposal to list
the bi-state DPS of greater sage-grouse.
(37) Comment: Several commenters
stated that the court-mandated timeline
for making a final listing determination
is too short and does not allow adequate
time to determine if conservation
efforts, such as those identified in the
2012 BSAP, are sufficient to maintain a
viable sage-grouse population in the biState area.
Our Response: In 2011, we reached,
and the court accepted, a stipulated
settlement agreement with several
plaintiffs in Endangered Species Act
Section 4 Deadline Litig., Misc. Action
No. 10–377 (EGS), Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) Docket No. 2165 (D.
DC) (known as the ‘‘MDL case’’). This
settlement established a multiyear
workplan, whereby we committed to
publish proposed rules or not-warranted
findings on 251 species designated as
candidates as of 2010 no later than
September 30, 2016. Our time line
associated with the bi-State DPS reflects
this workplan.
(38) Comment: Several commenters
stated that we should have proposed
listing the bi-State DPS of greater sagegrouse as an endangered species as
opposed to a threatened species.
Our Response: Section 3 of the Act
defines an endangered species as any
species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range, and a threatened species as
any species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Endangered species are at the brink of
extinction today, while threatened
species are likely to be at the brink in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
the foreseeable future if their status does
not improve or at least stabilize.
With regard to the bi-State DPS, we
have identified potential threats across
the range of the bi-State DPS that are
synergistically resulting in the present
or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range,
and other natural or manmade threats
affecting the DPS’s continued existence.
We have determined that, in the absence
of any conservation efforts, these
impacts are such that the DPS is likely
to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future (i.e., the
definition of a threatened species).
Many of these impacts could act
cumulatively upon the bi-State DPS and
increase the risk of extinction, but not
to such a degree that the DPS is in
danger of extinction today (see
Determination, above). However, after
consideration of partially completed
projects and future conservation efforts
that we have found to be highly certain
to be implemented and effective (see
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE) section, above), we believe the
bi-State DPS is not in danger of
becoming extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and is
not likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Therefore, the bi-State DPS of
greater sage-grouse does not meet the
definition of a threatened or endangered
species, and we are withdrawing the
proposed rule to list the DPS as a
threatened species.
(39) Comment: Several commenters
suggested that the decline of the bi-State
DPS is a natural evolutionary process,
and that the presence of environmental
stressors is a normal driver of evolution
and extinction.
Our Response: Under the Act, we are
required to use the best available
scientific and commercial information
to assess the factors affecting a species
in order to make a status determination.
The Act requires the Service to consider
all threats and impacts that may be
responsible for declines as potential
listing factors. The evidence presented
suggests that the threats to the species
are both natural and manmade (see
impacts associated with Factor E,
including (but not limited to)
infrastructure, wildfire, small
population size, urbanization, and
recreation).
(40) Comment: A few commenters
were concerned about the effects of
listing on mining and associated
activities conducted under the General
Mining Law of 1872. One commenter
suggested that listing did not take into
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consideration Federal mining law and
recognition of valid existing rights.
Another commenter was concerned that
there would be no assurances that
development of a mining claim will
result in the ability to mine it.
Our Response: In the proposed listing
rule, we identified mining and
associated activities to be a threat to the
bi-State DPS; however, we consider it a
less significant impact and one that does
not occur across the entire bi-State area.
On federally managed land outside of
designated wilderness, new mining may
occur pursuant to the Mining Law of
1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), which was
enacted to promote exploration and
development of domestic mineral
resources, as well as the settlement of
the western United States. It permits
U.S. citizens and businesses to prospect
hardrock (locatable) minerals and, if a
valuable deposit is found, file a claim
giving them the right to use the land for
mining activities and sell the minerals
extracted. Gold and other minerals are
frequently mined as locatable minerals,
and, as such, mining is subject to the
Mining Law of 1872. Authorization of
mining under the Mining Law of 1872
is a discretionary agency action
pursuant to section 7 of the Act.
Therefore, Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over land where mining
occurs will review mining and other
actions that they fund, authorize, or
carry out to determine if listed species
may be affected in accordance with
section 7 of the Act. Because we have
withdrawn our proposed rule to list the
bi-State DPS and it will not be placed
on the list of federally endangered or
threatened species, consultations under
section 7 of the Act will not be required
specific to the bi-State DPS.
(41) Comment: Several commenters
stated that conservation efforts to date
have not been adequate to address
known threats.
Our Response: While considerable
effort has been expended over the past
several years to address some of the
known threats throughout portions or
all of the bi-State DPS’s estimated
occupied range, without
implementation of conservation actions,
threats to the continued viability of the
DPS into the future would remain. The
development of the 2012 BSAP (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, entire) has highlighted the
importance of not only habitat
restoration and enhancement but also
the role of the States and other partners
in reducing many of the known threats
to the bi-State DPS. Cooperative,
committed efforts by Federal and State
agencies, as well as Mono County will
result in full implementation of the
BSAP, including funding and staffing
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
commitments over the next 10 years to
address the most significant impacts to
the DPS and its habitat (BLM 2014c, in
litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County
2014, in litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.;
USDA 2014, in litt.; USGS 2014c, in
litt.). Such plans provide the ongoing,
targeted implementation of effective
conservation actions that are essential
for the conservation of the bi-State DPS
and its habitat into the future. We
discuss the various conservation efforts
that are currently ongoing and planned
for in the future within the estimated
occupied range of the bi-State DPS of
greater sage-grouse in more detail in the
Ongoing and Future Conservation
Efforts section and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE))
sections of this document.
(42) Comment: Numerous
commenters questioned our conclusion
that sage-grouse populations in the biState area have declined. Further,
several commenters stated that listing is
not warranted because recent data
suggest stable to increasing population
trends.
Our Response: Our analysis in the
proposed rule and presented in this
document was based upon the best
available scientific and commercial
information, and constitutes our final
determination, in accordance with
section 4(b)(6)(A) of the Act. Based on
our analysis of the five factors identified
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and as
explained further in the published
finding, we have concluded that
population declines have been on par
with reductions in sagebrush extent (see
our response to Comment 3 above).
Further, as discussed above (see our
response to Comment 7), we determined
in the Species Information section of the
proposed rule and Bi-State DPS
Population Trends section of the
Species Report that declining
population trends were apparent in the
Pine Nut, Desert Creek–Fales, and
Mount Grant PMUs. Further, we
concluded that the South Mono and
Bodie PMUs appeared stable and the
population trend in the White
Mountains PMU was unknown. In this
final analysis and the Bi-State DPS
Population Trends section of the
updated Species Report, we describe
new information received related to
populations and trends. In summary,
these new data estimate that population
growth has been stable across the biState area between 2003 and 2012
(Coates et al. 2014, entire). Specifically,
estimated population growth was
positive for four of the six populations
analyzed (Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Bodie
Hills, Long Valley) and negative for the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
remaining two populations analyzed
(Fales, Parker Meadows) over this time
period. A population trend assessment
was not conducted for the Mount Grant
and White Mountains PMUs due to lack
of data.
Based on our analysis of the five
factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, and after consideration of
partially completed and future
conservation efforts that we have found
to be certain of implementation and
effectiveness (as described in our
detailed PECE analysis available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R8–ES–2013–0072), we believe the biState DPS is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened).
(43) Comment: Numerous
commenters suggested that our grazing
and rangeland management assessment
in the proposed rule is not accurate and
requires additional clarification.
Specifically, they suggested that: (1)
Current livestock grazing is compatible
with sage-grouse conservation in the biState area, (2) a more clearly defined
delineation is needed between past and
present grazing impacts, and (3)
additional delineation is needed among
grazing animals (i.e., cattle, horses,
sheep, insects, etc.). Alternatively,
several other commenters suggested that
grazing and rangeland management are
a significant threat to the bi-State DPS’s
conservation, and this threat is not
adequately controlled by existing
management programs.
Our Response: In this document we
present a summary of the Grazing and
Rangeland Management section of the
Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 71–
77), in which we found that the majority
of allotments in the bi-State area are not
significantly impacted by livestock
grazing. Specifically, Rangeland Health
Assessments (RHAs) or their equivalents
(i.e., the standard used by Federal
agencies to assess habitat condition)
have been completed on allotments
covering approximately 81 percent of
suitable sage-grouse habitat in the biState area. Of the allotments with RHAs
completed, 81 percent (n=97) are
meeting upland vegetation standards,
suggesting that approximately 352,249
ha (870,427 ac) out of approximately
563,941 ha (1,393,529 ac) of suitable
sage-grouse habitat are known to be in
a condition compatible with sagebrush
community maintenance. Furthermore,
of the allotments with RHA completed,
45 percent are meeting riparian
standards and 27 percent are not, with
the remainder being unknown or the
allotment does not contain riparian
habitat. Of those not meeting riparian
standards, approximately 15 percent,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
22865
livestock were a significant or partially
significant cause for the allotment
failing to meet identified standards
while the remainders were attributed to
other causes such as past mining
activity or road presence. In each
instance (upland or riparian) of an
allotment not meeting standards due to
livestock, remedial actions have been
taken by the representative land
managing agency (such as changes in
intensity, duration, or season of use by
livestock). Therefore, we concluded that
modern livestock grazing is not a
significant impact on sage-grouse
habitat.
Furthermore, we note that historical
impacts from livestock grazing and
impacts caused by feral horses are
apparent, but data to assess these
impacts are largely limited. None of the
commenters provided additional data to
assist with this assessment. In total, we
believe that historical impacts (past
grazing and other land uses) and
impacts from feral horse use is apparent
in local areas, but we consider current
management to be sufficient to address
these issues.
(44) Comment: Several commenters
suggested that existing regulatory
mechanisms are insufficient to affect
conservation of the bi-State DPS.
Alternatively, several other commenters
suggested that existing regulatory
mechanisms are adequate.
Our Response: Under the Act, we
determine that a species is endangered
or threatened based on our analysis of
the five listing factors, which includes
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. For the bi-State DPS, we
must evaluate the adequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms from the
baseline of the DPS not being federally
listed under the Act.
In the proposed listing rule, we
concluded that most existing regulatory
mechanisms are sufficiently vague as to
offer limited certainty as to managerial
direction pertaining to sage-grouse
conservation, particularly as they relate
to addressing the threats that are
significantly impacting the bi-State DPS
(i.e., nonnative, invasive and certain
native plants; wildfire and altered
wildfire regime; infrastructure; and
rangeland management). However, we
note one exception: Our support for the
BLM Bishop Field Office’s 1993 RMP,
which precludes any discretionary
action that may adversely affect sagegrouse or sage-grouse habitat (BLM
1993, p. 18). Furthermore, we recognize
that some County policies and
ordinances while not precluding
development have, at times, limited
development (Service 2015a, pp. 129–
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
22866
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
130); thus, these efforts also need to be
recognized.
Since that proposal, we have fully
evaluated the BSAP and determined
that it ameolirates threats to the species,
lessening the need for regulatory
mechanisms to manage stressors. The
currently proposed BLM and Forest
Service Land Use Plan amendments will
provide additional specificity and
certainty that compliment the BSAP
conservation of the bi-State DPS and its
habitat. We mention the draft plans in
this document to recognize that the
BLM and the USFS have taken steps to
draft such plans, which will make their
language consistent with the actions
being undertaken in the BSAP.
However, we are not relying on them as
part of this review because they are not
finalized and would require speculation
on the Service’s part as to the final
outcomes of the plans. Since we have
determined that the ongoing and future
conservation efforts under the BSAP are
removing the threats to the bi-State DPS
as discussed above, we find that the
currently existing regulatory mecanisms
are adequate.
(45) Comment: Two commenters
suggested that our conclusion in the
proposed rule about the potential
impacts to the bi-State DPS caused by
transmission lines is incorrect.
Additionally, other commenters
disagree with our conclusion that the
number of transmission lines may
increase.
Our Response: In the Infrastructure
section of this document and the Power
Lines section of the Species Report
(Service 2015a, pp. 56–60), we address
potential impacts associated with
transmission lines. We found that a
variety of power lines (transmission and
distribution) currently occur throughout
the range of the bi-State DPS. While we
recognize that the potential impact
caused by power line presence remains
debatable in the scientific community
(Johnson et al. 2011, p. 440; Wisdom et
al. 2011, p. 463; Messmer et al. 2013,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:18 Apr 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
entire), the best available information
infers that power line presence
negatively impacts sage-grouse. Since
the proposed rule published, we
received additional information on
transmission lines that further supports
our conclusion (Gibson et al. 2013, p.
23; Gillan et al. 2013, p. 307). Therefore,
we maintain that power line presence
negatively affects the DPS.
Also, in our proposed rule, we stated
that ‘‘infrastructure features are likely to
increase (secondary roads, power lines,
fencing, and communication towers).’’
While this forecast remains uncertain, it
is logical that power line development
will occur to some unknown degree in
light of potential future energy, mineral,
and housing development in the bi-State
area. As a result, land managers
implement conservation efforts that
reduce potential infrastructure-related
impacts, including (but not limited to)
reducing human disturbance,
development, and associated
infrastructure (e.g., power lines) in
Mono County (e.g., Mono County 2014,
in litt.), or in some cases removing
power lines in critical sage-grouse areas
(e.g., the BLM’s removal of the Bodiesub to Fletcher-sub power line in the
Bodie PMU) (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.)
(46) Comment: Several commenters
stated that they believe mining is not a
threat to the bi-State DPS. Alternatively,
another commenter suggested impacts
from mining are significant.
Our Response: In the Mining section
of this document, we address potential
impacts associated with mining
activities. We found that sage-grouse
could be impacted directly or indirectly
from an increase in human presence,
land use practices, ground shock, noise,
dust, reduced air quality, degradation of
water quality and quantity, and changes
in vegetation and topography (Moore
and Mills 1977, entire; Brown and
Clayton 2004, p. 2) (Factor E). However,
we recognize that while theoretical
effects are clear and logical, information
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
relating sage-grouse response to mineral
developments is not extensive. Neither
the commenters nor others provided
new information related to this threat.
While we maintain that it is reasonable
to assume a negative impact from
mining on sage-grouse, based on the
current extent and location of mineral
developments in the bi-State area we
conclude that by itself, mining is not
considered a significant impact at this
time. However, mining is a potential
concern for the future based on the
potential for mining activities to impact
important lek complexes and
population connectivity, and the likely
synergistic effects occurring when this
threat is combined with other threats
acting on the bi-State DPS currently and
in the future. See the Mining section of
the Species Report for a complete
discussion of the potential effects of
mining activities on the bi-State DPS
and its habitat (Service 2015a, pp. 65–
68).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this document is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0072 or
upon request from the Field Supervisor,
Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Pacific
Southwest Regional Office and Reno
Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 13, 2015.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–09417 Filed 4–21–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\23APP2.SGM
23APP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22827-22866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09417]
[[Page 22827]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 78
April 23, 2015
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the
Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of
Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 78 / Thursday, April 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22828]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072; Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042;
4500030113; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AY10; RIN 1018-AZ70
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the
Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of
Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the
proposed rule to list the bi-State distinct population segment (DPS) of
greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in California and
Nevada as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), as well as the proposed rules under section 4(d) of the
Act and to designate critical habitat for the bi-State DPS of greater
sage-grouse. These withdrawals are based on our conclusion that the
threats to the DPS as identified in the proposed listing rule no longer
are as significant as believed at the time of publication of the
proposed rule. We find the best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that the threats to the DPS and its habitat, given
current and future conservation efforts, are reduced below the
statutory definition of threatened or endangered. Therefore, we are
withdrawing our proposal to list the bi-State DPS of greater sage-
grouse as threatened with critical habitat.
DATES: The October 28, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 64358) to list the
bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse as a threatened species and the
October 28, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 64328) to designate critical
habitat for the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse are withdrawn as of
April 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The withdrawal of our proposed rule, comments, and
supplementary documents are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Nos. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072 and FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0042. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this withdrawal, are also
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone
775-861-6300; or facsimile 775-861-6301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, Reno
Fish and Wildlife 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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish this document. Under the Endangered Species
Act, a species may warrant protection through listing if it is
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can
only be completed by issuing a rule. We issued a proposed rule to list
a distinct population segment (DPS) of greater sage-grouse in
California and Nevada (known as the bi-State DPS) in 2013. However,
this document withdraws that proposed rule because we now determine
that threats identified in the proposed rule have been reduced such
that listing is not necessary for this DPS. Accordingly, we also
withdraw the proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act and proposed
critical habitat designation.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we can
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. We now determine that threats have
been reduced such that listing is not necessary for this DPS.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our consideration of the status of the
species is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing
proposal. We also considered all comments and information received
during the comment periods. Public comments and peer reviewer comments
are addressed at the end of this Federal Register document.
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document
We use many acronyms and abbreviations throughout this document. To
assist the reader, we provide a list of these here for easy reference:
Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
BSAP = Bi-State Action Plan
CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game (see below)
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
COT = Conservation Objectives Team
CPT = Conservation Planning Tool
DPS = Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of the Greater Sage-
Grouse
EOC = Executive Oversight Committee
FR = Federal Register
GIS = Geographic Information System
GPS = Global Positioning System
LADWP = Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LAWG = Local Area Working Group
LRMP = Land Resource Management Plan
MDL = Multi-District Litigation
NDOW = Nevada Department of Wildlife
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service
OHV = Off-highway Vehicle
PECE = Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions
PMU = Population Management Unit
RHA = Rangeland Health Assessment
RMP = Resource Management Plan
RSF = Resource Selection Function
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TAC = Technical Advisory Committee
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WNv = West Nile Virus
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the bi-State DPS (78
FR 64358; October 28, 2013) of greater sage-grouse for a detailed
description of the Federal actions concerning this DPS that occurred
prior to publication of the proposed listing rule. We concurrently
published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the bi-
State DPS of greater sage-grouse (78 FR 64328; October 28, 2013). We
received requests to extend the public comment periods on the rules
beyond the December 27, 2013, due date. In order to ensure that the
public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on our
proposed rules, we extended the comment periods for an additional 45
days to February 10, 2014 (78 FR 77087; December 20, 2013).
On April 8, 2014, we reopened the comment period on our October 28,
2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS and the proposed critical
habitat rule (79 FR 19314). We also announced
[[Page 22829]]
two public hearings: (1) April 29, 2014, in Minden, Nevada; and (2)
April 30, 2014, in Bishop, California. These meetings were subsequently
cancelled for unrelated reasons. On May 9, 2014, we published a notice
announcing the rescheduled hearings to take place on May 28, 2014, and
May 29, 2014, respectively (79 FR 26684). The April 8, 2014, notice
also announced a 6-month extension of the final determination of
whether or not to list the bi-State DPS as a threatened species, which
would automatically delay any decision regarding critical habitat for
the bi-State DPS. The comment period was reopened (until June 9, 2014),
and our determination on the final listing action was delayed based on
substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the
available data relevant to the proposed listing, making it necessary to
solicit additional information. Thus, we announced that we would
publish a listing determination on or before April 28, 2015.
On June 3, 2014, we announced an extension of the comment period on
the proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR 31901), the availability of a
draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat
for the bi-State DPS, and an amended required determinations section of
the proposed critical habitat rule (available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042).
On August 5, 2014, we provided an additional comment period on our
October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS (79 FR 45420)
based on new information received regarding population trends and
recent State and Federal agency funding and staffing commitments for
various conservation efforts associated with the Bi-State Action Plan
(BSAP; Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 2012, entire). The
comment period closed on September 4, 2014.
Background
In our 12-month finding on petitions to list three entities of
sage-grouse (75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010), we found that the bi-State
population of greater sage-grouse in California and Nevada meets our
criteria as a DPS of the greater sage-grouse under Service policy (61
FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We reaffirmed this finding in the proposed
listing rule and do so again here in this document. This determination
was based principally on genetic information (Benedict et al. 2003, p.
308; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,307), where the DPS was found to
be both markedly separated and significant to the remainder of the
greater sage-grouse taxon. The bi-State DPS defines the far
southwestern limit of the species' range along the border of eastern
California and western Nevada (Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 1-11; 71 FR
76058).
Although the bi-State DPS is a genetically unique and markedly
separate population from the rest of the greater sage-grouse's range,
the DPS has similar life-history and habitat requirements. In the
proposed rule and this document, we use information specific to the bi-
State DPS where available but still apply scientific management
principles for greater sage-grouse that are relevant to the bi-State
DPS's management needs and strategies, which is a practice followed by
the wildlife and land management agencies that have responsibility for
management of both the DPS and its habitat.
A detailed discussion of the bi-State DPS's description, taxonomy,
habitat (sagebrush ecosystem), seasonal habitat selection, life-history
characteristics, home range, life expectancy and survival rates,
historical and current range distribution, population estimates and lek
(sage-grouse breeding complex) counts, population trends, and land
ownership information is available in the Species Report (Service
2015a, entire). A team of Service biologists prepared this status
review for the bi-State DPS. The team included biologists from the
Service's Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest Regional
Office, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, and national Headquarters
Office. The Species Report represents a compilation of the best
scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the
bi-State DPS, including the past, present, and future threats to this
DPS. The Species Report and other materials relating to this final
agency action can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based upon our review of the public comments, Federal and State
agency comments, peer review comments, issues addressed at the public
hearings, and any new relevant information that became available since
the publication of the proposal, we reevaluated our proposed listing
rule and made changes as appropriate. Other than minor clarifications
and incorporation of additional information on the species' biology and
populations, this determination differs from the proposal in the
following ways:
(1) Based on our analyses of the potential threats to the species,
and our consideration of partially completed, ongoing and future
conservation efforts (as outlined in the Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section of
this document), we have determined that the bi-State DPS should not be
listed as a threatened species. Specifically, we have determined that
conservation efforts (as outlined in the BSAP, Agency commitment
letters, and our detailed PECE analysis (all of which are available at
https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072)), as well
as the TAC comprehensive project database) will continue to be
implemented because (to date) we have a documented track record of
active participation and implementation by the signatory agencies, and
commitments to continue implementation into the future. Conservation
measures, such as (but not limited to) pinyon-juniper removal,
establishment of conservation easements for critical brood-rearing
habitat, cheatgrass removal, permanent and seasonal closure of roads
near leks, removal and marking of fencing, and restoration of riparian/
meadow habitat have been occurring over the past decade, are currently
occurring, and have been prioritized and placed on the agencies'
implementation schedules for future implementation. Agencies have
committed to remain participants in the BSAP and continue conservation
of the DPS and its habitat. Additionally, the BSAP has sufficient
methods for determining the type and location of the most beneficial
conservation actions to be implemented, including continued development
of new population and threats information in the future that will guide
conservation efforts. As a result of these actions, this document
withdraws the proposed rule as published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR
64358).
(2) The addition of the Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts
section, which includes some information presented in the Available
Conservation Measures section of the proposed listing rule and the
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) section following the Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species section, below.
(3) The addition of a discussion under the Small Population Size
and Population Structure section that synthesizes information to
evaluate resiliency, redundancy, and representation as they relate to
the bi-State DPS.
(4) New information was received following publication of the
proposed listing rule. Some of the information was in response to our
request for
[[Page 22830]]
scientific peer review of the proposed listing rule, while other
information was a result of new literature now available, or updated
regulations. We incorporated all new information into the Species
Report (Service 2015a, entire), which is available on the Internet at
www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072), as well as within
this Federal Register document where appropriate. New information
includes (but is not limited to):
A variety of biological or habitat clarifications, such as
hen movement distances, nesting success, and invasive plant species
influence on sagebrush-habitat dynamics.
A recent trend analysis conducted by Coates et al. (2014,
entire) examined six populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Fales,
Bodie Hills, Parker Meadows, and Long Valley) over a 10-year period
between 2003 and 2012. The results suggest that four of the six
populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Bodie Hills, and Long
Valley) are stable. Population growth was variable among the
populations, and results for the Pine Nut population are not considered
to be reliable due to the small sample size associated with a single
active lek (see Species Information above).
Two genetic evaluations, one of which concluded there are
between three and four unique genetic clusters within the bi-State area
(Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p. 8), and a second that concluded there
were five unique genetic clusters (Tebbenkamp 2014, p. 18). Tebbenkamp
(2014) did not evaluate the Pine Nut population; thus, six populations
may have been identified by Tebbenkamp (2014) had the Pine Nut
population data been available.
Species Information
As stated above, the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse is
genetically unique and markedly separate from the rest of the species'
range. The species as a whole is long-lived, reliant on sagebrush,
highly traditional in areas of seasonal habitat use, and particularly
susceptible to habitat fragmentation and alterations in its environment
(see the Seasonal Habitat Selection and Life History Characteristics
section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 11-15)). Sage-grouse
annually exploit numerous habitat types in the sagebrush ecosystem
across broad landscapes to successfully complete their life cycle, thus
spanning ecological and political boundaries. Populations are slow-
growing due to low reproductive rates (Schroeder et al. 1999 pp. 11,
14; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 969-970), and they exhibit natural,
cyclical variability in abundance (see Current Range/Distribution and
Population Estimates/Annual Lek Counts section of the Species Report
(Service 2015a, pp. 17-31)).
For the purposes of this document, we discuss the bi-State DPS
populations, threats to those populations, and associated management
needs or conservation actions as they relate to population management
units (PMUs). Six PMUs were established in 2001 as management tools for
defining and monitoring sage-grouse distribution in the bi-State area
(Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 31). The PMU
boundaries are based on aggregations of leks, known seasonal habitats,
and telemetry data, which represent generalized subpopulations or local
breeding complexes. The six PMUs include: Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales,
Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. These six
PMUs represent a total of three to six demographically independent
populations with a combined total of approximately 43 active leks (see
Table 1 below; Service 2015a, pp. 17-31). Leks are considered either
active (e.g., two or more strutting males during at least 2 years in a
5-year period), inactive (e.g., surveyed three or more times during one
breeding season with no birds detected and no sign (e.g., droppings)
observed), historical (e.g., no strutting activity for 20 years and
have been checked according to State protocol at least intermittently),
or unknown/pending (e.g., sign was observed, and one or no strutting
males observed, or a lek that had activity the prior year but was not
surveyed or surveyed under unsuitable conditions during the current
year and reported one or no strutting males).
Table 1--Bi-State DPS Population Management Units (PMUs), PMU Size, Estimated Suitable Sage-Grouse Habitat,
Estimated Range in Population Size, Number of Active Leks, and Reported Range in Total Males Counted on All Leks
Within Each PMU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Total size suitable Estimated Current Lek count (number
PMU hectares habitat population size number of of males) range
(acres) * hectares range (2004- active leks (2004-2014) ***
(acres) ** 2014) *** ***[dagger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Nut..................... 232,440 77,848 <100-608........ 1 0-38
(574,373) (192,367)
Desert Creek-Fales........... 229,858 105,281 638-2,061....... 10 78-220
(567,992) (260,155)
Mount Grant.................. 282,907 45,786 171-3,058....... 6 12-215
(699,079) (113,139)
Bodie........................ 141,490 105,698 640-2,466....... 12 136-524
(349,630) (261,187)
South Mono................... 234,508 138,123 965-2,005....... 11 205-426
(579,483) (341,311)
White Mountains.............. 709,768 53,452 Data not 3+ 5-14
(1,753,875) (132,083) available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... 1,830,972 526,188 2,497-9,828..... 43 427-1,404
(all PMUs combined)...... (4,524,432) (1,300,238)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bi-State Local Planning Group (2004, pp. 11, 32, 63, 102, 127, 153).
** Bi-State TAC (2012, unpublished data); Bureau of Land Management (BLM 2014a, unpublished data).
*** California Department of Wildlife (CDFW 2014a, unpublished data), Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW 2014a,
unpublished data).
[dagger] Active--two or more strutting males during at least 2 years in a 5-year period.
NOTE--Area values for ``Total Size'' and ``Estimated Suitable Habitat'' may not sum due to rounding.
NOTE--Estimated population and lek count totals are not a sum of the PMU cells. Totals represent minimum and
maximum estimates between 2004 and 2014. Minimum numbers were documented in 2008 and maximum in 2012.
[[Page 22831]]
Each sage-grouse population in the bi-State area is relatively
small, as is the entire DPS on average, which is estimated at 2,497 to
9,828 individuals (CDFW 2014a, unpublished data; NDOW 2014a,
unpublished data). Based on the maximum number of males counted on
leks, the two largest populations exist in the Bodie (Bodie Hills
population) and South Mono (Long Valley population) PMUs. The remaining
PMUs contain smaller populations. Although population estimates derived
from lek surveys (and presented in Table 1, above) suggest the Mount
Grant and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs rival populations in the Bodie and
South Mono PMUs, we consider population estimates for the two former
PMUs to be inflated due to differences in survey method (helicopter
versus on-the-ground) as well as differences in the specific estimator
formula used by the NDOW versus the CDFW.
In 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed an analysis of
population trends in the bi-State area between 2003 to 2012 (Coates et
al. 2014, entire). This analysis, termed an Integrated Population
Model, integrates a variety of data such as lek counts and vital rate
information to inform an estimate of population growth within the DPS.
This analysis evaluated several populations in the bi-State area
including the Pine Nut (Pine Nut PMU), Fales (California portion of the
Desert Creek-Fales PMU), Desert Creek (Nevada Portion of the Desert
Creek-Fales PMU), Bodie Hills (Bodie PMU), Parker Meadows (South Mono
PMU), and Long Valley (South Mono PMU) populations. It did not evaluate
the Mount Grant (Mount Grant PMU) or White Mountains (White Mountains
PMU) populations due to data limitations. Results suggest the evaluated
populations, in their entirety, are stable (both growing and declining)
between 2003 and 2012 (Coates et al. 2014, p. 19). However, the trend
in population growth was variable among populations (Coates et al.
2014, pp. 14-15). Details pertaining to specific population and PMUs
are provided below.
Two recent and independent genetic evaluations have been conducted
in the bi-State area. Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p. 8) concluded there
are between three and four unique genetic clusters within the bi-State
area, while Tebbenkamp (2014, p. 18) concluded there were five unique
genetic clusters. In addition, Tebbenkamp (2014, p. 12) did not
evaluate the Pine Nut population, which Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p.
8) found to be unique. Thus, presumably Tebbenkamp (2014, entire) would
have differentiated six populations had these data been available.
Based on this information, we presume that there are likely three to
six populations or groups of birds in the bi-State area that largely
operate demographically independent of one another.
Overall, the remaining habitat is reduced in quality from what we
currently consider high-quality habitat for the bi-State DPS (see
various Impact Analysis discussions in the Species Report including,
but not limited to, the Infrastructure, Nonnative, Invasive and Native
Increasing Plants, and Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime sections
(Service 2015a, pp. 45-91)) and, thereby, sage-grouse carrying capacity
likely also is reduced. Additionally, the best available data indicate
that reductions in sage-grouse abundance proportionally exceed habitat
loss (in other words, because sage-grouse habitat abundance has been
reduced on the order of 50 percent over the past 150 years, the
expected sage-grouse population numbers (or abundance) are reduced by
more than 50 percent over the same time period). The residual limited
connectivity of populations and habitats within and among the PMUs also
continues to slowly erode (Service 2015a, pp. 16-33, 45-52, 57, 58, 61,
63-65, 67, 69, 82-84, 86, 121-122, 124, 143, 144-150). However, as
discussed in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section (below), conservation efforts
are effectively reducing the risk of further habitat loss and helping
maintain connectivity.
At the time of the proposed listing rule, we stated that declining
bi-State DPS population trends were continuing for the Pine Nut, Desert
Creek-Fales, and Mount Grant PMUs, with an unknown trend for the White
Mountains PMU (Service 2013a, pp. 21-29). However, a more recent trend
analysis conducted by Coates et al. (2014, p. 19) examining six
populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Fales, Bodie Hills, Parker
Meadows, and Long Valley) over a 10-year period between 2003 to 2012
estimated these populations to be stable (not growing or declining)
(see Current Range/Distribution and Population Estimates/Annual Lek
Counts section of the Species Report). Specifically, this analysis
characterized population growth rates as positive for four of the six
populations analyzed (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Bodie Hills, and
Long Valley), and negative for the remaining two populations (i.e.,
Fales, Parker Meadows). We note, however, that although this model
projected a positive growth rate for the Pine Nut population, the
single active lek used to partially inform the Pine Nut PMU model for
this trend analysis had zero males strutting in 2013 and a single male
in 2014. Therefore, we interpret these model results, particularly for
this population, with caution.
The Bodie and South Mono PMUs form the central core of the bi-State
DPS. The Bodie Hills and Long Valley populations within these two PMUs
are the largest sage-grouse populations in the bi-State area. These
PMUs encompass between approximately 45 and 64 percent of existing bi-
State DPS individuals (Service 2015a, p. 20). These PMUs are relatively
stable at present (estimates range from approximately 640 to 2,466
individuals in the Bodie PMU and 965 to 2,005 individuals in the South
Mono PMU (CDFW 2014a, unpublished data; NDOW 2014a, unpublished data;
Coates et al. 2014, p. 15)), and the scope and severity of known
impacts are comparatively less than in other PMUs. These PMUs currently
are relatively stable with overall fewer impacts as compared to the
other four PMUs, despite having experienced prior habitat losses,
population declines, and internal habitat fragmentation. Significant
connectivity between these two PMUs is currently lacking (Service
2015a, pp. 121-122, 143), and like many areas in the Great Basin both
PMUs (as well as the other four PMUs) are vulnerable to the effects of
Bromus tectorum cheatgrass invasion (Service 2015a, pp. 79-81) and
wildfire impacts (Service 2015a, pp. 86-91).
Together, the Bodie and South Mono PMUs represent less than 20
percent of the historical range for the bi-State DPS. Historically, the
DPS occurred throughout most of Mono, eastern Alpine, and northern Inyo
Counties, California (Hall et al. 2008, p. 97), and portions of Carson
City, Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, and Mineral Counties, Nevada (Gullion
and Christensen 1957, pp. 131-132; Espinosa 2006, pers. comm.). While
the Bodie PMU is expected to fall below 500 breeding adults within the
next 30 years (Garton et al. 2011, p. 310), both the Bodie and South
Mono PMUs (which harbor the two largest populations) are projected by
sage-grouse experts to have moderate to high probabilities of
persistence into the future (Aldridge et al. 2008, entire; Wisdom et
al. 2011, entire). The Bodie PMU has fluctuated with positive and
negative population growth over the past 40 years with no discernible
long-term trend (Service 2013a, pp. 24-26). The long-term population
trend for the South Mono PMU has been stable (Service 2015a, pp. 26-
27). As with the Bodie PMU, some sage-grouse experts
[[Page 22832]]
estimate an 80 percent chance of the population declining to fewer than
500 breeding adults in 30 years (Garton et al. 2011, p. 310). Both the
Bodie and South Mono PMU populations have fallen below 500 breeding
individuals in the past and then have returned to higher numbers. Thus,
while sage-grouse experts predict these populations could again fall
below 500 breeding individuals in the future, we conclude it is likely
that these populations will continue to fluctuate in size but persist,
particularly given the conservation efforts occurring currently and
into the future as a result of implementation and effectiveness of the
BSAP (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Makin
Listing Decisions (PECE), below).
Fluctuations in population size in the relatively small Pine Nut,
Fales, and Parker Meadows populations (within the Pine Nut, Desert
Creek-Fales, and south Mono PMUs) could result in extirpation of one or
more of these populations, and thereby reduce population redundancy
within the DPS. Historical extirpations outside the existing boundaries
of the six PMUs present a similar pattern of lost peripheral
populations (see Historical Range/Distribution and Population Estimates
section of the Species Report) (Service 2015a, pp. 16-17)). Two range-
wide assessments investigating patterns of sage-grouse population
persistence confirm that PMUs on the northern and southern extents of
the bi-State DPS (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and White
Mountains PMUs) are similar to extirpated sites elsewhere within the
range of greater sage-grouse, while the central PMUs (i.e., South Mono,
Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs) are similar to extant sites (Aldridge et
al. 2008, entire; Wisdom et al. 2011, entire).
In summary, we anticipate the greatest risk of PMU loss for three
of the six PMUs in the bi-State DPS (i.e., Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and
White Mountains PMUs) as compared to the PMUs that harbor more sage-
grouse individuals (i.e., Desert Creek-Fales PMU) and the central core
(or largest) populations (i.e., Bodie and South Mono PMUs).
Following are brief accounts of each PMU. Primary threats are
introduced in these summaries and described in more detail in the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section below, and fully
evaluated and described in the Impact Analysis section of the Species
Report (Service 2015a, pp. 45-129).
(1) The Pine Nut PMU has the fewest sage-grouse of all bi-State DPS
PMUs (i.e., one population ranging in size from less than 100 to 608
birds based on data collected between 2004 and 2014 (Table 1, above)).
Telemetry research in the Pine Nut Mountains suggests the potential for
additional undocumented leks in the south-central portion of the PMU
(USGS 2013a, p. 2). Most recently in 2014, eight males were documented
strutting on Bald Mountain in close proximity to the inactive lek site
in the southern extent of the Pine Nut Mountains (USGS 2014a, p. 1). A
recent 10-year trend analysis between 2003 and 2012 suggests the
population in the Pine Nut PMU has been stable (Coates et al. 2014, p.
14). However, in 2013, no birds were documented at the Mill Canyon Dry
Lake lek and in 2014 one male was seen strutting, even though the lek
sites were surveyed intensely in both years (USGS 2013b, p. 25; USGS
2014b, p. 1).
Overall, this population represents approximately 6 percent of the
DPS. The population in the Pine Nut PMU has some level of connectivity
with the Desert Creek-Fales PMU and potentially also with the Bodie and
Mount Grant PMUs. Urbanization, grazing management, wildfire, invasive
species, infrastructure, and mineral development are affecting this
population, and the scope and severity of most of these impacts are
likely to increase into the future based on the proximity of the PMU to
expanding urban areas, agricultural operations, road networks, and
power lines; altered fire regimes; new mineral entry proposals; and
increasing recreational off-highway vehicle (OHV) use on public lands.
Because of the current small population size and the ongoing and
potential future magnitude of habitat impacts if left unchecked, the
sage-grouse population in the Pine Nut PMU (i.e., the northernmost
population within the range of the bi-State DPS) is at a greater risk
of extirpation than populations in other PMUs within the bi-State area.
Threats to the Pine Nut PMU and risk of extirpation are reduced as
a result of effective ongoing and future conservation efforts
associated with the BSAP that are occurring within this PMU, such as
(but not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g., reducing pinyon-juniper
encroachment, reducing the spread of cheatgrass, improving brood-
rearing habitat) reducing wild horse grazing impacts, reducing
infrastructure impacts (e.g., temporary or permanent road closures,
fencing maintenance or marking), and potentially conducting future
translocation of sage-grouse from stable populations. Discussion of the
various conservation efforts that are partially completed and planned
for the future can be found in our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(2) The Desert Creek-Fales PMU straddles the Nevada-California
border and contains two populations, one in each State. The two
populations (including the Desert Creek breeding complex and the Fales
breeding complex) have ranged in size from approximately 638 to 2,061
birds between 2004 and 2014 (Table 1, above). A recent analysis
suggests population growth was slightly positive in the Desert Creek
breeding complex between 2003 and 2012 (Coates et. al. 2014a, p. 14).
The Fales breeding complex has remained small since 1981, and a recent
analysis suggests population growth was slightly negative between 2003
and 2012 (Coates et. al. 2014a, p. 14).
The populations in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU have some level of
connectivity with the Pine Nut PMU and potentially also with the Bodie
and Mount Grant PMUs. The most significant impacts in this PMU are
wildfire, invasive species (specifically conifer encroachment),
infrastructure, and urbanization. Private-land acquisitions in
California and conifer removal in Nevada and California have mitigated
some of the impacts within this PMU. However, urbanization and woodland
succession remain a concern based on the lack of permanent protection
for important brood-rearing (summer) habitat that occurs primarily on
irrigated private pasture lands and continued Pinus monophylla (pinyon
pine) and various Juniperus (juniper) species encroachment that is
contracting distribution of the populations and connectivity between
populations. While some of these impacts are more easily alleviated
than others (e.g., conifer encroachment), the existing condition would
likely worsen in the future (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 24-25) if
conservation efforts were not conducted. However, impacts to
populations within this PMU are reduced as a result of effective
ongoing and future conservation efforts that are associated with the
BSAP, such as (but not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g., reducing
pinyon-juniper encroachment, reducing the spread of cheatgrass (which
in turn is reducing the threat of wildfire), improving brood-rearing
habitat, establishing conservation easements in critical brood-rearing
habitat areas, improving grazing management conditions, and reducing
infrastructure impacts (e.g., permanent road closures). Discussion of
the various conservation efforts that are partially
[[Page 22833]]
completed or proposed for the future can be found in our detailed PECE
analysis (available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0072) and the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) section of this document.
(3) The Mount Grant PMU contains one population, with population
estimates between 2004 and 2014 ranging from approximately 171 to 3,058
birds (Table 1, above). The population in the Mount Grant PMU has some
level of connectivity with the Bodie PMU and potentially also with the
Desert Creek-Fales and Pine Nut PMUs. Habitat impact sources in this
PMU include woodland encroachment, renewable energy and mineral
development, infrastructure, and the potential for wildfire. Woodland
encroachment, mineral development, and infrastructure currently
fragment habitat in this PMU and, in the future, these as well as
wildfire (if it occurs) may reduce or eliminate connectivity to the
sage-grouse population in the adjacent Bodie PMU. Long-term persistence
of the sage-grouse population in the Mount Grant PMU is less likely
than in the other PMUs that currently harbor larger populations of
sage-grouse in the bi-State area without successful implementation of
additional conservation measures.
Population estimates for the Mount Grant PMU (Service 2015a, Table
1) are highly uncertain due to survey methodology and inconsistencies.
Thus, while the PMU appears to harbor a significant number of birds, we
consider this estimate to be biased significantly high (albeit to an
unknown degree), and further, it appears the PMU is experiencing
negative growth (NDOW 2014a, unpublished data). Long-term persistence
of the sage-grouse population in the Mount Grant PMU is uncertain,
particularly if conservation efforts are not conducted. However,
impacts to populations within this PMU are reduced as a result of
effective ongoing and future conservation efforts that are associated
with the BSAP, such as (but not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g.,
reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment, improving brood-rearing habitat),
reducing direct and indirect potential energy development and mining
impacts, establishing conservation easements in critical brood-rearing
habitat areas, reducing grazing impacts through wild horse management,
implementing wildfire prevention and suppression strategies, and
reducing infrastructure impacts (e.g., permanent road closures).
Discussion of the various conservation efforts that are partially
completed or proposed for the future can be found in our detailed PECE
analysis (available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0072) and the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making
Listing Decisions (PECE) section of this document.
(4) The Bodie PMU contains one population (Bodie Hills), which is
one of the two core (largest) populations for the bi-State DPS.
Population estimates for this PMU between 2004 and 2014 range from 640
to 2,466 individuals (Table 1, above). This PMU typically has the
highest number of active leks (i.e., 13) of all the PMUs. The
population in the Bodie PMU has some level of connectivity with the
Mount Grant PMU and potentially also with the Desert Creek-Fales and
Pine Nut PMUs.
Woodland succession is estimated to have caused a 40 percent
reduction in sagebrush habitat throughout the Bodie PMU, and
encroachment into sagebrush habitat is expected to continue to some
degree both from woodland edge expansion and infilling. The potential
of future wildfire and subsequent habitat loss by conversion to annual
grasses is of greatest concern based on the increased understory
presence of cheatgrass, specifically in Wyoming big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata spp. wyomingensis) communities within the Bodie
PMU (e.g., Bodie Hills). In addition, the potential for loss (largely
restricted to date) of sage-grouse habitat to exurban development
(small, usually prosperous community situated beyond the suburbs of a
city) on unprotected private lands in the Bodie PMU is also a concern
because these lands provide summer- and winter-use areas and
connectivity for sage-grouse among the Bodie, Mount Grant, and Desert
Creek-Fales PMUs. Current impacts posed by infrastructure, grazing, and
mineral extraction are of minimal severity in the Bodie PMU. However,
impacts to populations within this PMU are reduced as a result of
effective ongoing and future conservation efforts that are associated
with the BSAP, such as (but not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g.,
reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment, improving brood-rearing habitat,
restoration of areas invaded by cheatgrass), reducing direct and
indirect potential energy development and mining impacts; establishing
conservation easements in critical brood-rearing habitat areas,
reducing grazing impacts through wild horse management, implementing
wildfire prevention and suppression strategies, and reducing
infrastructure impacts (e.g., permanent road closures). Discussion of
the various conservation efforts that are partially completed or
proposed for the future can be found in our detailed PECE analysis
(available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and
the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) section of this document.
(5) The South Mono PMU contains three populations (Long Valley,
Granite Mountain, and Parker Meadows). The Long Valley population is
one of the two largest (core) populations for the bi-State DPS.
Population estimates for this PMU between 2004 and 2014 range from 965
to 2,005 individuals (Table 1). The South Mono PMU typically has had
the highest estimated population size of all the PMUs. This PMU is
considered to be largely isolated from the other PMUs.
Currently, the most significant impacts in the South Mono PMU are
infrastructure and recreation, with the potential for increased
wildfire. An indirect impact of infrastructure to the sage-grouse
population in Long Valley is predation, likely associated with the
local landfill. Predation (primarily from ravens) appears to reduce
sage-grouse nest success in Long Valley, but the population
nevertheless appears stable. The Parker Meadows population currently
has one active lek and is quite small; from 2002 to 2014, male sage-
grouse counts have ranged between 3 and 17 (CDFW 2014a, in litt.). This
population has the lowest reported genetic diversity in the bi-State
area, and it is experiencing high nest failure rates due to nonviable
eggs (Gardner 2009, pers. comm.), potentially indicative of genetic
challenges. The Granite Mountain population consists of two leks
(``Adobe'' and ``Gaspipe'') and is also quite small. The Adobe lek
averaged 11 males between 1984 and 1994 before numbers began to decline
in 1995, and subsequently the site became inactive in 2001 (CDFW 2014a,
in litt.). The Gaspipe lek averaged seven males between 1990 and 2008,
and the site became inactive in 2009 (CDFW 2014a, in litt.). However,
in 2013 and 2014 four and seven males were counted, respectively.
Impacts to populations within this PMU are reduced as a result of
effective ongoing and future conservation efforts that are associated
with the BSAP, such as (but not limited to): restoring habitat (e.g.,
reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment, improving brood-rearing habitat),
reducing direct and indirect human disturbance related to recreation or
activities associated with potential development, reducing predation
impacts (e.g., removing a landfill), establishing conservation
easements in critical brood-rearing habitat areas, and
[[Page 22834]]
reducing infrastructure impacts (e.g., seasonal or permanent road
closures, maintenance and/or removal of fencing). Discussion of the
various conservation efforts that are partially completed or proposed
for the future can be found in our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and the Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
section of this document.
(6) The White Mountains PMU contains one population. No recent
population estimate for this southernmost PMU is available, and,
overall, information on population status and impacts is limited. The
area is remote and difficult to access, and most data are from periodic
observations rather than comprehensive surveys. The population in the
White Mountains PMU is considered to be largely isolated from the other
PMUs. Current impacts such as exurban development (e.g., Chiatovich
Creek area (Bi-State Lek Surveillance Program 2012, p. 38)), grazing,
recreation, and invasive species may be influencing portions of the
population and are likely to increase in the future, but current
impacts are considered minimal due to the remote locations of most
known sage-grouse use areas. Potential future impacts from
infrastructure (power lines, roads) and mineral developments could lead
to the loss of the remote, contiguous nature of the habitat if
conservation efforts were not conducted.
As stated above, while some of the impacts occurring in the six
PMUs are more easily alleviated than others (e.g., conifer
encroachment), the existing condition (without intervention) would
likely worsen in the future (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 24-25) if
conservation efforts were not conducted. As a result, significant
conservation efforts that are associated with the BSAP are currently
under way (partially completed) or are planned for the future that are
reducing or eliminating impacts, including (but not limited to):
reducing infrastructure impacts (e.g., permanent road closures),
reducing human disturbance associated with urbanization, restoring
habitat (e.g., reducing pinyon-juniper encroachment, improving brood-
rearing habitat), and reducing grazing impacts through wild horse
management. Discussion of the various conservation efforts that are
partially completed or proposed for the future can be found in our
detailed PECE analysis (available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section of this document.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
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) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
A threats analysis for the bi-State DPS is included in the Species
Report (Service 2015a, entire) associated with this document (and
available at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0072). All potential threats of which we are aware that are acting
upon the bi-State DPS currently or in the future (and consistent with
the five listing factors identified above) were evaluated and addressed
in the Species Report, and are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Many of the impacts to sage-grouse populations and sagebrush
habitats in the bi-State DPS are present throughout the DPS's range,
although they (at the time of the proposed listing and currently)
affect the DPS to varying degrees. Specifically, the populations and
habitat in the northern extent of the bi-State area, including the Pine
Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and Mount Grant PMUs, are now and will likely
continue to be most at risk from the various threats acting upon the
bi-State DPS and its habitat. Without future conservation efforts
(i.e., the partially completed and future actions summarized in the
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) section below), we would anticipate loss of some
populations and contraction of the ranges of others in these three PMUs
(see Species Information section above and Bi-State DPS Population
Trends section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 31-33)), which
will leave them more susceptible to extirpation from stochastic events
such as wildfire, drought, and disease. We would expect (again,
assuming no interventions or increased protections) that two
populations in the Bodie and South Mono PMUs (i.e., the Bodie Hills and
Long Valley populations, respectively) will persist into the future
(Aldridge et al. 2008, entire; Wisdom et al. 2011, entire). Significant
ongoing and future conservation efforts are reducing or eliminating
impacts; discussion of these conservation efforts can be found in our
detailed PECE analysis (available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section of this document.
If left unchecked, the impacts that are of high current or future
scope and severity within the DPS (i.e., the most significant threats
overall across the range of the bi-State DPS) include those that are
resulting in the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range, and other natural or manmade
threats affecting the DPS's continued existence. These more significant
threats include infrastructure (i.e., fences, power lines, and roads)
(Factors A and E); urbanization and human disturbance (Factors A, B, C,
and E); the spread of nonnative, invasive and native plants (e.g.,
pinyon-juniper encroachment, cheatgrass) (Factors A and E); wildfires
and altered fire regime (Factors A and E); and the small size of the
DPS (both the number of individual populations and their size), which
generally makes such species more susceptible to extirpation (Factor
E). These impacts, along with those that are currently considered
minor, have the potential to act together to negatively affect the bi-
State DPS. However, completed, ongoing and planned conservation actions
have reduced the scope and severity of these impacts. Following a
thorough analysis of the best available information, we determined that
hunting, scientific and educational uses, pesticides and herbicides,
and contaminants have negligible impacts to the bi-State DPS at this
time.
The bi-State DPS is experiencing multiple impacts to individual
populations and sagebrush habitats that are ongoing (and expected to
continue into the future) in many areas throughout the DPS's range.
Individually, each of these impacts is unlikely to affect persistence
across the entire bi-State DPS, but each may act independently to
affect persistence of individual populations. However, we note that the
level of impact these threats may have on the DPS's habitat are
lessened overall today as compared to the time of the proposed listing
rule due to the continued implementation of
[[Page 22835]]
the BSAP. We believe the future impacts of these threats are
significantly reduced due to the expected implementation and
effectiveness of the partially completed and future conservation
efforts associated with the BSAP (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) below).
Additional, less significant impacts to the bi-State DPS or its
habitat may be occurring, but not everywhere across the DPS at this
time (such as, but not limited to, grazing and rangeland management;
mining; renewable energy development; or West Nile virus (WNv)
infections). We do not consider these impacts to have serious
consequences for the bi-State DPS or its habitat. Moreover, these less-
significant impacts to the bi-State DPS are reduced overall today and
into the future as compared to the time of the proposed listing rule
due the continued implementation of the BSAP, and the expected
implementation and effectiveness of the partially completed and future
conservation efforts associated with the BSAP (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below).
Following are summary evaluations of 16 potential threats to the
bi-State DPS, including: Invasive nonnative and native plants (Factor A
and E); wildfires and altered fire regime (Factors A and E);
infrastructure, including roads, power lines, fences, communication
towers, and landfills (Factors A and E); grazing and rangeland
management (Factors A, C, and E); small population size and population
structure (Factor E); urbanization and habitat conversion (Factor A);
mining (Factors A and E); renewable energy development and associated
infrastructure (Factors A and E); disease or predation (Factor C);
climate change, including drought (Factors A and E); recreation
(Factors A and E); overutilization (including commercial and
recreational hunting) (Factor B); scientific and educational uses
(Factor B); pesticides and herbicides (Factor E); and contaminants
(Factor E). The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was also
evaluated (Factor D). Please see the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp.
45-142) for a full evaluation, including but not limited to, an
evaluation of the scope, severity, and timing of each potential threat
(including many literature citations).
Invasive Nonnative and Native Plants
Nonnative, invasive plants negatively impact sagebrush ecosystems
by altering plant community structure and composition, productivity,
nutrient cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek 1990, p. 7) (Factor A), and
may cause declines in native plant populations through competitive
exclusion and niche displacement, among other mechanisms (Mooney and
Cleland 2001, p. 5446) (Factor E). They can create long-term changes in
ecosystem processes (Factor A), such as fire cycles (see Wildfires and
Altered Fire Regime section below, and in the Species Report (Service
2015a, pp. 84-91)) and other disturbance regimes that persist even
after an invasive plant is removed (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 33). A
variety of nonnative annuals and perennials are invasive to sagebrush
ecosystems (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-107 to 7-108; Zouhar et al.
2008, p. 144). Cheatgrass is considered most invasive in Wyoming
sagebrush communities (which is a subspecies of sagebrush that occurs
in the bi-State area), while medusahead rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae
(L.) Nevski) fills a similar niche in more mesic communities with
heavier clay soils (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-9).
Some native tree species are also invading sagebrush habitat and
affect the suitability of the habitat for the various life processes of
the bi-State DPS. Pinyon-juniper woodlands are a native vegetation
community dominated by pinyon pine and various juniper species that can
encroach upon, infill, and eventually replace sagebrush habitat
(Factors A and E). Some portions of the bi-State DPS's range are also
being adversely affected by Pinus jeffreyi (Jeffrey pine) encroachment.
Woodland encroachment has caused significant, measurable habitat loss
throughout the range of the bi-State DPS. However, techniques to
address this habitat impact are available and being implemented.
Woodlands have expanded by an estimated 20,234 to 60,703 hectares (ha)
(50,000 to 150,000 acres (ac)) over the past decade in the bi-State
area, but woodland treatments have been implemented on 7,904 ha (19,533
ac) (Service 2013b, unpublished data; Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.),
and continued treatments are one of the keystone conservation measures
of the BSAP and will continue to reduce the impact of woodland
encroachment.
In general, nonnative plants are not abundant in the bi-State area,
with the exception of cheatgrass, which occurs in all PMUs throughout
the range of the DPS (although it is currently most extensive in the
Pine Nut PMU). Alteration of the fire ecology of the bi-State area is
of concern. Land managers have had little success preventing cheatgrass
invasion in the West, and elevational barriers to occurrence are
becoming less restrictive (Miller et al. 2011, p. 161; Brown and Rowe
2004, in litt., entire). The best available data suggest that future
conditions, mostly influenced by precipitation and winter temperatures,
will remain hospitable for cheatgrass (Bradley 2009, p. 201).
Cheatgrass is a challenge to the sagebrush shrub community and its
spread would be detrimental to sage-grouse in the bi-State area.
However, these impacts can be offset through a reduction of other
threats, such as reducing the likelihood of wildfires that can result
in shortened fire frequency intervals (favorable to cheatgrass) by
removing source material, such as pinyon-juniper woodlands (see
Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime section below). Through ongoing and
planned implementation of the BSAP removal of pinyon-juniper woodlands
will remove source materials for fires and help reduce the threat of
cheatgrass expansion.
In addition, the encroachment of native woodlands (particularly
pinyon-juniper) into sagebrush habitats is occurring throughout the bi-
State area. We predict that future woodland encroachment will continue
across the entire bi-State area, but recognize this is a potentially
manageable threat through treatment and management actions, such as
those included in the BSAP.
Overall, invasive nonnative and native plants occur throughout the
entire bi-State DPS's range. We concluded in the proposed listing rule
that their spread was a significant factor for proposing to list the
DPS as a threatened species based on the extensive amount of pinyon-
juniper encroachment and cheatgrass invasion that is occurring
throughout the DPS's range, and the interacting impact these invasions
have on habitat quality (e.g., reduces foraging habitat, increases
likelihood of wildfire) and habitat fragmentation. Conservation efforts
that address the impacts from increasing nonnative, invasive and native
plants have continued to be implemented since publication of the
proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to): conducting
conifer (pinyon-juniper) removal; restoring critical meadow/riparian
habitat areas; and conducting weed treatments for invasive, nonnative
plants such as cheatgrass. With continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire), impacts from increasing nonnative, invasive and native plants
are significantly reduced. See the Nonnative, Invasive and Native
Increasing Plants section of the Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 78-84).
[[Page 22836]]
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) the spread of nonnative, invasive
and native plants. Because we have determined that the partially
completed and future conservation efforts will be implemented and
effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we find the spread of
nonnative, invasive and native plants is no longer a significant impact
into the future.
Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime
Wildfire is the principle disturbance mechanism affecting sagebrush
communities, although the nature of historical fire patterns,
particularly in Wyoming big sagebrush vegetation communities, is not
well-understood and historically infrequent (Miller and Eddleman 2000,
p. 16; Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 154; Baker 2011, pp. 189, 196). The
historical sagebrush systems likely consisted of extensive sagebrush
habitat dotted by small areas of grassland that were maintained by
numerous small fires with long interludes between fires, which
accounted for little burned area, and that were punctuated by large
fire events (Baker 2011, p. 197). In general, fire extensively reduces
sagebrush within burned areas, and the most widespread species of
sagebrush can take decades to reestablish and much longer to return to
pre-burn conditions (Braun 1998, p. 147; Cooper et al. 2007, p. 13;
Lesica et al. 2007, p. 264; Baker 2011, pp. 194-195).
When intervals between wildfire events become unnaturally long in
sagebrush communities, woodlands have the ability to expand (allowing
seedlings to establish and trees to mature (Miller et al. 2011, p.
167)) when they are adjacent to or are present (in small quantities)
within sagebrush habitat. Conifer woodlands have expanded into
sagebrush ecosystems throughout the sage-grouse's range over the last
century (Miller et al. 2011, p. 162). Alternatively, a shortened fire
frequency interval within sagebrush habitat can result in the invasion
of nonnative, invasive, annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and
medusahead rye; once these nonnatives are established, wildfire
frequency within sagebrush ecosystems can increase (Zouhar et al. 2008,
p. 41; Miller et al. 2011, p. 167; Balch et al. 2013, p. 178).
While multiple factors can influence sagebrush persistence,
wildfire can cause large-scale habitat losses that lead to
fragmentation and isolation of sage-grouse populations (Factors A and
E). In addition to loss of habitat, wildfire can fragment sage-grouse
habitat and contribute to isolation of populations, making them more
susceptible to extirpation from other threats (Knick and Hanser 2011,
p. 395; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 469). Thus, while direct loss of habitat
due to wildfire is a significant factor associated with population
persistence for sage-grouse (Beck et al. 2012, p. 452), the indirect
effect from loss of connectivity among populations may expand the
influence of this threat beyond the physical fire perimeter.
Wildfire is considered a relatively high risk across all the PMUs
in the bi-State area due to its ability to affect large landscapes in a
short period of time (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 26, 32, 37, 41, 49).
Furthermore, the future risk of wildfire is exacerbated by the presence
of people, invasive species, and climate change. While dozens of
wildfires have occurred in the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, and
South Mono PMUs (fewer in the Mount Grant and White Mountains PMUs)
over the past 20 years, to date there have been relatively few large-
scale events. In general, although current data do not indicate an
increase of wildfires in the bi-State DPS, based on likely future
habitat conditions, we predict an increase in wildfires over time.
Changes in fire ecology over time have resulted in an altered fire
regime in the bi-State area, presenting future wildfire risk in all
PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 26, 32, 37, 41, 49). On one hand, a
reduction in fire occurrence has facilitated the expansion of woodlands
into montane sagebrush communities in all PMUs (see Nonnative, Invasive
and Native Plants, above). Meanwhile, a pattern of increased wildfire
occurrence in sagebrush communities is apparent in the Pine Nut PMU.
Each of these alterations to wildfire regimes has contributed to
fragmentation of habitat and the isolation of the sage-grouse
populations (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, pp. 95-96, 133).
Fire is one of the primary factors linked to population declines of
sage-grouse across the West because of long-term loss of sagebrush and
frequent conversion to monocultures of nonnative, invasive grasses
(Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7; Johnson et al. 2011, p. 424; Knick and
Hanser 2011, p. 395). Within the bi-State area, the BLM and U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) currently manage the area to limit the loss of sagebrush
habitat (BLM 2012, entire; USFS 2012, entire). Based on the best
available information, historical wildfire events have not removed a
significant amount of sagebrush habitat across the bi-State area, and
conversion of sagebrush habitat to a nonnative, invasive vegetation
community has been restricted (except for the Pine Nut PMU).
Restoration of altered sagebrush communities following fire can be
difficult, requires many years, and may be ineffective in the presence
of nonnative, invasive grass species. Additionally, sage-grouse are
slow to recolonize burned areas even if structural features of the
shrub community have recovered (Knick et al. 2011, p. 233). However,
impacts from wildfire are addressed through restoration actions
outlined in the BSAP, including fuels reduction and rehabilitation
efforts, which require long-term monitoring to assure conservation
objectives are met for restoring potential habitats post-wildfire
(Arkle et al. 2014).
While it is not currently possible to predict the extent or
location of future fire events in the bi-State area, and historical
wildfire events have not removed a significant amount of sagebrush
habitat across the bi-State area to date, we anticipated in the
proposed listing rule and reconfirm here that fire frequency may
increase in the future due to the increasing presence of cheatgrass and
people, and the projected effects of climate change. If offsetting
conservation measures are not implemented, increasing wildfires in
sagebrush habitats could adversely affect the DPS.
Overall, the potential threat of wildfire and the existing altered
fire regime occurs throughout the bi-State DPS's range. We concluded in
the proposed listing rule that significant impacts would be expected to
continue or increase in the future based on a continued fire frequency
pattern that exacerbates pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush
habitat in some locations, but also an increased fire frequency in
other locations that promotes the spread of cheatgrass and other
invasive species that in turn can hamper recovery of sagebrush habitat.
Conservation efforts that address the impacts from the threat of
wildfire and the existing altered fire regime have continued to be
implemented since publication of the proposed listing rule, including
(but not limited to): conducting conifer (pinyon-juniper) removal; and
conducting weed treatments for invasive, nonnative plants such as cheat
grass. With continued implementation of conservation actions associated
with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), impacts from wildfire are
significantly reduced. See the Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime
section of the Species
[[Page 22837]]
Report for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 84-91).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) wildfire ignition risks and
catastrophic fire. Therefore, fuels reduction projects and
rehabilitation efforts post-wildfire have been and will continue to be
implemented into the future to address the potential impacts from
wildfire. Because we have determined that the partially completed and
future conservation efforts will be implemented and effective (see
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) below), we conclude that wildfires and altered fire
regime are no longer a significant impact into the future.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure is described in the Species Report (Service 2015a,
pp. 51-65) to include features that assist or are required for the
pursuit of human-initiated development or an associated action. Five
infrastructure features are impacting the bi-State DPS: three linear
features (roads, power lines, and fences) and two site-specific
features (landfills and communication towers). While there may be other
features that could be characterized as infrastructure (such as
railroads or pipelines), these are not present in the bi-State area,
and we are unaware of any information suggesting they would impact the
bi-State DPS in the future.
In the bi-State area, linear infrastructure impacts each PMU both
directly and indirectly to varying degrees. Existing roads, power
lines, and fences degrade and potentially fragment sage-grouse habitat
(such as Braun 1998, pp. 145, 146) (Factor A), and contribute to direct
mortality through collisions (such as Patterson 1952, p. 81) (Factor
E). In addition, roads, power lines, and fences deter the sage-grouse's
use of otherwise suitable habitats adjacent to current active areas,
and increase predators (by providing additional perches) and invasive
plants (through increased traffic volume to facilitate spread of
invasive plants) (such as Forman and Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231 and
Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974).
Given current and future development (based on known energy
resources), the Mount Grant, Desert Creek-Fales, Pine Nut, and South
Mono PMUs are most likely to be impacted by new power lines and
associated infrastructure. Wisdom et al. (2011, p. 463) reported that
across the entire range of the greater sage-grouse, the mean distance
to highways and transmission lines for extirpated populations was
approximately 5 kilometers (km) (3.1 miles (mi)) or less. In the bi-
State area, 64 percent of annually occupied leks are within 5 km (3.1
mi) of paved secondary highways, and 38 percent are within this
distance to existing transmission lines (Service 2013b, unpublished
data). Therefore, the apparent similarity between existing bi-State
conditions and extirpated populations elsewhere suggests that
persistence of substantial numbers of leks within the bi-State DPS
would likely be negatively influenced by these anthropogenic features
if it were not for the ongoing and planned implementation of measures
included in the BSAP to reduce impacts of these features.
The geographic extent, density, type, and frequency of linear
infrastructure disturbance in the bi-State area have changed over time.
While substantial new development of some of these features (e.g.,
highways) is unlikely, other infrastructure features may increase
(unimproved roads, power lines, fencing, and communication towers), at
least until such time as the BLM and USFS updated Land Use Plans are
fully implemented. With the increase of OHV usage within the range of
the bi-State DPS, the potential impact to the sage-grouse and its
habitat caused by continued use of secondary or unimproved roads may
become of greater importance as traffic volume increases rates of
disturbance and the spread of nonnative invasive plants in areas that
traditionally have been traveled relatively sporadically.
Other types of non-road infrastructure (e.g., cellular towers and
landfills) also appear to be adversely impacting the bi-State DPS. At
least eight cellular tower locations are currently known to exist in
occupied habitat (all PMUs) in the bi-State area. Wisdom et al. (2011,
p. 463) determined that cellular towers likely contribute to population
extirpation, and additional tower installations may occur in the near
future as development continues. The landfill facility in Long Valley
(within the South Mono PMU) may be influencing sage-grouse population
demography in the area, as nest success is comparatively low and
subsidized avian nest predator numbers are high (Kolada et al. 2009a,
p. 1,344). This large population of sage-grouse (i.e., one of two core
populations in the bi-State area) currently appears stable. Recovery
following any potential future perturbations affecting other vital
rates (i.e., brood survival and adult survival) could be limited by
nesting success if offsetting conservation measures (such as the
planned removal of the landfill in Long Valley) are not implemented.
Overall, infrastructure occurs in various forms throughout the bi-
State DPS's range and has adversely impacted the DPS. We concluded in
the proposed listing rule that infrastructure impacts (particularly
fencing, power lines, and roads) were a significant factor for
proposing to list the DPS as a threatened species. If left unchecked,
these impacts would be expected to continue or increase in the future
and result in habitat fragmentation; limitations for sage-grouse
recovery actions due to an extensive road network, power lines, and
fencing; and a variety of direct and indirect impacts, such as loss of
individuals from collisions or structures that promote increased
potential for predation. Collectively, these threats may result in
perturbations that influence both demographic vital rates of sage-
grouse (e.g., reproductive success and adult sage-grouse survival) and
habitat suitability in the bi-State area.
Importantly, conservation efforts that address infrastructure
impacts have continued to be implemented since publication of the
proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to): removing power
lines; implementing both permanent and seasonal road closures; removing
racetrack fencing; and conducting initial procedures to remove the
landfill in Long Valley. With continued implementation of conservation
actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire),
infrastructure-related impacts are significantly reduced. See the
Infrastructure section of the Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 51-65).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) infrastructure. Because we have
determined that the partially completed and future conservation efforts
will be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we
believe impacts associated with infrastructure may no longer be
considered a significant impact into the future.
Grazing and Rangeland Management
Livestock grazing continues to be the most widespread land use
across the sagebrush biome (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616; Connelly et al.
2004, p. 7-29; Knick et al. 2011, p. 219), including within the bi-
State area. However, links between grazing practices and population
levels of sage-grouse are not well-studied (Braun 1987, p. 137;
Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 231). Improperly managed domestic livestock
[[Page 22838]]
management has the potential to result in sage-grouse habitat
degradation (Factor A). Grazing can adversely impact nesting and brood-
rearing habitat by decreasing vegetation used for concealment from
predators (Factors A and C). If improperly managed, grazing also
compacts soils; decreases herbaceous vegetation abundance; alters soil
characteristics and increases soil erosion; and increases the
probability of invasion of nonnative, invasive plant species (Factor
A). Livestock management and associated infrastructure (such as water
developments and fencing) can degrade important nesting and brood-
rearing habitat, reduce nesting success, and facilitate the spread of
WNv (Factors A, C, and E). However, despite numerous documented
negative impacts, some research suggests that, under specific
conditions, grazing domestic livestock can benefit sage-grouse
(Klebenow 1981, p. 121). Other research conducted in Nevada found that
cattle grazing can be used to stimulate forbs important as sage-grouse
food (Neel 1980, entire; Klebenow 1981, entire; Evans 1986, entire).
Similar to domestic livestock, grazing and management of feral
horses have the potential to negatively affect sage-grouse habitats by
decreasing grass cover, fragmenting shrub canopies, altering soil
characteristics, decreasing plant diversity, and increasing the
abundance of invasive cheatgrass (Factor A). Native ungulates (mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra
americana)) co-exist with sage-grouse in the bi-State area, but we are
not aware of significant impacts from these species on sage-grouse
populations or sage-grouse habitat. However, the impacts from different
ungulate taxa may have an additive negative influence on sage-grouse
habitats (Beever and Aldridge 2011, p. 286) if offsetting conservation
measures are not implemented. Cattle, horses, mule deer, and pronghorn
antelope each use the sagebrush ecosystem somewhat differently, and the
combination of multiple ungulate species may produce a different result
than a single species.
There are localized areas of habitat degradation in the bi-State
area attributable to past grazing practices that indirectly and,
combined with other impacts, cumulatively affect sage-grouse habitat.
In general, upland sagebrush communities in the Pine Nut and Mount
Grant PMUs deviate from desired conditions for sage-grouse due to lack
of understory plant species, while across the remainder of the PMUs
localized areas of meadow degradation are apparent, and these
conditions may influence sage-grouse populations through altering
nesting and brood-rearing success. Currently, there is little direct
evidence linking grazing effects and sage-grouse population responses.
Analyses for grazing impacts at the landscape scales important to sage-
grouse are confounded by the fact that almost all sage-grouse habitat
has at one time been grazed, and thus, no ungrazed control areas exist
for comparisons (Knick et al. 2011, p. 232). Across the bi-State area,
we anticipate rangeland management will continue into the future, and
some aspects (such as feral horses) will remain difficult to manage.
Currently, livestock management in the bi-State area meets desired BLM
Rangeland Health Standards or their equivalent (i.e., the standards
used by Federal agencies to assess habitat condition; BLM 2014b, in
litt.). Remaining impacts caused by historical practices will linger as
vegetation communities and disturbance regimes recover.
Overall, impacts from past grazing and rangeland management occur
within localized areas throughout the bi-State DPS's range (i.e., all
PMUs, although impacts are more pronounced in some PMUs than others).
We concluded in the proposed listing rule that grazing and rangeland
management was a factor (albeit not significant) for proposing to list
the DPS as a threatened species as a result of ongoing habitat
degradation impacts that may affect sage-grouse habitat indirectly and
cumulatively in the bi-State area, resulting in an overall reduction in
aspects of habitat quality (e.g., fragmentation, lack of understory
plants, increased presence of nonnative plant species), especially in
the Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs.
Importantly, conservation efforts that address the impacts from
grazing and rangeland management have continued to be implemented since
publication of the proposed listing rule, including (but not limited
to): (1) Completing drafts and beginning to implement the new BLM and
Forest Service Land Use Plan amendments (USDI and USDA 2015, entire),
which are a considerable improvement for conservation of the bi-State
DPS and its habitat; repairing watering facilities, irrigation
structures, and fencing around natural riparian areas to control
grazing activity; increasing monitoring and management of horse and
burrow herds; and restoring meadow/riparian habitat in critical brood-
rearing habitat areas. With continued implementation of conservation
actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), impacts
from grazing and rangeland management are significantly reduced. See
the Grazing and Rangeland Management section of the Species Report for
further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 71-78).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) livestock and wild horse grazing.
Because we have determined that the partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be implemented and effective (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe impacts associated with grazing and rangeland
management are no longer be a concern into the future.
Small Population Size and Population Structure
Sage-grouse have low reproductive rates and high annual survival
(Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 11, 14; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 969-
970), resulting in slower potential or intrinsic population growth
rates than is typical of other game birds. Also, as a consequence of
their site fidelity to seasonal habitats (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p.
489), measurable population effects may lag behind negative habitat
impacts (Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). Sage-grouse populations
have been described as exhibiting multi-annual fluctuations, meaning
that some mechanism or combination of mechanisms is causing populations
to fluctuate through time
The bi-State DPS comprises approximately 43 active leks
representing 3 to 6 relatively discrete populations (see Species
Information, above, and the Current Range/Distribution and Population
Estimates/Annual Lek Counts section of the Species Report (Service
2015a, pp. 17-31)). Fitness and population size, across a variety of
taxa, are strongly correlated, and smaller populations are more
challenged by stochastic environmental and demographic events (Keller
and Waller 2002, pp. 239-240; Reed 2005, p. 566). When coupled with
mortality stressors related to human activity (e.g., infrastructure,
recreation) and significant fluctuations in annual population size,
long-term persistence of small populations is uncertain (Traill et al.
2010, entire). The Pine Nut PMU has the smallest number of sage-grouse
of all bi-State area PMUs (usually fewer than 100 individuals, and
ranging from less than 100 to 608 individuals as observed from data
collected between 2004 and 2014 (Table 1, above), representing
approximately 5 percent of the DPS). However, each population in
[[Page 22839]]
the bi-State DPS is relatively small and may be below the theoretical
minimum threshold (as interpreted by sage-grouse experts and not
statistically proven (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30; Garton et al.
2011, pp. 310, 374)) for long-term persistence, as is the entire DPS on
average (estimated 2,497 to 9,828 individuals). Nonetheless, the
populations comprising the bi-State DPS have continued to persist
despite relatively small numbers of birds and annual fluctuations.
Overall, small population size and a discontinuous population
structure occur throughout the bi-State DPS's range, which could make
the bi-State DPS more susceptible to threats described herein both
currently and likely in the future if offsetting conservation measures
are not implemented. Some literature (i.e., Franklin and Frankham 1998,
entire; Traill et al. 2010, entire) suggest that greater than 5,000
individuals are required for any species' populations to have an
acceptable degree of resilience in the face of environmental
fluctuations and catastrophic events, and for the continuation of
evolutionary processes. This conservation biology rule-of-thumb (that
more than 5,000 individuals are required to provide ample resiliency)
may be useful as a general guideline when assessing a species'
resiliency, but should not be applied without consideration of a
particular species' life history and specific population-level
stressors to determine its status. In this context, conservation
efforts addressing the threats acting upon these small populations have
been implemented since publication of the proposed listing rule,
including (but not limited to) restoring critical brood-rearing habitat
areas and addressing invasive nonnative and native plants. Because we
expect conservation implementation to continue under the BSAP (Bi-State
TAC 2012a, entire), impacts affecting small populations are
significantly reduced.
Resiliency, Redundancy, and Representation
In this section, we synthesize the information above to evaluate
resiliency, redundancy, and representation as they relate to the bi-
State DPS. Resiliency refers to the capacity of an ecosystem,
population, or organism to recover quickly from disturbance by
tolerating or adapting to changes or effects caused by a disturbance or
a combination of disturbances. Redundancy, in this context, refers to
the ability of a species to compensate for fluctuations in or loss of
populations across the species' range such that the loss of a single
population has little or no lasting effect on the structure and
functioning of the species as a whole. Representation refers to the
conservation of the diversity of a species, including genetic makeup.
The degree of resiliency of a species is influenced by both the
degree of genetic diversity across the species, and the number of
individuals. Resiliency increases with increasing genetic diversity
and/or a higher number of individuals; it decreases when the species
has less genetic diversity and/or fewer individuals. In the case of the
bi-State DPS resiliency may be lower to some degree because the total
population size is relatively small (e.g., compared to the population
size of many upland game birds), with some populations having low
numbers or negative population trends. From a genetics standpoint,
sage-grouse in the bi-State area contain a large number of unique
genetic haplotypes not found elsewhere within the range of the species
(Benedict et al. 2003, p. 306; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,300;
Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 92; Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 5),
and genetic diversity of the bi-State DPS does not appear to be low.
The genetic diversity present in the bi-State area population is
comparable to other populations of sage-grouse, suggesting that the
differences are not due to a genetic bottleneck or founder event
(Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91). These studies provide evidence
of geographic isolation from the remainder of the species, as the
present genetic uniqueness exhibited by bi-State area sage-grouse
developed over thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years, hence,
prior to the Euro-American settlement (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308;
Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,307).
This information suggests that while resiliency of the bi-State DPS
may be reduced to some degree as a result of relatively small total
population size, the genetic diversity in the bi-State area improves
the capacity of the DPS to recover from disturbance, or adapt to
changes or effects caused by a disturbance or a combination of
disturbances. Moreover, conservation actions already completed,
underway, and planned for the future pursuant to the BSAP have reduced
threats to the DPS now and into the future, and thus have reduced the
likelihood of future significant disturbances to the bi-State DPS.
Multiple, interacting populations across a broad geographic area
provide insurance against the risk of extinction caused by catastrophic
events (redundancy). Population redundancy currently exists across the
bi-State DPS, but could be a concern into the future. The most recent
genetic data analyses (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014; Tebbenkamp 2014)
support our determination that there are between three and six
populations (or groups of birds) in the bi-State area that largely
operate demographically independent of each other. Long-term
projections (30 years) suggest that the two core populations (Bodie
Hills (Bodie PMU) and Long Valley (South Mono PMU)) have a relative
high probability of maintaining long-term genetic and demographic
viability (Garton et al. 2011, p. 310). However, the viability of the
smaller populations, such as Pine Nut or Parker Meadows, is less
certain (Lande 1988, pp. 1456-1457; Stephens et al. 1999, p. 186;
Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 312-317; Coates et al. 2014, p. 15). If a
population is permanently lost, the DPS' population redundancy would be
lowered, thereby decreasing the DPS' chances of survival in the face of
potential environmental, demographic, and genetic stochastic factors
and catastrophic events (extreme drought, wildfire, disease, etc.).
However, conservation measures included in the BSAP which are ongoing
and planned for the future have reduced the level of threats faced by
the population that make up the bi-State DPS and have thus decreased
the probability that any of the smaller populations will be extirpated.
The aggregate number of individuals across multiple populations
increases the probability of demographic persistence and preservation
of overall genetic diversity by providing an important genetic
reservoir (representation). Representation across the bi-State DPS is
moderate to high, with three to six genetically different groups across
the bi-State area (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014; Tebbenkamp 2014). In
general, genetic diversity in the bi-State area is comparable to the
levels of genetic diversity found elsewhere across the greater sage-
grouse range (Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91). Among populations
in the bi-State area genetic diversity varies with the lowest diversity
apparent in the White Mountains (White Mountain PMU) and Parker Meadows
(South Mono PMU) populations. We expect the risks associated with
reduced genetic diversity to be moderated by the ongoing and continued
restoration of habitat, which will improve connectivity and minimize
habitat fragmentation, thereby potentially increasing gene flow and
improving genetic diversity. There is some risk that one or more of the
smaller, less secure
[[Page 22840]]
populations (e.g., Pine Nut, Fales, and Parker Meadows) could become
extirpated in the future, but the moderate to high level of
representation across the bi-State DPS, and ongoing and planned
conservation actions in the BSAP reduces the likelihood of future
extirpations.
Small population size is not a threat to a species by itself. A
species with a relatively small number of small populations may be a
concern when there are significant threats to the species such that one
or more populations could be permanently lost. The bi-State sage-grouse
is comprised of a relatively few number of populations of various sizes
but with most being considered small in size. By addressing the most
significant stressors on the bi-State DPS, ongoing and planned
implementation of the BSAP has ameliorated threats to this species to
the point where our previous concerns about the DPS' resiliency,
redundancy and representation have been significantly reduced.
Therefore, we conclude loss of representation is not a significant
threat to the bi-State DPS now or into the future.
Summary of Small Population Size and Population Structure
Overall, small population size and a discontinuous population
structure occur throughout the bi-State DPS's range. We concluded in
the proposed listing rule that impacts associated with small population
size are a concern both currently and likely in the future based on our
understanding of the overall DPS population size and the apparent
isolation among subpopulations contained within the DPS. Conservation
efforts that address various impacts acting upon these small
populations have continued to be implemented since publication of the
proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to) restoring
critical brood-rearing habitat areas and addressing invasive nonnative
and native plants. With continued implementation of conservation
actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), impacts
affecting small populations are significantly reduced. See the Small
Population Size and Population Structure section of the Species Report
for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 120-126).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects including (but not limited to) small and isolated populations.
Because we have determined that the partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be implemented and effective (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe impacts associated with small population size within
the bi-State area may no longer be considered a significant impact into
the future.
Urbanization and Habitat Conversion
Historical and recent conversion of sagebrush habitat on private
lands for agriculture, housing, and associated infrastructure (Factor
A) within the bi-State area has negatively affected sage-grouse
distribution and population extent in the bi-State DPS. These
alterations to habitat have been most pronounced in the Pine Nut and
Desert Creek-Fales PMUs and to a lesser extent the Bodie, Mount Grant,
South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. Although only 11 percent of
suitable sage-grouse habitat occurs on private lands in the bi-State
area, and only a subset of that could potentially be developed,
conservation actions on adjacent public lands could be compromised due
to the significant percentage (up to approximately 40 percent (Casazza
et al. 2009, pp. 19, 27, 35; NDOW 2011, in litt.)) of late brood-
rearing habitat that occurs on the private lands. Sage-grouse display
strong site-fidelity to traditional seasonal habitats and loss of
specific sites (such as mesic meadow or spring habitats that frequently
occur on potentially developable private lands in the bi-State area)
can have pronounced population impacts (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970;
Atamian et al. 2010, p. 1533). The influence of land development and
habitat conversion on the population dynamics of sage-grouse is greater
than a simple measure of spatial extent because of the indirect effects
from the associated increases in human activity, as well as the
disproportionate importance of some seasonal habitat areas, such as
mesic areas for brood-rearing.
Although not considered a significant threat at the time of the
proposed rule nor currently, urbanization and habitat conversion is not
universal across the bi-State area, but localized areas of impacts have
been realized throughout the DPS's range, and additional future impacts
would be expected if left unchecked. It is important to note that
conservation efforts that address the impacts associated with
urbanization and human disturbance have continued to be implemented
since publication of the proposed listing rule, including (but not
limited to): acquisition and permanent protection of critical sage-
grouse brood-rearing habitat, and implementing new sage-grouse policies
in applicable Mono County plans and programs. With continued
implementation of conservation actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-
State TAC 2012a, entire), impacts from urbanization and habitat
conversion are significantly reduced. See the Urbanization and Habitat
Conversion section of the Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 45-51).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) urbanization and human
disturbance. Because we have determined that the partially completed
and future conservation efforts will be implemented and effective (see
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) below), we believe that urbanization and human
disturbance is not a significant impact into the future.
Mining
Surface and subsurface mining for mineral resources (gold, silver,
aggregate, and others) results in direct loss of habitat when it occurs
in sagebrush habitats (Factor A). The direct impact from surface mining
is usually greater than it is from subsurface mining, and habitat loss
from both types of mining can be exacerbated by the storage of
overburden (soil removed to reach subsurface resource) in otherwise
undisturbed habitat. Sage-grouse and nests with eggs could be directly
affected by crushing or vehicle collision (Factor E). Sage-grouse also
could be impacted indirectly from an increase in human presence, land
use practices, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air quality,
degradation of water quality and quantity, and changes in vegetation
and topography (Moore and Mills 1977, entire; Brown and Clayton 2004,
p. 2) (Factor E). Although potential effects are many, information
relating actual sage-grouse response to mineral developments is not
extensive, and information available to us does not lead us to conclude
that mining is a significant threat in the bi-State population area.
Currently, operational surface and subsurface mining activities are
not impacting the two largest (core) populations within the bi-State
DPS. Areas in multiple PMUs are open to mineral development, and mining
operations are currently active in the Mount Grant, Bodie, South Mono,
and Pine Nut PMUs, including some occupied habitat areas. There is
potential for additional mineral developments to occur in the bi-State
area in the future based on known existing mineral resources and recent
permit request inquiries with local land managers. We are aware of four
active Plans of Operations for mining that
[[Page 22841]]
overlap bi-State DPS habitat and on the order of 20,000 active mine
claims (USFS and BLM 2014, pp. 112-113; USDI and USDA 2015, pp. 117-
129). We note, however, that a mining claim does not equate to an
actual mining proposal. While all six PMUs have the potential for
mineral development, based on current land designations and past
activity, the Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs are most likely to see new
and additional activity.
Overall, mining currently occurs in limited locations within four
PMUs, including small-scale activities such as gold and silver
exploration (Pine Nut, Bodie, and South Mono PMUs), and two open pit
mines (Mount Grant PMU). Additionally, new proposals being considered
for mining activity in the Pine Nut PMU could, if approved, impact the
single active lek remaining in the north end of the Pine Nut PMU. In
general, potential exists for mining operations to expand both
currently and into the future, but the scope of impacts from these
proposals and existing mining is not considered extensive. We concluded
in the proposed listing rule, and reaffirm here, that by itself, mining
is not considered a significant impact to the bi-State population. If
left unchecked, impacts to sage-grouse and its habitat outside of the
two largest (core) populations would be expected to continue or
increase in the future. See the Mining section of the Species Report
for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 65-68).
Conservation efforts that address the impacts from mining have
continued to be implemented since publication of the proposed listing
rule, such as reducing human-related disturbances (e.g., road noise/
traffic). The BSAP includes conservation actions targeting development
and human distrubances that will reduce the the minor or potential
impacts from mining (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire). Because we have
determined that the partially completed and future conservation efforts
will be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we
believe impacts associated with mining in the bi-State population area
are not a concern into the future.
Renewable Energy Development
Renewable energy facilities (including geothermal facilities, wind
power facilities, and solar arrays) require structures such as power
lines and roads for construction and operation, and avoidance of such
features by sage-grouse (Factor E) and other prairie grouse is
documented (Holloran 2005, p. 1; Pruett et al. 2009, p. 6; see
discussions regarding roads and power lines in the Infrastructure
section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 52-60)). Assuming no
intervention or increased protections, renewable energy development and
expansion could result in direct loss of habitat and indirect impacts
affecting sage-grouse and their habitat (e.g., habitat degradation and
population isolation) (Factor A).
Minimal direct habitat loss has occurred in the bi-State DPS due to
renewable energy development, specifically from the only operational
geothermal facility in the bi-State area, which is within the South
Mono PMU. However, the likelihood of additional renewable energy
facility development, especially geothermal, in the bi-State area is
high based on current Federal leases. Inquiries by energy developers
(geothermal, wind) have increased in the past several years (Dublino
2011, pers. comm.). There is strong political and public support for
energy diversification in Nevada and California, and the energy
industry considers the available resources in the bi-State area to
warrant investment (Renewable Energy Transmission Access Advisory
Committee 2007, p. 8). Based on our current assessment of development
probability, the Mount Grant PMU and to a lesser degree the Desert
Creek-Fales PMU are most likely to be negatively affected by renewable
energy development. However, interest by developers of renewable energy
changes rapidly, making it difficult to predict potential outcomes.
Overall, renewable energy development has minimally impacted one
location in the South Mono PMU to date, and could potentially result in
impacts in other parts of the bi-State DPS's range in the future based
on current leases. The best available data indicate that several
locations in the bi-State area (Pine Nut and South Mono PMUs) have
suitable wind resources based on recent leasing and inquiries by
facility developers (although no active leases currently occur), and it
appears the Mount Grant PMU and to a lesser degree the Desert Creek-
Fales PMU are likely to be most negatively affected. We are uncertain
of the probability of future inquires or development of wind energy in
the bi-State area. We concluded in the proposed listing rule, and
reaffirm here, that by itself, renewable energy development is not
considered a significant impact at this time.
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects to the bi-State DPS; although renewable energy development is
not specifically addressed in the BSAP, as minimal habitat loss due to
renewable energy projects has occurred historically (Service 2015a, pp.
68-71). The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), contains conservation
efforts that would address potential impacts from renewable energy if a
project were to be proposed, such as reducing human-related
disturbances (e.g., road noise/traffic). With continued implementation
of conservation actions associated with the BSAP, the potential impacts
from renewable enegery are minimized. See the Renewable Enegy section
of the Species Report for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 68-
71). Further, the Bi-State TAC and LAWG (which includes Service
participation) are examining all potential impacts to the bi-State DPS
and its habitat, as demonstrated through the agencies implementation of
an Adaptive Management Strategy (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.) and the
CPT. Because we have determined that the partially completed and future
conservation efforts will be implemented and effective (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
below), we believe impacts associated with renewable energy development
may no longer be a concern into the future.
Disease
Sage-grouse are hosts for a variety of parasites and diseases
(Factor C) including macroparasitic arthropods, helminths (worms), and
microparasites (protozoa, bacteria, viruses, and fungi) (Thorne et al.
1982, p. 338; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 10-4 to 10-7; Christiansen and
Tate 2011, p. 114), which can have varying effects on populations.
Connelly et al. (2004, p. 10-6) note that, while parasitic
relationships may be important to the long-term ecology of sage-grouse,
they have not been shown to be significant to the immediate population
status across the range of the DPS. However, Connelly et al. (2004, p.
10-3) and Christiansen and Tate (2011, p. 126) suggest that diseases
and parasites may limit isolated sage-grouse populations as they
interact with other demographic parameters such as reproductive success
and immigration, and thus, the effects of diseases require additional
study.
Viruses (such as coronavirus and WNv) are serious diseases that are
known to cause death in grouse species, potentially influencing
population dynamics (Petersen 2004, p. 46) (Factor C). Efficacy and
transmission of WNv in sagebrush habitats is primarily regulated by
environmental factors including temperature, precipitation, and
anthropogenic water sources, such as
[[Page 22842]]
stock ponds and coal-bed methane ponds that support mosquito vectors
(Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309; Walker and Naugle 2011, pp. 131-132). WNv
can be a threat to some sage-grouse populations, and its occurrence and
impacts are likely underestimated due to lack of monitoring. The impact
of this disease in the bi-State DPS is likely currently limited by
ambient temperatures that do not allow consistent vector and virus
maturation. As noted in the proposed listing rule, predicted
temperature increases associated with climate change may result in this
threat becoming more consistently prevalent. We have no indication that
other diseases or parasites are impacting the bi-State DPS.
Overall, multiple diseases have the potential to occur in the bi-
State area, although WNv appears to be the only identified disease that
warrants concern for sage-grouse in the bi-State area. We concluded in
the proposed listing rule, and reaffirm here, that by itself, WNv is
not considered a significant impact at this time because it is
currently limited by ambient temperatures that do not allow consistent
vector and virus maturation. However, WNv could be a concern for the
future if predicted temperature increases associated with climate
change result in this threat becoming more consistently prevalent. With
continued implementation of conservation actions (WNv surveillance and
mosquito abatement measures) associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC
2012a, entire), the minor or potential impacts from WNv are reduced to
the point that we find disease is not a significant threat to the bi-
State DPS.
Predation
Predation of sage-grouse is the most commonly identified cause of
direct mortality during all life stages (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9;
Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228; Casazza et al. 2009, p. 45; Connelly et
al. 2011, p. 65) (Factor C). However, sage-grouse have co-evolved with
a variety of predators, and their cryptic plumage and behavioral
adaptations have allowed them to persist (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10;
Coates 2007, p. 69; Coates and Delehanty 2008, p. 635; Hagen 2011, p.
96). Within the bi-State DPS, predation facilitated by habitat
fragmentation (fences, power lines, and roads) and other human
activities may be altering natural population dynamics in specific
areas of the bi-State DPS. Data suggest certain populations are
exhibiting deviations in vital rates below those anticipated (Koloda et
al. 2009, p. 1344; Sedinger et al. 2011. p. 324). For example, within
the Long Valley population of the South Mono PMU, known nest predators
associated with a county landfill may be the cause of the reportedly
low nesting success. In addition, low adult survival estimates for the
Desert Creek-Fales PMU suggest predators may be influencing population
growth there. However, we generally consider habitat alteration as the
root cause of these results; teasing apart the interaction between
predation rate and habitat condition is difficult.
Overall, predation is currently known to occur throughout the bi-
State DPS's range. It is facilitated by habitat fragmentation (fences,
power lines, and roads) and other human activities that may be altering
natural population dynamics in specific areas throughout the bi-State
DPS's range. We concluded in the proposed listing rule, and reaffirm
here, that by itself, predation is not considered a significant impact
at this time. Conservation efforts that address the impacts from
predation have continued to be implemented since publication of the
proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to): removing
structures that attract predators (e.g., fencing, power lines), and
conducting initial procedures to remove the landfill in Long Valley.
With continued implementation of conservation actions associated with
the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), impacts from predation are
significantly reduced. See the predation discussion under the Disease
or Predation section of the Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 114-120).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) the extent of predation risks to
the bi-State DPS. Because we have determined that the partially
completed and future conservation efforts will be implemented and
effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we believe that the risk of
predation is not a concern into the future.
Climate
Climate change projections in the Great Basin suggest a hotter and
stable-to-declining level of precipitation and a shift in precipitation
events to the summer months; fire frequency is expected to accelerate;
fires may become larger and more severe; and fire seasons will be
longer (Brown et al. 2004, pp. 382-383; Neilson et al. 2005, p. 150;
Chambers and Pellant 2008, p. 31; Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States 2009, p. 83). With these projections, drought (which is a
natural part of the sagebrush ecosystem) is likely to be exacerbated.
Drought reduces vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly
et al. 2004, p. 7-18), potentially resulting in increased soil erosion
and subsequent reduced soil depths, decreased water infiltration, and
reduced water storage capacity (Factor A). Drought can also exacerbate
other natural events such as defoliation of sagebrush by insects
(Factor A). These habitat component losses can result in declining
sage-grouse populations due to increased nest predation and early brood
mortality (Factor E) associated with decreased nest cover and food
availability (Braun 1998, p. 149; Moynahan et al. 2007, p. 1781).
In the bi-State area, drought is a natural part of the sagebrush
ecosystem, and available information does not indicate that drought has
influenced long-term population dynamics of sage-grouse under
historical conditions. There are known occasions, however, where
reduced brood-rearing habitat conditions due to drought have resulted
in little to no recruitment within certain PMUs (Bodie and Pine Nut
PMUs (Gardner 2009, pers. comm.)). If these conditions were to persist
longer than the typical adult life-span, drought could have significant
ramifications on population persistence. Further, drought impacts on
the sage-grouse may be exacerbated when combined with other habitat
impacts that reduce cover and food (Braun 1998, p. 148).
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
the threat of climate change is not known to currently impact the bi-
State DPS to such a degree that the viability of the DPS is at stake. A
recent analysis conducted by NatureServe, which incorporates much of
the information presented above, suggests a substantial contraction of
both sagebrush and sage-grouse range in the bi-State area by 2060
(Comer et al. 2012, pp. 142, 145). Specifically (for example), this
analysis suggests the current extent of suitable shrub habitat will
decrease because of a less suitable climate condition for sagebrush and
may improve suitability for woodland and drier vegetation communities,
which are not favorable to the bi-State DPS. The NatureServe
predictions notwithstanding, while it is reasonable to assume the bi-
State area will experience vegetation changes into the future, we do
not know with a reasonable degree of certainty the nature of these
changes or ultimately the effect this will have on the bi-State DPS.
It is possible that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,
temperature, precipitation, and timing of snowmelt could act
synergistically
[[Page 22843]]
with other threats (such as wildfire and nonnative, invasive plant
species) to produce yet unknown but likely negative effects to sage-
grouse populations in the bi-State area. The overall impact of climate
change to the bi-State DPS in the future could be moderate if existing
threats (such as wildfire, and nonnative, invasive plant species)
continue unabated, and climate changes exacerbate those threats.
By itself, climate change is not considered a significant impact at
this time. We concluded in the proposed listing rule that climate
change will potentially act in combination with other impacts to the
bi-State DPS, further diminishing habitat (Factor A) and increasing
isolation of populations (Factor E), making them more susceptible to
demographic and genetic challenges or disease. Since the publication of
the proposed rule, ongoing implementation of various conservation
measures in the BSAP has reduced the significance of the threat of
wildfire and invasive plants (e.g., through removal of pinyon-juniper
woodland). Continued implementation of the BSAP further reduces the
impacts of these threats to the bi-State sage-grouse. Therefore, even
should climate change increase the threat of wildfire and invasive
plants to some degree, we no longer conclude that climate change acting
in concert with these other threats constitutes a significant threat to
the bi-State DPS. See the Climate section of the Species Report for
further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 91-99).
Recreation
Non-consumptive recreational activities (such as fishing, hiking,
horseback riding, and camping as well as more recently popularized
activities, such as OHV use and mountain biking) occur throughout the
range of the greater sage-grouse, including throughout the bi-State DPS
area. These activities can degrade wildlife resources, water, and land
by distributing refuse, disturbing and displacing wildlife, increasing
animal mortality, and simplifying plant communities (Boyle and Samson
1985, pp. 110-112) (Factor E). For example, disruption of sage-grouse
during vulnerable periods at leks, or during nesting or early brood-
rearing, could affect reproduction and survival (Baydack and Hein 1987,
pp. 537-538). In addition, indirect effects to sage-grouse from
recreational activities include impacts to vegetation and soils, and
the facilitation of the spread of invasive species (Factor A). Impacts
caused by recreational activities may be affecting sage-grouse
populations in the bi-State area, and there are known localized habitat
impacts.
Overall, recreation occurs throughout the bi-State DPS's range,
although we do not have data that would indicate impacts to sage-grouse
or their habitat are significant. We concluded in the proposed listing
rule and reaffirm here that by itself, recreation is not considered a
significant impact at this time. However, if left unchecked, some forms
of recreation could become a concern based on anticipated increases of
recreational use within the bi-State area in the future. Populations of
sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU are exposed to the greatest degree of
pedestrian recreational activity, although they appear relatively
stable at present. Conservation efforts that address recreational
impacts have continued to be implemented since publication of the
proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to): reducing human-
related disturbances in high-use recreation areas (e.g., installing
sage-grouse educational signs), conducting seasonal closures of lek
viewing areas, and implementing both permanent and seasonal road
closures. With continued implementation of conservation actions
associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire), impacts from
recreation are significantly reduced. See the Recreation section of the
Species Report for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 102-106).
The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) was designed to counter
effects such as (but not limited to) human disturbance to the bi-State
DPS, including recreation-related impacts. Because we have determined
that the partially completed and future conservation efforts will be
implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) below), we believe impacts
associated with recreation are no longer a concern into the future.
Overutilization Impacts
Potential overutilization impacts include recreational hunting
(Factor B). Sage-grouse have not been commercially harvested in the bi-
State area since the 1930s, and they are not expected to be
commercially harvested in the future. Limited recreational hunting,
based on the concept of compensatory mortality, was allowed across most
of the DPS's range with the increase of sage-grouse populations by the
1950s (Patterson 1952, p. 242; Autenrieth 1981, p. 11). In recent
years, hunting as a form of compensatory mortality for upland game
birds (which includes sage-grouse) has been questioned (Connelly et al.
2005, pp. 660, 663; Reese and Connelly 2011, p. 111).
Recreational hunting is currently limited in the bi-State DPS and
within generally accepted harvest guidelines. In the Nevada portion of
the bi-State area, NDOW regulates hunting of sage-grouse. Most hunting
of sage-grouse in the Nevada portion of the bi-State area is closed.
NDOW closed the shotgun and archery seasons for sage-grouse in 1997,
and the falconry season in 2003 (NDOW 2012, in litt., p. 4). Hunting of
sage-grouse may occur on tribal allotments located in the Pine Nut PMU
where the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California has authority. There
are anecdotal reports of harvest by tribal members, but currently the
Washoe Tribe Hunting and Fishing Commission does not issue harvest
permits for greater sage-grouse (Warpeha 2009, pers. comm.). In the
California portion of the bi-State area, CDFW regulates hunting of
sage-grouse. Hunting historically occurred and continues to occur in
the Long Valley (South Mono PMU) and Bodie Hills (Bodie PMU) areas
(known as the South Mono and North Mono Hunt Units, respectively). As a
result of work by Gibson (1998, entire) and documented population
declines in the bi-State DPS, CDFW has significantly reduced the number
of permits issued (Gardner 2008, pers. comm.).
As stated in the proposed listing rule and reaffirmed here, it is
unlikely that the scope and severity of hunting impacts would act in an
additive manner to natural mortality of the bi-State DPS across its
range due to the conservative approach that the State agencies employ
in the single location (Long Valley) where hunting is permitted
(specifically, harvest levels are below 5 to 10 percent of the fall
population). In the bi-State area, hunting is limited to such a degree
that it is not apparently restrictive to overall population growth
currently nor expected to become so in the future (CDFW 2012, in
litt.). Furthermore, we are unaware of any information to indicate that
poaching significantly impacts bi-State sage-grouse populations.
Overall, sport hunting is currently limited and within generally
accepted harvest guidelines. We concluded in the proposed listing rule
and reaffirm here that it is unlikely that hunting will ever again
reach levels that would act in an additive manner to mortality. In the
bi-State area, hunting is limited to such a degree that it is not
apparently restrictive to overall population growth. Furthermore, we
are unaware of any information indicating that overutilization is
significantly
[[Page 22844]]
impacting sage-grouse populations in the bi-State area. Given the
current level and location of harvest, and expected continued
management into the future, we find the impact this factor has on
population persistence is negligible. See the Overutilization Impacts
section of the Species Report for further discussion (Service 2015a,
pp. 99-105).
Scientific and Educational Uses
Mortality and behavioral impacts to sage-grouse may occur as a
result of scientific research activities (Factor B). Sage-grouse in the
bi-State area have been subject to several scientific research efforts
over the past decade involving capture, handling, and subsequent
banding or radio-marking. Much remains unknown about the impacts of
research on sage-grouse population dynamics. However, the available
information indicates that very few individuals are disturbed or die as
a result of handling and marking. Therefore, we concluded in the
proposed listing rule and reaffirm here that the potential impacts
associated with scientific and educational uses are considered
negligible to the bi-State DPS at this time and are expected to remain
so into the future. See the Scientific and Educational Uses section of
the Species Report for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 105-108).
Pesticides and Herbicides
Although few studies have examined the effects of pesticides to
sage-grouse, direct mortality of sage-grouse as a result of pesticide
applications (such as insecticides and pesticides applied via cropland
spraying) has been documented (Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Blus and
Connelly 1998, p. 23) (Factor E). In addition, herbicide applications
can kill sagebrush and forbs important as food sources for sage-grouse
(Carr 1968, as cited in Call and Maser 1985, p. 14) (Factor E).
Although pesticides and herbicides can result in direct and indirect
mortality of individual sage-grouse, we are unaware of information that
would indicate that the current usage or residue from past applications
in the bi-State area are having negative impacts on populations, nor do
we have information that indicates levels of use will increase in the
future. Therefore, we concluded in the proposed listing rule and
reaffirm here that the potential impacts associated with pesticide and
herbicide use are considered negligible to the bi-State DPS at this
time, and are expected to remain so into the future. See the Pesticides
and Herbicides section of the Species Report for further discussion
(Service 2015a, pp. 126-128).
Contaminants
Sage-grouse exposure to various types of environmental contaminants
(concentrated salts, petroleum products, or other industrial chemicals)
may occur as a result of agricultural and rangeland management
practices, mining, energy development and pipeline operations, and
transportation of hazardous materials along highways and railroads. In
the bi-State area, exposure to contaminants associated with mining is
the most likely to occur (see Mining, above). Exposure to contaminated
water in wastewater pits or evaporation ponds could cause mortalities
or an increased incidence of sage-grouse disease (morbidity) (Factor
E). Within the bi-State DPS, sage-grouse exposure to potential
contaminants is currently limited and most likely associated with a few
existing mining operations in the Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs. Future
impacts from contaminants (if present) would most likely occur in these
same PMUs due to their potential for future mineral development;
however, at this time we are unaware of information to indicate that
contaminants are a problem currently or in the future. Therefore, we
concluded in the proposed listing rule and reaffirm here that the
potential impacts associated with contaminants are considered
negligible to the bi-State DPS at this time, and are expected to remain
so into the future. See the Contaminants section of the Species Report
for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 128-129).
Synergistic Impacts
Many of the impacts described here and in the accompanying Species
Report may cumulatively or synergistically affect the bi-State DPS
beyond the scope of each individual stressor. For example, the future
loss of additional significant sagebrush habitat due to wildfire in the
bi-State DPS is could occur because of the synergistic interactions
among fire, people and infrastructure, invasive species, and climate
change. Predation may also increase as a result of the increase in
human disturbance and development. Conservation efforts that address
the most significant threats to the bi-State DPS have continued to be
implemented since publication of the proposed listing rule, including
(but not limited to): removal of pinyon-juniper woodlands; reducing
human-related disturbances in high-use recreation areas (e.g.,
installing sage-grouse educational signs); weed treatments for
nonnative, invasive species; removing power lines; fencing around
riparian areas to minimize grazing impacts; and implementing both
permanent and seasonal road closures. With continued implementation of
conservation actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire), impacts from threats to bi-State sage-grouse and their
habitats are significantly reduced. Therefore, possible cumulative and/
or synergistic effects of the various threats are also significantly
reduced.
In summary, we have determined that the threats potentially causing
the most significant impacts on the bi-State DPS currently and in the
future are urbanization and habitat conversion (Factor A);
infrastructure (Factors A and E); grazing (Factors A, C, and E); the
increase of nonnative, invasive and native plants (e.g., cheatgrass,
pinyon-juniper encroachment) (Factors A and E); wildfires and altered
fire regime (Factors A and E); and small population size and population
structure (Factor E). Other threats impacting the DPS across its range
currently and in the future, but to a lesser degree than those listed
above, include renewable energy development and associated
infrastructure (Factors A and E); climate change, including drought
(Factors A and E); recreation (Factors A and E); and disease and
predation (Factor B). Numerous threats may be acting synergistically
and cumulatively to further contribute to the challenges faced by
several bi-State DPS populations now and into the future. Since the
publication of the proposed listing rule, implementation of many
conservation measures included in the BSAP that target the most
significant threats to the bi-State DPS have reduced significantly the
severity of threats--individually, cumulatively, and synergistically.
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Bi-State sage-grouse conservation has been addressed in some local,
State, and Federal plans, laws, regulations, and policies. An
examination of regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) for both the bi-State
DPS and sagebrush habitats in general reveals that some mechanisms
exist that either provide or have the potential to provide a
conservation benefit to the bi-State DPS, such as (but not limited to):
Various county or city regulations outlined in general plans; Nevada
State Executive Order, dated September 26, 2008; Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), which requires
development of resource management plans for BLM lands; the National
Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et
[[Page 22845]]
seq.), which requires Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) for
USFS lands; and the Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a
et seq.), which requires integrated natural resources management plans
for military installations (see Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section
of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 129-142)). However,
supporting documents for some of these regulations are many years old
and have not been updated, calling into question their consistency with
our current understanding of the DPS's life-history requirements, and
the DPS's conservation needs. In addition, the conservation actions
that have been implemented to date according to the existing regulatory
mechanisms vary across the bi-State area, although managing agencies
are beginning to work more collaboratively across jurisdictional
boundaries. The degree to which these existing regulatory mechanisms
conserve the DPS is largely dependent on current and future
implementation, which can vary depending on factors such as the
availability of staff and funding.
Regulations in some counties identify the need for natural resource
conservation and attempt to minimize impacts of development through
zoning restrictions, but to our knowledge these regulations neither
preclude development nor do they provide for monitoring of the loss of
sage-grouse habitats. Similarly, State laws and regulations are general
in nature and provide flexibility in implementation, and do not provide
specific direction to State wildlife agencies, although they can
occasionally afford regulatory authority over habitat preservation
(e.g., creation of habitat easements and land acquisitions).
The bi-State area is largely composed of federally managed lands.
Historically, land use plans, as they pertain to sage-grouse, have been
general in nature and afforded relatively broad latitude to land
managers. The BLM (Carson City and Tonopah Field Offices) and USFS
(Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest) issued a Final Environmental Impact
Statement in February, 2015 to support their respective proposed RMP
and LRMP amendments. These proposed amendments include improved
management direction that provide a conservation benefit for the bi-
State DPS and its habitat (USDI and USDA 2015, entire). The proposed
amendments identify goals for desired habitat condition at both the
site and landscape scale. These goals and the specific direction needed
to achieve them (e.g., grazing allotment management plans) direct
management focus and funding to address specific habitat threats
affecting the bi-State DPS (i.e., an increase in nonnative, invasive
and native plants; wildfire and altered wildfire regime; and rangeland
management) by improving habitat condition through increasing the
resilience and resistance of the native sagebrush ecosystem. The
proposed amendments also provide clear direction to managers faced with
decisions on discretionary actions, such as infrastructure development
projects, to consider the needs of sage-grouse in the decision making
process. The proposed amendments restrict the development of
anthropogenic features in bi-State DPS habitat and thereby the
potential risk these features can exert on sage-grouse in the future.
We would like to further note that land use plan revisions are called
for in the BSAP to improve regulatory effectiveness and consistency for
discretionary agency actions affecting the bi-State DPS. The proposed
amendments will make the plan language consistent with the BSAP goals,
further reinforcing the commitments by the agencies to implement the
plans, however we do not rely on the draft plans when analyzing the
BSAP. See the discussion about the proposed Land Use Plan amendments in
the detailed PECE analysis available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072).
In our proposed rule, we stated that the existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) were not considered adequate to remove the
threats such that listing under the Act would not be necessary.
However, since that proposal, we have fully evaluated the BSAP and
determined that it ameolirates threats to the species, lessening the
need for regulatory mechanisms to manage stressors. The currently
proposed BLM and Forest Service Land Use Plan amendments will provide
more specificity and certainty with regard to the conservation of the
bi-State DPS and its habitat. We mention the draft plans in this
document to recognize that the BLM and the USFS have taken steps to
draft such plans, which will make their language consistent with the
actions being undertaken in the BSAP. However, we are not relying on
them as part of this review because they are not finalized and would
require speculation on the Service's part as to the final outcomes of
the plans. Since we have determined that the ongoing and future
conservation efforts under the BSAP are removing the threats to the bi-
State DPS as discussed above, we find that the currently existing
regulatory mechanisms are adequate.
Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts
Below we summarize the current plan that provides conservation
benefit to the bi-State DPS, i.e., the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire). We describe the significant conservation efforts that are
already occurring and those that are expected to occur in the future.
For future conservation efforts (i.e., projects that have been
initiated but are not yet complete or have not yet been shown to be
effective or projects that are proposed for the future), we present an
analysis pursuant to our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003).
Prior to the bi-State DPS becoming a candidate species in 2010, a
variety of conservation initiatives were put in place to conserve the
DPS and its habitat. The most significant initiative was the creation
of the Nevada Governor's Sage Grouse Conservation Team in June 2002
who, in cooperation with local stakeholders (i.e., the Bi-State Local
Area Working Group (LAWG)), developed the first edition of the Greater
Sage Grouse Conservation Plan for the bi-State area in 2004 (Bi-State
Local Planning Group 2004, entire) to begin a cooperative effort to
address threats to the bi-State DPS and its habitat. The 2004 Action
Plan served as the foundation for the conservation of the bi-State DPS
and its habitat. These efforts were later enhanced by both local- and
national-level conservation strategies for sage-grouse conservation
(including in the Bi-State area) associated with organizations
including the Sage Grouse Initiative, and the Bi-State LAWG, the latter
of which is specifically focused on bi-State DPS conservation.
In December 2011, the Bi-State Executive Oversight Committee (EOC)
was formed (as recommended at that time by Ken Mayer (NDOW) and Raul
Moralez (BLM)) to leverage collective resources and assemble the best
technical support to achieve long-term conservation of the bi-State DPS
and its habitat. The EOC comprises resource agency representatives from
the Service, BLM, USFS, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
USGS, NDOW, and CDFW. Recognizing that conservation efforts were
already underway by this point in time, the EOC directed a bi-State
TAC, comprising technical experts/members from each agency, to
summarize the conservation actions completed since 2004, and to develop
a comprehensive set of strategies, objectives, and actions that would
be effective for the long-term
[[Page 22846]]
conservation of the bi-State DPS and its habitat. These strategies,
objectives, and actions comprise the 2012 BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
entire), which is actively being implemented by the signatory agencies
identified above, as well as Mono County, who is committed to
implementing all relevant actions within the county (which harbors the
two core populations of the bi-State DPS). Numerous conservation
efforts outlined in the BSAP have already been implemented (see the
proposed listing rule (78 FR 64358) and sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the
Action Plan (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 4-13)). Additional conservation
actions have been implemented since the plan was signed between 2012
and the present. For a comprehensive discussion of past and ongoing
management efforts implemented according to the BSAP, see the Past and
Ongoing Management Efforts discussion in the Species Report (Service
2015a, pp. 36-43), and available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072).
Despite the positive accomplishments of various entities
implementing the 2012 BSAP, the proposed rule (78 FR 64358; October 28,
2013) described several threats that were identified as interacting
synergistically on the bi-State DPS and its habitat and resulting in
increasingly fragmented habitat for this long-lived habitat specialist,
specifically: urbanization and habitat conversion (Factor A);
infrastructure (Factors A and E); mining (Factors A and E); renewable
energy development and associated infrastructure (Factors A and E);
grazing (Factors A, C, and E); the increase of nonnative, invasive and
native plants (e.g., cheatgrass, pinyon-juniper encroachment) (Factors
A and E); wildfires and altered fire regime (Factors A and E); and
small population size and population structure (Factor E). Other
threats described in the proposed listing rule that impact the DPS
across its range to a lesser degree than those listed above included:
climate change, including drought (Factors A and E); recreation
(Factors A and E); and disease and predation (Factor B) (78 FR 64358).
Synergistic, cumulative impacts identified in the proposed rule
primarily involved: (1) Woodland encroachment; (2) existing and
potential near-term impacts of cheatgrass and wildfire that will likely
escalate further with climate change; and (3) impacts from
infrastructure, urbanization, and recreation on already fragmented
habitat and small populations (78 FR 64358).
Based on information provided in the proposed rule and discussions
with the EOC, TAC, and LAWG, signatory agencies provided a package of
information examining their commitments, including staffing and
funding, to implement the actions needed for conservation of the bi-
State DPS and its habitat, as outlined in the BSAP. They also provided
an updated prioritization of various conservation actions and site-
specific locations in which to implement such actions, as needed, based
on utilization of the CPT (i.e., linked, data-driven predictive models
and interactive maps that identify and rank areas for management
actions and provide a basis to evaluate those actions) and the BSAP's
Adaptive Management Strategy (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.). The agency
commitment letters (which were one component of the information
provided by the EOC, i.e. BLM 2014c, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.;
Mono County 2014, in litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.;
and USGS 2014c, in litt.) outlined many partially completed or new
conservation actions that will be implemented and completed to address
the threats that were identified in our October 28, 2013, proposed rule
(78 FR 64538).
The EOC evaluated the [then current] bi-State DPS survey and trend
information and concluded that their unified and collaborative approach
addresses the conservation needs of the bi-State DPS (Bi-State EOC
2014, in litt.). Additionally, the EOC concluded that each partner
agency is committed to implementing the BSAP and providing the
necessary resources to do so regardless of the outcome of the Service's
listing decision (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.).
The information provided by the EOC indicates significant
conservation efforts are currently being implemented and further
actions are proposed for implementation in the future. These combined
actions address the threats that (synergistically) are resulting in the
most severe impacts on the DPS and its habitat now and into the future.
These conservation actions are described in our detailed PECE analysis
that is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket
No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and summarized below.
Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE)
The purpose of PECE (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) is to ensure
consistent and adequate evaluation of recently formalized conservation
efforts when making listing decisions. The policy provides guidance on
how to evaluate conservation efforts that have not yet been implemented
or have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The evaluation focuses on
the certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented and the
effectiveness of the conservation efforts to contribute to make listing
a species unnecessary. The policy presents nine criteria for evaluating
the certainty of implementation and six criteria for evaluating the
certainty of effectiveness for conservation efforts. These criteria are
not considered comprehensive evaluation criteria. The certainty of
implementation and the effectiveness of a formalized conservation
effort may also depend on species-specific, habitat-specific, location-
specific, and effort-specific factors. We consider all appropriate
factors in evaluating formalized conservation efforts. The specific
circumstances will also determine the amount of information necessary
to satisfy these criteria.
To consider that a formalized conservation effort contributes to
forming a basis for not listing a species, or listing a species as
threatened rather than endangered, we must find that the conservation
effort is sufficiently certain to be (1) implemented, and (2)
effective, so as to have contributed to the elimination or adequate
reduction of one or more threats to the species identified through
section 4(a)(1) analysis under the Act. The elimination or adequate
reduction of section 4(a)(1) threats may lead to a determination that
the species does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered,
or is threatened rather than endangered.
An agreement or plan may contain numerous conservation efforts, not
all of which are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective.
Those conservation efforts that are not sufficiently certain to be
implemented and effective cannot contribute to a determination that
listing is unnecessary, or a determination to list as threatened rather
than endangered. Regardless of the adoption of a conservation agreement
or plan, however, if the best available scientific and commercial data
indicate that the species meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or ``threatened species'' on the day of the listing decision,
then we must proceed with appropriate rulemaking activity under section
4 of the Act. Further, it is important to note that a conservation plan
is not required to have absolute certainty of implementation and
effectiveness in order to contribute to a listing determination.
Rather, we need to be reasonably certain that the conservation efforts
will be implemented and effective such that the
[[Page 22847]]
threats to the species are reduced or eliminated.
Using the criteria in PECE (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003), we
evaluated the certainty of implementation (for those measures not
already implemented) and effectiveness of conservation measures in the
BSAP. Below is a summary of our full PECE analysis, which can be found
at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072).
We have determined that the conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
the PECE criteria with regard to certainty of implementation because of
(but not limited to): (1) The agency commitments of staffing and
significant funding (i.e., over $45 million over the next 10 years);
and (2) continued participation on the Bi-State EOC, TAC, and LAWG to
ensure the most important conservation efforts are occurring at any
given time considering ongoing research and monitoring that may
influence changes in management strategies, as outlined in the BSAP's
Science-based Adaptive Management Plan and through use of the CPT.
Additionally, we have certainty of implementation by the various
agencies for conservation efforts that address many different impacts.
In particular, we have certainty of implementation for those
conservation efforts expected to provide the most significant
conservation value to the bi-State DPS and its habitat, including
actions (as outlined in the agencies 2014 commitment letters and work
plans, and the comprehensive project database (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.) that:
(1) Protect and restore critical brood-rearing habitat (reduces
impacts from development/habitat conversion, grazing and rangeland
management, and effects resulting from climate change). Lead agencies
under the BSAP implementing conservation actions to reduce these
impacts are NRCS (e.g., conservation easements, riparian/meadow
restoration), USFS (e.g., private-public land exchanges, riparian/
meadow restoration or improvement, grazing management, wild horse
management), BLM (e.g., riparian/meadow restoration, meadow irrigation
and structure repair, racetrack fence removal, wild horse management),
and Mono County (e.g., fencing modification).
(2) Restore habitat impacted by the spread of invasive, nonnative
plants and pinyon-juniper encroachment (reduces impacts from nonnative,
invasive and certain native plants, wildfire, predation, and effects
resulting from climate change). Lead agencies under the BSAP
implementing conservation actions to reduce these impacts are NRCS
(e.g., pinyon-juniper removal), USFS (e.g., pinyon-juniper removal,
riparian/meadow restoration, invasive weed treatments), BLM (e.g.,
pinyon-juniper removal, riparian/meadow restoration, invasive weed
treatments, wildfire fuel break treatments, fencing removal), and Mono
County (e.g., closure and relocation of the Long Valley landfill,
predator deterrents and reduction of attractants).
(3) Ensure stable or increasing sage-grouse populations and
structure, etc., to (a) Prioritize management actions related to
synergistic impacts on already fragmented habitat, such that management
efforts occur in locations that benefit the DPS the most (reducing
impacts such as infrastructure, urbanization, and recreation), and (b)
develop and implement sage-grouse translocation from stable
subpopulations to other small subpopulations that may be experiencing a
high risk of extirpation (reduces impacts from small population size
and population structure). Lead agencies under the BSAP implementing
conservation actions to reduce these impacts are USGS, NDOW, and CDFW
(e.g., conducting telemetry, research, or monitoring surveys that
inform the CPT of adjustments to the BSAP conservation strategy that
provide the greatest benefit to the DPS or its habitat (see section 6.5
in the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 75-76); implementing translocation
programs from stable subpopulations to subpopulations that may be at
high risk of extinction), BLM (e.g., permanent and seasonal road
closures, nesting habitat seasonal closures, fencing removal or
marking), USFS (e.g., permanent and seasonal road closures, power line
removal), and Mono County (coordinate with private landowners to
encourage reduced infrastructure).
We also note that BLM, USFS, NRCS, and Mono County have provided
specific plans and timetables laying out various conservation efforts
for implementation over the next 10 years (BLM 2014c, in litt.; Mono
County 2014, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.), while CDFW, NDOW, and USGS
have provided textual descriptions of their intended actions and
contributions over the next 10 years (CDFW 2014b, in litt.; NDOW 2014b,
in litt.; USGS 2014c, in litt.). Additionally, the collaboration
between the Service, BLM, USFS, NRCS, Mono County, USGS, NDOW, and CDFW
requires regular meetings and involvement from the parties, whether at
the level of the Bi-State EOC, TAC, or LAWG, in order to implement the
BSAP fully.
We are confident that the conservation efforts (as outlined in the
BSAP, Agency commitment letters, and our detailed PECE analysis (all of
which are available at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2013-0072)), as well as the TAC comprehensive project database) will
continue to be implemented because (to date) we have a documented track
record of active participation and implementation by the signatory
agencies, and commitments to continue implementation into the future.
Conservation measures, such as (but not limited to) pinyon-juniper
removal, establishment of conservation easements for critical brood-
rearing habitat, cheatgrass removal, permanent and seasonal closure of
roads near leks, removal and marking of fencing, and restoration of
riparian/meadow habitat have been occurring over the past decade, are
currently occurring, and have been prioritized and placed on the
agency's implementation schedules for future implementation. Agencies
have committed to remain participants and continue conservation of the
DPS and its habitat. The BSAP has sufficient methods (i.e., science
advisors, the CPT, and a Science-based Adaptive Management Strategy)
for determining the type and location of the most beneficial
conservation actions to be implemented, including continued receipt of
new population and threats information in the future that will guide
conservation efforts.
We have determined that the conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
the PECE criteria with regard to certainty of effectiveness to remove
or reduce threats facing the bi-State DPS because of, but not limited
to, past project effectiveness within the bi-State area or within
sagebrush habitat areas across the range of the greater sage-grouse,
and documented effective methodologies for addressing the threats
identified as impacting the bi-State DPS. For example (Bi-State EOC
2014, in litt.; Espinosa 2014, in litt.):
(1) Development and Habitat Conversion--Conservation efforts to
reduce development and habitat conversion are anticipated to occur in
critical brood-rearing habitats across five PMUs, including through
conservation easements and land exchanges (see detailed PECE analysis,
Section 3.0). These areas include high-priority targets identified in
the BSAP, and are consistent with the Conservation Objectives Team
(COT) Report's ex-urban conservation objective to limit urban and
exurban development in sage-grouse habitats (Service 2013c, p. 50).
These actions are considered
[[Page 22848]]
effective at reducing impacts from development and habitat conversion
because conserving and managing lands in perpetuity are the most
successful tools for permanent protection of critical sage-grouse
habitat (as demonstrated by Pocewicz et al. (2011) in Wyoming).
(2) Invasive Nonnative and Native Plants--Because both invasive
plants and particularly native plants (pinyon-juniper encroachment)
displace the sagebrush ecosystem that the bi-State DPS relies on,
significant conservation efforts are being and will continue to be
implemented to address these problems. With regard to invasive,
nonnative plants, the Bi-State EOC and TAC recognize that effective
control programs can be labor intensive and costly; however, the Bi-
State EOC and TAC believes there is value for the bi-State DPS in being
strategic in implementing the conservation efforts that potentially
reduce the impact these plants have on the DPS's habitat (e.g.,
treating nonnative, invasive plants in strategic areas to potentially
reduce the likelihood of an outbreak or improve a priority habitat
area) (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Six BLM and USFS projects are either
partially completed or planned for the future that target invasive,
nonnative plants on more than 257 ha (634 ac) in the Desert Creek-
Fales, Mount Grant, and Pine Nut PMUs, the latter two of which
cheatgrass is considered a moderate and high threat, respectively,
compared to other PMUs. The USFS will control at least 40.5 ha (100 ac)
of cheatgrass each year over the next 10 years in the Pine Nut PMU
(USDA 2014, in litt.). Finally, adjustments to grazing and upland
habitats, when necessary, can reduce the risk of cheatgrass dominance
on a site.
With regard to pinyon-juniper encroachment, ecologists have
developed clear and effective recommendations to target appropriate
phases of encroachment (i.e., specific age and density structure) to
ensure restoration occurs in sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat areas
that are most meaningful (e.g., critical brood-rearing habitat,
corridors in fragmented areas) (e.g., Bates et al. 2011, pp. 476-479;
Davies et al. 2011, pp. 2577-2578). Accordingly, BLM, USFS, and NRCS
are strategically targeting phase I and II pinyon-juniper encroachment
in the bi-State area, which is supported by literature as effective
with careful planning and execution (e.g., Bates et al. 2011, pp. 476-
479; Davies et al. 2011, pp. 2577-2578). At this time, approximately
82,284 ha (203,329 ac) across all PMUs are identified by the Bi-State
TAC to be examined and treated for pinyon-juniper encroachment (Bi-
State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(3) Infrastructure--Conservation efforts to reduce infrastructure
are focused on roads, power lines, fencing, and a landfill. Permanent
road closures over a minimum of 1,339 km (832 mi) in the Bodie, Desert
Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, and Pine Nut PMUs and seasonal road closures
over approximately 1,429 km (888 mi) in the South Mono PMU will reduce
the likelihood of mortality and improve vital rates for sage-grouse
near leks, including nesting and brood-rearing areas (Bi-State TAC
2014a, in litt.). Power line and fencing removal projects will occur at
three sites in the Bodie or South Mono PMUs, in addition to three
projects that will mark and modify fencing in the Pine Nut or South
Mono PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). A landfill in the Long Valley
area of the South Mono PMU is a significant source of predators for one
of the two core populations of the bi-State DPS; Mono County is
currently undergoing the initial stages of closing and relocating this
landfill (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.).
Removing or modifying the types of infrastructure described above
will be effective at reducing the amount of invasive plants present
along or around developed areas (Manier et al. 2014, pp. 167-170),
reducing existing habitat fragmentation and potential vectors for
invasive plants (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, pp. 424-431); removing some
edge effects that can lead to avoidance of nesting in suitable habitat
areas (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 516-523); reducing or removing
anthropogenic noise that disturbs normal behavior patterns of sage-
grouse (Blickley 2013, pp. 54-65); reducing collision-related
mortalities (associated specifically with fencing) (Stevens et al.
2012, pp. 299-302); and making currently undesirable habitat areas
(that attract predators) favorable by sage-grouse as nest and brood
sites by reducing predator attractants (e.g., power lines, landfill)
(Dinkins et al. 2012, pp. 605-608).
(4) Wildfire--Fires have consumed some important habitat areas
within the range of the bi-State DPS, primarily within the Pine Nut
PMU, but also recently as a result of the Spring Peak fire within the
Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Site restoration
activities are planned to be implemented following wildfires by
utilizing the CPT to identify sites that are the best candidates for
enhancing or returning sagebrush habitats to conditions that benefit
sage-grouse (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Restoration efforts will be
tracked for success, noting that some actions (e.g., seeding) vary in
success rate, given variables such as elevation, precipitation, and
site-conditions prior to a fire (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Recovery of
functional sagebrush habitats following wildfire and restoration
actions can take decades (potentially several sage-grouse generations)
to be realized, and requires monitoring to assure conservation
objectives are met (such as ensuring appropriate levels of sagebrush
and native herbs are established, and reducing nonnative plant
dominance) (Arkle et al. 2014, p. 17). Additionally, the Bi-State TAC
currently utilizes the CPT and field reconnaissance to maximize the
likelihood of enhancing the desired sagebrush community composition
post-fuels reduction treatment activities (Espinosa 2014, in litt.).
See the discussion above regarding ``Nonnative, Invasive and Native
Plants'' for activities currently occurring or planned for the future
to help reduce the existing fuel loads that promote wildfires.
(5) Small Population Size and Population Structure--The BSAP
specifically identifies a strategy (MER7) to address small population
size issues in the bi-State area, by identifying potential sage-grouse
population augmentation and reintroduction sites, developing
translocation guidelines, and potentially implementing augmentation and
reintroduction efforts (Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 93). Specific actions
include developing contingency plans for the Parker Meadows and Gaspipe
Spring subpopulations in the South Mono PMU, and populations in the
Pine Nut PMU; and evaluating the need for augmentation for the Fales
population of the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, the Powel Mountain area of
the Mount Grant PMU, the McBride Flat/Sagehen Spring area in the Truman
Meadows portion of the White Mountains PMU, and Coyote Flat of the
South Mono PMU.
Prior to conducting translocation efforts, the Bi-State TAC and
LAWG must concentrate significant efforts in conducting lek counts and
surveys, and developing a standardized sage-grouse monitoring program
throughout the bi-State area (CDFW 2014b, in litt.). These initial
activities do not directly reduce any threats, although they are
important to ensure effectiveness of many conservation efforts,
particularly translocation efforts. Currently, CDFW is developing a
plan to translocate sage-grouse from stable subpopulations in the bi-
State area to the Parker Meadows subpopulation (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.). Efforts on
[[Page 22849]]
this current action are directly relevant to future conservation
efforts for other unstable subpopulations. It is reasonable to assume
future translocations in the bi-State area have a high likelihood of
effectiveness given careful consideration to all the variables
(including translocation that would occur concurrent with other threat
reduction activities, such as predator control), and published
literature that indicates success of translocated sage-grouse when
successful translocation methodology is followed (Musil et al. 1993,
pp. 89-90; Reese and Connelly 1997, pp. 239-240; Hennefer 2007, pp. 33-
37; Baxter et al. 2008, pp. 184-185).
We will have an ongoing role in monitoring the implementation and
effectiveness of the partially completed and future conservation
efforts given our regular participation with the Bi-State EOC, TAC, and
LAWG, participation in providing updated versions of the BSAP, and by
reviewing any monitoring and research reports. We are satisfied that
the conservation efforts evaluated will be effective in reducing
threats to the bi-State DPS and its habitat; however, in order to do so
they do not need to be applied on every acre of suitable and unsuitable
sage-grouse habitat. For instance, not all of the native pinyon-juniper
vegetation needs to be removed, such as in areas within the range of
the bi-State DPS where pinyon-juniper historically occurred. Rather the
effort needs, and is expected, to be implemented in areas that are most
likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal) and critical areas that
address habitat fragmentation or reduced-connectivity issues. These
efforts need to occur at a rate that significantly reduces further
habitat losses, which is consistent with the objective to address
pinyon-juniper expansion provided in the March 22, 2013, COT Report for
conservation of the greater sage-grouse (Service 2013c, pp. 47-48),
including the bi-State DPS.
We have determined that the agencies resource commitments (e.g.,
staffing and funding, including more than $45 million over the next 10
years), and a demonstrated record of implementation will ensure
continued conservation of habitat for the bi-State DPS. The BSAP has
sufficient monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that the
proposed future conservation measures are implemented as planned, and
are effective at removing threats to the DPS and its habitat. The
collaboration between the Service, BLM, USFS, NRCS, Mono County, USGS,
and the States of Nevada and California requires regular team meetings
(Bi-State EOC, TAC, and EOC), and continued involvement of all parties
will occur (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.) in order to implement the BSAP
fully. We find that the future conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
the PECE criteria for certainty of implementation and effectiveness,
and can be considered as part of the basis for our final listing
determination for the bi-State DPS.
In conclusion, we find that the conservation efforts in the BSAP,
and as outlined in the agencies' June 2014 commitment letters, meet the
PECE criteria with regard to certainty of implementation (for those
measures not already implemented) and effectiveness and can be
considered as part of the basis for our final listing determination for
the bi-State DPS. Our full analysis of the 2012 BSAP, and additional
materials submitted to the Service as mentioned above, pursuant to PECE
can be found at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0072).
Determination
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors listed in
section 4(a)(1)(b) of the Act in assessing whether the bi-State DPS of
greater sage-grouse meets the definition of a threatened or endangered
species. We examined the best scientific and commercial information
available regarding the past, present, and foreseeable future threats
faced by the DPS. For the purposes of this determination, we consider
foreseeable future to be 30 years based on the probability of
population persistence analyzed and described by Garton et al. (2011,
entire), and based on the time horizons for which the various threats
can be reliably projected into the future (as described under the
various threats analysis discussions in the Species Report (Service
2015a, pp. 45-142)).
Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the current threats are not of sufficient
imminence, intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the bi-State DPS is
in danger of extinction (endangered). In our proposed listing rule we
determined that the bi-State DPS is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future (threatened). However, after consideration of
new information regarding partially completed and ongoing conservation
measures and planned future conservation efforts that we conclude will
be implemented and effective (as described in our detailed PECE
analysis available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0072), we now conclude that the bi-State DPS is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (see Significant Portion of the
Range, below). Therefore, the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse does
not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species, and we
are withdrawing the proposed rule to list the DPS as a threatened
species. Our rationale for this finding is outlined below.
The best available information indicates that the current overall
sage-grouse population trend across the DPS is stable, and likely to
improve based on the implementation and effectiveness of ongoing and
future conservation actions associated with the BSAP. The likelihood of
persistence of viable populations of both core PMUs (according to
species experts) is considered high for the two largest (core)
populations that comprise greater than 67 percent of all strutting
males (Service 2015a, Table 1; CDFW 2014a, unpublished data; NDOW
2014a, unpublished data). Additionally, all populations or
subpopulations across the six PMUs have persisted as viable populations
in their current distribution in spite of many stressors.
Ongoing and future conservation efforts are likely to increase
habitat quantity, quality, and connectivity. This will likely increase
the number of sage-grouse and resilience of the bi-State DPS overall.
These efforts to stop and reverse habitat loss and fragmentation will
make small populations of bi-State sage-grouse less susceptible to the
effects of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. These efforts
will expand the amount of protected habitat in critical brood-rearing
habitat areas as well as restore currently unsuitable habitat in areas
utilized for dispersal and colonization. These measures are expected to
increase resilience to possible future random, stochastic events or
impacts. Further, the DPS's current distribution encompasses and is
representative of the genetic diversity known to exist across the range
of the DPS. As such, the sage-grouse within this DPS: (1) Are widely
distributed such that the DPS as a whole is well-protected from
stochastic events, and (2) the DPS spans the known genetic diversity
such that the populations are not in danger of a genetic bottleneck. We
expect the DPS to continue to remain viable throughout its current
overall distribution. We also expect that ongoing and planned
conservation efforts will improve habitat quality and quantity and
allow the populations to expand. Thus, we conclude that the bi-State
DPS will have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and
[[Page 22850]]
representation such that it does not meet the definition of a
threatened or endangered species under the Act.
Since publication of our proposed listing rule (78 FR 64358;
October 28, 2014), new information (e.g., survey data, habitat
conditions, trends analysis, and Bi-State EOC commitments) has become
available and additional conservation efforts have been implemented to
help further our understanding of the DPS's abundance, habitat trends,
and overall status across its range. New information received has
resulted in:
(1) Corrections or clarifications of miscellaneous life-history
information (see Species Information above and the Biological
Information section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 7-33)).
(2) A more accurate assessment of suitable habitat throughout the
bi-State area (see Service 2015a, p. 18).
(3) A more accurate assessment of population trends in the bi-State
area (see Species Information above and Current Range/Distribution and
Population Estimates/Annual Lek Counts section of the Species Report
(Service 2015a, pp. 17-31)).
Without the conservation measures being implemented now and planned
for the future as described in the BSAP, the stressors that rise to a
level of being a threat as identified in the proposed rule to the bi-
State DPS would remain at a level that would warrant listing of the DPS
as a threatened species. However, based primarily on information
received from the action agencies implementing the BSAP, including
commitments of funding and other resources, we are able to utilize the
PECE policy to evaluate conservation actions that are either
implemented and not yet shown to be effective and those proposed for
the future.
As outlined in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section above, we evaluated the
certainty of implementation and effectiveness of the BSAP's ongoing and
future conservation efforts pertaining to the bi-State DPS. We have
determined that the agencies implementing this plan (i.e., the BLM,
USFS, NRCS, USGS, Mono County, NDOW, and CDFW) are committed to and
will continue conservation efforts into the future to benefit the bi-
State DPS and its habitat. The BSAP also has sufficient monitoring and
reporting requirements to ensure that the proposed future conservation
measures are implemented as planned, and are effective at reducing or
ameliorating stressors such that they are no longer a threat to the DPS
and its habitat. As a result, we find that the future conservation
efforts in the BSAP meet the PECE criteria for certainty of
implementation and effectiveness, and can be considered as part of the
basis for our final listing determination for the bi-State DPS.
Since the time of our proposed listing, the BSAP signatory
agencies, in cooperation with the Bi-State EOC, TAC, and LAWG, have
made significant efforts to develop and refine (through adaptive
management and utilization of the CPT) work plans for the next 10 years
to implement conservation efforts targeted at the most important
current and future conservation needs within the DPS (BLM 2014c, in
litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Espinosa 2014, in litt.; Mono County 2014,
in litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.; USGS 2014c, in
litt.). These conservation efforts are focused on:
(1) Protecting and restoring critical brood-rearing habitat
(reduces impacts from development/habitat conversion, grazing and
rangeland management, and effects resulting from climate change).
(2) Restoring habitat impacted by nonnative, invasive species
(e.g., cheatgrass) and pinyon-juniper encroachment (reduces impacts
from nonnative, invasive and certain native plants, wildfire,
predation, and effects resulting from climate change).
(3) Improving our understanding of sage-grouse populations,
structure, etc., to: (a) Prioritize management actions related to
synergistic impacts on already fragmented habitat (reduced impacts such
as infrastructure, urbanization, and recreation), such that management
efforts occur in locations that benefit the DPS the most; and (b)
develop and implement sage-grouse translocations from stable
subpopulations to other small subpopulations that may be experiencing a
high risk of extirpation (reduces impacts from small population size
and population structure).
We find that by concentrating BSAP conservation efforts on the
threats that are cumulatively and synergistically having the greatest
impact on the bi-State DPS and its habitat, these efforts have reduced
impacts, and will continue to reduce the magnitude of impacts in the
foreseeable future such that the DPS no longer meets the definition of
a threatened or endangered species. Some of the conservation efforts
that will be implemented to address these most significant concerns
include (but are not limited to):
(1) Establishing conservation easements, private-public land
exchanges, or land acquisitions within the Pine Nut, Bodie, Desert
Creek-Fales, Mt. Grant, and South Mono PMUs, including a minimum of
approximately 3,875 ha (9,576 ac) of conservation easements containing
critical sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat, and a minimum of
approximately 1,325 ha (3,274 ac) of private-public land exchanges (Bi-
State TAC 2014a, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in
litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.).
(2) Evaluating 82,284 (ha) (203,329 ac) of habitat throughout all
six PMUs for potential treatment to reduce pinyon-juniper encroachment
(Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). This is being accomplished by using the
CPT, thereby concentrating habitat restoration efforts in areas
throughout the DPS's range that would be most beneficial to the DPS and
most effective on-the-ground (e.g., avoiding areas that birds are not
likely to utilize, focusing on areas that reduce habitat fragmentation
in corridor areas). These conservation efforts not only address
encroachment of pinyon-juniper (and loss of sagebrush habitat), but
they also reduce predation impacts (i.e., removal of predator perches)
and wildfire impacts associated with fuels accumulation (given that
infrequent fires facilitate conifer encroachment and too frequent fires
promote invasive, nonnative annual grasses).
(3) Implementing new grazing standards on all allotments that
address grazing and wild horse management issues (BLM 2014c, in litt.;
USDA 2014, in litt.; Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). Conservation
efforts include (but are not limited to) improving water facilities,
restoring meadow habitat, and improving fence conditions across
multiple PMUs.
(4) Identifying and implementing sage-grouse population
augmentation and reintroduction sites, developing translocation
guidelines, and potentially implementing augmentation and
reintroduction efforts (Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 93). Specific actions
include developing contingency plans for the Parker Meadows and Gaspipe
Spring subpopulations in the South Mono PMU, and populations in the
Pine Nut PMU; and evaluating the need for augmentation for the Fales
population of the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, the Powel Mountain area of
the Mount Grant PMU, the McBride Flat/Sagehen Spring area in the Truman
Meadows portion of the White Mountains PMU, and Coyote Flat of the
South Mono PMU. At this time, efforts are specifically under way and
focused on developing a translocation plan for the Parker Meadows
subpopulation (CDFG 2014, in litt.; Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
[[Page 22851]]
Additional details on partially completed projects and future
conservation efforts are outlined in the Agency's June 2014 commitment
letters and workplans (BLM 2014c, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono
County 2014, in litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.; USGS
2014c, in litt.), the Bi-State TAC comprehensive project database (Bi-
State TAC 2014a, in litt.), and our detailed PECE analysis, all of
which are available at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-
ES-2013-0072.
Of greatest significance and note (since publication of the
proposed listing rule), the BSAP recognized 79 projects and the need
for $38 million over a 10-year period to address immediate conservation
needs of the bi-State DPS and its habitat (Bi-State TAC 2014b, in
litt.). At this time, all of those projects are either being
implemented (currently underway) or will be implemented in the future.
A total of $45 million has been pledged by the agencies with a high
level of certainty of both implementation and effectiveness, which
exceeds the $38 million estimated/called for by the BSAP.
Overall, the partially completed and future conservation efforts
(i.e., those identified in the 10-year work plans and utilized in the
Bi-State TAC's comprehensive project database (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.)) have been designed to address current and expected future
synergistic impacts. Although the majority of the conservation efforts
will address the most significant impacts synergistically impacting the
DPS (i.e., woodland encroachment, infrastructure, urbanization,
recreation, and existing and potential near-term impacts of cheatgrass
and wildfire that may potentially escalate climate change in the
future), some of the partially completed and future conservation
efforts are addressing less significant (overall) impacts (e.g., WNv
surveillance and mosquito abatement (disease), human disturbance to
leks associated with existing renewable energy and geothermal sites).
Examples of how the partially completed and future conservation actions
will continue to reduce threats include:
(1) Permanent protection (primarily through NRCS efforts) of sage-
grouse habitat within the Pine Nut, Bodie, Desert Creek-Fales, Mt.
Grant, and South Mono PMUs, including at least approximately 3,875 ha
(9,576 ac) of conservation easements containing critical sage-grouse
brood-rearing habitat, and at least approximately 1,325 ha (3,274 ac)
of private-public land exchanges (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). These
conservation measures reduce the threat of losing this important
habitat to urbanization and development, and any associated
infrastructure (Factor A).
(2) Reduction of grazing impacts by BLM and USFS, such as repairing
watering sites in the Bodie PMU, maintaining or restoring riparian/
meadow sites impacted by grazing animals across multiple PMUs, and
removing racetrack fencing or marking/modifying fencing (Bi-State TAC
2014a, in litt.). These conservation measures reduce the threats of
grazing-related impacts, including (but not limited to) reduced sage-
brush habitat quality, reduced nesting and reproductive success, and
reduced food availability (Factor A). Conservation efforts focused on
water development can also reduce facilitating the spread of WNv
(Factor C).
(3) Reduction of pinyon-juniper encroachment by BLM, USFS, and
NRCS, including current evaluation of approximately 82,284 ha (203,329
ac) of Phase I or II areas (using the CPT) across all PMUs for
prioritizing treatment areas (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). These
conservation measures reduce the threat of habitat loss and
fragmentation (Factor A), facilitated woodland encroachment (Factor A),
and predation risks (Factor C).
(4) Implementation of six BLM and USFS projects that target
invasive, nonnative plants on more than 257 ha (634 ac) in the Desert
Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, and Pine Nut PMUs, the latter two of which
cheatgrass is considered a moderate and high threat, respectively,
compared to other PMUs. Additionally, the USFS will control at least
40.5 ha (100 ac) of cheatgrass each year over the next 10 years in the
Pine Nut PMU (USDA 2014, in litt.). Adjustments to grazing in upland
habitats, when necessary, are also likely to reduce the risk of
cheatgrass dominance on sites. These conservation measures reduce the
threat of habitat loss and fragmentation, and potentially the increased
frequency of wildfires associated with cheatgrass and other invasives
that can hamper recovery of sagebrush habitat (Factor A).
(5) Removal of a landfill in the Long Valley area of the South Mono
PMU, which is a significant source of predators for one of the two core
populations of the bi-State DPS. Mono County is currently undergoing
the initial stages of relocating this landfill (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in
litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.). This conservation measure reduces
the threat of predation (Factor C).
(6) Permanent BLM and USFS road closures over a minimum of 1,339 km
(832 mi) in the Bodie, Desert Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, and Pine Nut
PMUs, and seasonal road closures over approximately 1,429 km (888 mi)
in the South Mono PMU, which will reduce the likelihood of mortality
and improve vital rates for sage-grouse near leks, including nesting
and brood-rearing areas (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). These
conservation measures reduce the threats of predation (Factor C) and
loss of individuals associated with collisions (Factor E).
Please see our PECE analysis (section 3.0) for a detailed
discussion of the nature and extent of threats addressed by the BSAP,
which is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov (Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072).
An important aspect of the BSAP for reducing threats to the bi-
State DPS and its habitat is the development and implementation of a
Science-Based Adaptive Management Plan that includes the CPT, which:
(1) Includes data-driven predictive models and interactive maps that
identify and rank areas that necessitate management action; and (2)
provides a basis to evaluate those actions, all of which are focused on
areas that are most meaningful for the bi-State DPS populations. The
CPT is currently being used to inform which actions are most beneficial
and in the best targeted locations (thus linking the outcome of
management actions to the response of sage-grouse populations).
In summary, we conclude that the BSAP conservation efforts have
sufficient certainty of implementation and effectiveness that they can
be relied upon in this final listing determination. Further, we
conclude that the BSAP reduces or eliminates current and future threats
to the bi-State DPS and its habitat to the point that the species is no
longer in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future. We
conclude that the conservation efforts (including funding and staffing
commitments) that are currently partially completed and those proposed
for the future (as outlined in the agency's commitment letters (BLM
2014c, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.; NDOW
2014b, in litt.; UDSA 2014, in litt.; USGS 2014c, in litt.) and the Bi-
State TAC's active project database (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.))
improve the status of the DPS and its habitat conditions to such a
degree that the current level of impacts are significantly reduced (in
other words, the DPS is not likely to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future). Therefore, we are withdrawing our proposed rule to
[[Page 22852]]
list the bi-State DPS as a threatened species, and consequently, we are
also withdrawing the associated proposed 4(d) and critical habitat
rules.
We will continue to monitor the status of the bi-State DPS through
monitoring requirements in the BSAP, and our evaluation of any other
information we receive. These monitoring requirements will not only
inform us of the amount of bi-State DPS habitat conserved and
reclaimed, but will also help inform us of the status of the
populations. Additional information will continue to be accepted on all
aspects of the bi-State DPS and its habitat. If at any time new
information indicates that the provisions of the Act may be necessary
to conserve the bi-State sage-grouse, we can initiate listing
procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency listing pursuant to
section 4(b)(7) of the Act. For example, we could initiate listing
procedures if we become aware of declining implementation or
participation in the BSAP, or noncompliance with the conservation
measures, or if there are new threats or increasing stressors that rise
to the level of a threat.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and
``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' We published a final policy interpreting the
phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578). The
final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be an endangered
or a threatened species throughout a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as an endangered or a threatened species,
respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the
species wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is
``significant'' if the species is not currently an endangered or a
threatened species throughout all of its range, but the portion's
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that,
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future,
throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a species is considered
to be the general geographical area within which that species can be
found at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is an endangered or a
threatened species throughout an SPR, and the population in that
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range, we list the species as an endangered (or threatened) species and
no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is neither an
endangered nor a threatened species throughout all of its range, we
determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its range. If it is, we list the
species as an endangered or a threatened species, respectively; if it
is not, we conclude that listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite
number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of
the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant and either
an endangered or a threatened species. To identify only those portions
that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is
substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be
significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those
portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We
emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a
determination that the species is an endangered or a threatened species
throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a step in
determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required.
In practice, a key part of this analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated in some way. If the threats to the species
are affecting it uniformly throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of
threats apply only to portions of the range that clearly do not meet
the biologically based definition of ``significant'' (i.e., the loss of
that portion clearly would not be expected to increase the
vulnerability to extinction of the entire species), those portions will
not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions that may be both (1) significant and
(2) endangered or threatened, we engage in a more detailed analysis to
determine whether these standards are indeed met. The identification of
an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is an
endangered or a threatened species. We must go through a separate
analysis to determine whether the species is an endangered or a
threatened species in the SPR. While some of these impacts are more
easily alleviated than others (e.g., conifer encroachment), the
existing condition, if left unchecked, is likely to worsen in the
future (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 24-25).
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is an endangered or a threatened species
there; if we determine that the species is not an endangered or a
threatened species in a portion of its range, we do not need to
determine if that portion is ``significant.''
Because we determined that the bi-State DPS is neither endangered
nor threatened throughout all of its range following application of the
PECE policy and as described above in the Determination section, we
must next determine whether the bi-State DPS may be endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its range. To do this, we must
first identify any portion of the DPS's range that may warrant
consideration by determining whether there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be significant, and (2) the DPS
may be in danger of extinction in those portions or is likely to become
so within the foreseeable future. We note that a positive answer to
these questions is not a determination that the DPS is endangered or
threatened within a significant portion of its range, but rather a
positive answer to these
[[Page 22853]]
questions confirms whether a more detailed analysis is necessary.
Given the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs are now
and will continue to be most at risk from the various stressors acting
upon the birds and their habitat (see the foreseeable future discussion
above in the Determination section), we identify this portion of the
range for further consideration. The Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and (to the
extent known) White Mountains PMUs comprise the fewest numbers of birds
and leks within the range of the bi-State DPS, with the Pine Nut PMU
harboring the fewest number of birds and leks overall (the majority (67
percent) of the sage-grouse in the bi-State area occur within the Bodie
and South Mono PMUs).
We analyzed whether stressors in these three PMUs (i.e., Pine Nut,
Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs) rise to the level such that the
sage-grouse is likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future (threatened) in these three PMUs combined. We
determined that none of the stressors within these three PMUs either
independently or collectively is believed to have reduced, destroyed,
or fragmented sagebrush habitat such that the DPS is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. We note
that data do indicate that impacts from nonnative, invasive and certain
native plants, and thus the threat of wildfire, in the Pine Nut PMU are
more extensive than in the Mount Grant and White Mountains PMUs. While
these stressors continue in the Pine Nut PMU and may increase,
monitoring continues to document sage-grouse in some historically
occupied areas within the PMU. Also, the Pine Nut PMU currently holds
the fewest number of birds and leks of all populations, and the
potential loss of this already small population is not expected to
impact the bi-State DPS to the extent that the remaining two PMUs with
the smallest populations (i.e., Mount Grant and White Mountains PMUs)
or the DPS as a whole is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future.
In general, the combination of the bi-State DPS small population
size, isolation due to fragmented habitat, peripheral locations, and
the presence of several stresors to the sage-grouse in the Pine Nut,
Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs makes these PMUs more vulnerable
than the Bodie, Desert Creek-Fales, and South Mono PMUs, but not to the
degree that sage-grouse are in danger of extinction or likely to become
so in the foreseeable future in these PMUs. This is demonstrated by
population data from each of these three smaller PMUs (i.e., the Pine
Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs) indicating that: (1)
Multiple sage-grouse are still observed through monitoring activities,
(2) one to eight active leks are present within each PMU, (3) stresors
acting upon these small populations are not geographically concentrated
and exist in all six PMUs throughout the range of the bi-State DPS; and
(4) a recent 10-year trend analysis by Coates et al. (2014a, entire)
between 2003 and 2012 found that several of the populations in the bi-
State area (including but not limited to the core populations) are
stable (as opposed to declining).
Even though we have determined that this portion of the bi-State
DPS's range (i.e., the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs)
is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, there is information available that may lead some
to believe that the populations in these three PMUs are at risk of
becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. However, the best
available information currently indicates that a substantial amount of
conservation effort is currently being applied (and will be carried out
in the future) within the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains
PMUs, as well as throughout the entire range of the DPS. These
conservation efforts are targeted at the stressors that are resulting
in the greatest synergistic impacts on the populations (see Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
(PECE), above) both currently and in the future. Significant efforts
are being applied in these three PMUs including (but not limited to)
reducing impacts from: (1) Infrastructure (permanent road closures,
fence maintenance/marking), pinyon-juniper encroachment (pine burn and
conifer removal), invasive plants (weed management, including livestock
control; cheatgrass removal), urbanization and habitat conversion
(riparian/meadow restoration of brood-rearing habitat, establishment of
conservation easements), and grazing management (management of wild
horse herds, establishing/repairing riparian exclosures). Application
of these conservation efforts across the range of the DPS over the next
10 years that we determine to have both certainty of implementation and
effectiveness, as described in our detailed PECE analysis (available at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072), changes the
trajectory from a point where the DPS was previously considered to be a
threatened species, to a point where the best available information
related to current and future conservation efforts indicates the entire
range of the DPS, including the specific portion of the DPS's range in
the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs, does not meet the
definition of a threatened species or an endangered species.
In conclusion, we find that substantial information indicates that:
(1) There are no portions of the bi-State DPS that may be significant,
and (2) the DPS is not likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future in the portion of its range that harbors the least
number of birds (i.e., the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White Mountains
PMUs). Therefore, we find that listing the bi-State DPS is not
warranted.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358),
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal by December 27, 2013. This comment period was subsequently
extended an additional 45 days, as announced on December 20, 2013 (78
FR 77087), and closed on February 10, 2014. The comment period was
reopened on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19314), announcing two public hearings
and a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether or not to
list the bi-State DPS due to substantial disagreement regarding the
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed
listing, making it necessary to solicit additional information. This
second comment period on the proposed listing rule closed on June 9,
2013. Finally, a third and final comment period was opened on August 5,
2014 (79 FR 45420), and closed on September 4, 2014, to give the public
the opportunity to review and provide comments on new information
received regarding population trends as well as State and Federal
agency funding and staffing commitments for various conservation
efforts associated with the BSAP.
We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, scientific
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited
them to comment on the proposal. We also received requests for public
hearings. We held one public hearing in Minden, Nevada on May 28, 2014,
and one public hearing held in Bishop, California, on May 29, 2014.
Newspaper notices inviting general public comment and advertisement of
the information and public hearings was published in The Inyo Register,
The
[[Page 22854]]
Record Courier, and the Reno-Gazette Journal.
During the three comment periods, we received more than 6,400
comment letters directly addressing the proposed listing of the bi-
State DPS. Submitted comments were both for and against listing the DPS
with designated critical habitat. During the May 28 and 29, 2014,
public hearings, 11 individuals or organizations commented on the
proposed rules; 3 were opposed to the proposed listing, and the
remaining individuals or organizations did not express an explicit
opinion on the listing proposal, but articulated issues they considered
to need more attention (e.g., economic impacts associated with the
proposed critical habitat). All substantive information provided during
the comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this
withdrawal or addressed below. We also received a few comments related
to the proposed 4(d) rule, and more than 200 comment letters both in
support of and opposition to the proposed critical habitat designation;
however, given the decision to withdraw the listing proposal (see
Determination above), no further assessment of the proposed 4(d) rule
and critical habitat designation is necessary at this time.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from five appropriate and
independent specialists with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with sage-grouse, the bi-State DPS and their habitat,
including biological needs and threats. We received responses from four
of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the bi-
State DPS. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following
summary and incorporated into this withdrawal document as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments Received
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer requested clarification on our
assumption that there are ``four to eight demographically independent
populations'' in the bi-State area.
Our Response: Our understanding of the population structure of
sage-grouse in the bi-State area is evolving and primarily informed by
telemetry and genetic research. However, even with these data
available, there remains uncertainty in our understanding. There is
likely a continuum across the bi-State area in the degree of isolation
among populations and not a simple connected versus non-connected
status that can be assigned to a group of birds. Over the past decade,
traditional VHF telemetry approaches suggested little bird movement
among populations in the bi-State area, leading to our assumption that
there was on the order of eight generally discrete populations of
birds. While these studies were not designed to address bird movement
among populations and ultimately were likely biased because mostly
adult birds were marked (as opposed to juvenile birds that are more
likely to disperse) and limited searching for ``lost'' birds (VHF
receivers have a restricted detection distance) occurred, they have
demonstrated differing vital rates (e.g, adult and nest survival) among
populations in the bi-State area suggesting some degree of demographic
independence. More recently, limited GPS telemetry has demonstrated
movements between the Pine Nut population and the Desert Creek-Fales
population, which previously were assumed to be isolated from one
another. Furthermore, two recent and independent genetic evaluations
have concluded there are between three and four (Oyler-McCance et al.
(2014, p. 8) or five (Tebbenkamp 2014, p. 18) unique genetic clusters
in the bi-State area. In addition, Tebbenkamp (2014, p. 12) did not
evaluate the Pine Nut population, which Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p.
8) found to be unique. Thus, presumably Tebbenkamp (2014, entire) would
have differentiated six populations had these data been available.
Based on this information, we presume that there are likely three to
six populations or groups of birds in the bi-State area that largely
operate demographically independent of one another. We have refined our
Species Report to reflect these new data.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer requested clarification on how lek
counts were used to derive the population size estimates we report in
Table 1 of our proposed rule.
Our Response: We relied on the lek count data and population
estimators provided by NDOW and CDFW; both agencies use the estimator
described in Connelly et al. (2003, p. 22), whereby they adjust the
maximum number of males counted by dividing by 0.75 (to account for
unseen males) and then multiply this number by 2.0 (assuming 2:1 sex
ratio of females to males) to derive total birds. NDOW then adjusts
this number to account for undetected leks by dividing the total bird
estimate by varying ratios (from 0.75 to 0.90) depending on specific
knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the population of interest.
Similarly, CDFW adjusts the total bird estimate to account for
undetected leks but uses a ratio between 0.85 and 0.95.
We recognize that there is uncertainty in translating counts of
males displaying on breeding grounds (lek counts) into estimates of
population size (Connelly et al. 2003, p. 22; Walsh et al. 2004,
entire). Nevertheless, we believe these data can provide a general
context to the bi-State DPS in the absence of more precise information.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer asked how we concluded that there
was a reduction in available sage-grouse habitat in the bi-State area
by 50 percent.
Our Response: Based on a Geographic Information System (GIS)
modelling approach that was informed by research on woodland succession
in the Great Basin, an estimated 390,000 ha (963,000 ac) of sagebrush
habitat has converted to woodland vegetation over the past 150 years,
resulting in a reduction of sagebrush habitat from slightly over
1,044,000 ha (2,580,000 ac) in 1850 to approximately 664,890 ha
(1,643,000 ac) today across the range of the bi-State DPS (USGS 2012,
unpublished data). Additionally, a resource selection function (RSF)
model was developed to estimate currently suitable sage-grouse habitat
across the bi-State area (Bi-State TAC 2012b, unpublished data). The
RSF model included a combination of biotic, abiotic, and anthropogenic
features that best explain sage-grouse selection or avoidance of a
specific area. The RSF model predicated that suitable sage-grouse
habitat in the bi-State area amounted to slightly less than 435,440 ha
(1,076,000 ac). Taking the average of these two quotients (i.e.,
664,890 ha (1,643,000 ac) and 435,440 ha (1,044,000 ac)) led us to the
conclusion that sage-grouse habitat availability in the bi-State area
has been reduced by approximately 50 percent. We recognize that there
are uncertainties associated with these data and that the amount of
uncertainty is not known. However, we note that our assumption of a 50
percent decline can be either an overestimate or an underestimate.
Despite the uncertainty, we believe this is a reasonable estimate of
habitat loss based on the best available scientific and commercial
information.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer asked how we concluded that there
has been a reduction in the overall sage-grouse population in the bi-
State area by more than 50 percent.
Our Response: Based on our analysis of historical habitat loss (see
our response to Comment 3), we assumed a 1:1 ratio of bird loss to
habitat loss. We also considered the remaining sagebrush
[[Page 22855]]
habitat in the bi-State area to be variously compromised by a variety
of stressors, thereby reducing the suitability of these habitats for
sage-grouse and ultimately the habitats carrying capacity for sage-
grouse. Furthermore, there are documented accounts of population
extirpation or population reductions in the bi-State area (USFS 1966,
p. 4; Hall et al. 2008, p. 96; Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 24). Therefore,
we assumed that population loss exceeded habitat loss and concluded
that population loss was likely greater than 50 percent.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that higher-elevation
mountain sagebrush communities are generally more resilient than lower-
elevation Wyoming big sagebrush communities and as such are more likely
to persist. Further, they stated that each of these community types
differ in their susceptibility to invasive and increasing species
(i.e., cheatgrass and woodland succession). They requested an
evaluation as to the proportion of the bi-State DPS existing within
each of these general sagebrush systems.
Our Response: We utilized a base vegetation layer developed by the
Bi-State TAC, which also informed the RSF modeling effort, to inform
this discussion (Bi-State TAC 2012b, unpublished data). Additional
detail on this product is available in the Species Report (see Appendix
B).
Across the entire bi-State area (delineated by PMU boundaries),
approximately 664,944 ha (1,643,114 ac) (36 percent of the bi-State
area) are composed of sagebrush communities. Additionally, there are
approximately 26,870 ha (66,399 acres) (1.5 percent) of higher-
elevation mountain shrub communities, which includes other shrub
species besides sagebrush such as bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata),
snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.), and desert peach (Prunus anersonii),
among others. We included this additional shrub community as part of
the mountain big sagebrush evaluation because these other species have
been shown to be important to sage-grouse in the bi-State area (Kolada
et al. 2009b, p. 1,336) and they often co-occur with mountain big
sagebrush; therefore, we anticipate they will respond to invasive or
increasing species in a similar manner. Partitioning these communities
further, there are approximately 183,860 ha (454,330 ac) (27 percent of
available sagebrush) of higher-elevation mountain big sagebrush
(including mountain shrub community), 373,747 ha (923,550 ac) (54
percent) of lower-elevation Wyoming big sagebrush, and 134,207 ha
(331,633 ac) (19 percent) of low sagebrush, such as black sagebrush
(Artemisia nova) and little sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula). We
recognize the importance of this information to the discussion and have
added information to the Species Report (see Sagebrush Ecosystem
section), specifically the proportion of these communities contained
within individual PMUs.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer asked how the BLM RMPs, the BSAP,
and the plans developed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power (LADWP) are used in evaluating existing regulatory mechanisms.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act stipulates that one of the
factors the Secretary shall use to determine whether any species is an
endangered or threatened species is the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms. In addition to those identified above, existing
regulatory mechanisms that could provide some protection for greater
sage-grouse in the bi-State area include: (1) Local land use laws,
processes, and ordinances; (2) State laws and regulations; and (3)
Federal laws and regulations. Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, may
preclude the need for listing if such mechanisms are judged to
adequately address the threats to the species such that listing is not
warranted. Conversely, threats on the landscape continue to affect the
species and may be exacerbated when not addressed by existing
regulatory mechanisms, or when the existing mechanisms are not adequate
(or not adequately implemented or enforced).
We use an inherently qualitative approach to evaluate existing
regulatory mechanisms. In general, this means that we assess language
in an existing plan as well as any pertinent decisions based on such
language (track record) and evaluate it against the best available
science informing species conservation. Regulations in some counties
identify the need for natural resource conservation and attempt to
minimize impacts of development through zoning restrictions, but to our
knowledge neither preclude development nor do they provide for
monitoring of the loss of sage-grouse habitats. Similarly, State laws
and regulations are general in nature and provide flexibility in
implementation, and do not provide specific direction to State wildlife
agencies relative to sage-grouse conservation, although they can
occasionally afford regulatory authority over habitat preservation
(e.g., creation of habitat easements and land acquisitions).
In the proposed rule, we found that most existing Federal
regulatory mechanisms (not including the BLM and USFS Land Use Plan
amendments) were sufficiently vague as to offer limited certainty as to
managerial direction pertaining to sage-grouse conservation,
particularly as they relate to addressing the threats that are
significantly impacting the bi-State DPS (e.g., nonnative, invasive and
certain native plants; wildfire and altered wildfire regime;
infrastructure). However, we have determined that the BSAP ameloriates
the threats to the Bi-State DPS and its habitat (see additional Land
Use Plan amendment discussion in the Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section
above, and our detailed PECE analysis available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042). In
addition, the proposed BLM and USFS Land Use Plan amendments (USDI and
USDA 2015, entire) will reinforce the conservation commitments made in
the BSAP; however, we note that we do not rely on them for our
determination. We also note that the BLM Bishop Field Office's RMP has
proven to be an effective regulatory mechanism for the bi-State DPS and
its habitat. For additional detail, see the Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms section in the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 153-154).
State Comments Received
(7) Comment: The State of Nevada questioned how the Service could
list the bi-State DPS given that more than a decade of conservation and
restoration initiatives have been implemented or initiated,
particularly given that over the past 12 years sage-grouse populations
have been stable-to-increasing.
Our Response: We recognize the significant efforts of all of our
partners in the conservation of the bi-State DPS, and these
conservation efforts and the manner in which they are helping to
ameliorate threats to the DPS are considered in our final agency
action. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to take into account
those efforts being made by any State or foreign nation, or any
political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such
species, within any area under its jurisdiction. However, the Act
requires us to make determinations based on the best scientific and
commercial data available ``at the time of listing'' after conducting a
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those
efforts, if any, being made to protect such species. Furthermore, we
are encouraged by the recent information provided by the U.S.
Geological Survey (Coates et al. 2014, p. 19), which generally
concludes that populations with the bi-State area have
[[Page 22856]]
been stable between 2003 and 2012. Additionally, these data predict
that over the next 5 years the majority of populations are anticipated
to grow. We do note, however, that the Parker Meadows and Fales
populations are projected to decline and further that the White
Mountains and Mount Grant populations were not analyzed due to lack of
data. The Nevada Department of Wildlife reports the latter population
has been in decline. Also, while we place a high degree of confidence
in the USGS analysis, within the Pine Nuts PMU, a population projected
to increase, the sole lek site used to partially inform the model has
been largely inactive in the last 2 years, and these data were not
incorporated into the USGS analysis.
While the bi-State DPS's population trend information is highly
informative and can assist us in informing our listing decision, the
Act stipulates that the Secretary shall make a decision to list a
species as an endangered or threatened species based on any one or more
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Assuming current conditions continue
into the future in the bi-State area, we have identified the threats
across the range of the bi-State DPS that are resulting in the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range, and other natural or manmade threats affecting the DPS's
continued existence. Many of these impacts are cumulatively acting upon
the bi-State DPS and, therefore, increase the risk of extinction.
However, after consideration of partially completed projects and future
conservation efforts that we conclude will be implemented and effective
(see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
Decisions (PECE) section, above), we believe the bi-State DPS is not
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the
bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse does not meet the definition of a
threatened or endangered species, and we are withdrawing the proposed
rule to list the DPS as a threatened species.
(8) Comment: The listing of the bi-State DPS will not enhance or
expedite conservation as it will call for the same conservation
measures already identified by the BSAP. Further, the listing action
would alienate groups working on bi-State sage-grouse conservation.
Our Response: The Act mandates that the Secretary shall determine
whether any species is an endangered or threatened species based on any
of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. Therefore, the Service does not have
the ability to consider public perception when evaluating a listing
decision. We remain committed to ensure conservation of the bi-State
DPS through continued cooperation with our partners currently and into
the future. We recognize the significant efforts of all of our partners
in the conservation of the bi-State DPS. While we would be disappointed
by a reduction in participation and commitment of resources for various
conservation efforts, we also recognize that there is a potential for
this result to be realized regardless of the outcome of our final
agency action as outlined within this document.
Other Comments Received
(9) Comment: A few commenters suggest that the bi-State DPS is not
a genetically unique subspecies or that this population does not meet
our standard for recognition as a DPS.
Our Response: In our 12-month finding on petitions to list three
entities of sage-grouse (75 FR 13910), we found that the bi-State
population of sage-grouse meets our criteria as a DPS of the greater
sage-grouse under Service policy (61 FR 4722). This determination was
based principally on genetic information, where the DPS was found to be
both discrete, and significant to the remainder of the sage-grouse
taxon. The bi-State DPS defines the far southwestern limit of the
species' range along the border of eastern California and western
Nevada (Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 1-11). Sage-grouse in the bi-State area
contain a large number of unique genetic haplotypes not found elsewhere
within the range of the species (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 306; Oyler-
McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,300; Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 92,
Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 7). The genetic diversity present in the
bi-State area population is comparable to other populations, suggesting
that the differences are not due to a genetic bottleneck or founder
event (Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91; Oyler-McCance et al. 2014,
p. 8). These studies provide evidence that the present genetic
uniqueness exhibited by bi-State area sage-grouse developed over
thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years, hence, prior to the
Euro-American settlement (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance
et al. 2005, p. 1,307; Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 9). The available
genetic information demonstrates that the bi-State sage-grouse are both
discrete from other greater sage-grouse populations, and are
genetically unique. Therefore, we believe the best scientific and
commercial data available clearly demonstrate that the bi-State sage-
grouse meet both the discreteness and significance criteria to be
designated as a distinct population segment.
(10) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that habitat
conservation efforts may be hampered due to potential additional
regulatory requirements and uncertainty as to which activities would
require consultation with the Service under the Act, as it pertains to
take of the species and adverse modification or destruction of critical
habitat. Specifically, commenters were concerned that funding for on-
the-ground activities could be reduced due to additional costs
associated with consultation under the Act.
Our Response: Section 7 of the Act states that each Federal agency
shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior to insure that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
delineated critical habitat. The duty to consult under Section 7
includes all actions that may affect a listed species, even those that
may improve habitat condition and ultimately positively influence
species conservation. We recognize that the mandate of the Act, may at
times, divert funding and effort away from on-the-ground activities.
However, our responsibility is to ensure, through consultation, that
activities which may affect listed species are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of endangered and threatened species. With
regard to the bi-State DPS, no additional regulatory requirements will
occur because we have determined the DPS does not meet the definition
of a threatened or endangered species.
(11) Comment: Several commenters indicated that the proposed
listing of the bi-State DPS was premature. These commenters submit that
adequate time
[[Page 22857]]
should be provided to determine if conservation efforts, such as those
identified in the 2012 BSAP, are sufficient to maintain a viable sage-
grouse population in the bi-State area.
Our Response: We recognize the significant efforts of all of our
partners in the conservation of the bi-State DPS, and these
conservation efforts and the manner in which they are helping to
ameliorate threats to the DPS are considered in our final agency
action. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to take into account
those efforts being made by any State or foreign nation, or any
political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such
species, within any area under its jurisdiction. However, the Act
requires us to make determinations based on the best scientific and
commercial data available ``at the time of listing'' after conducting a
review of the status of the species and after taking into account those
efforts, if any, being made to protect such species.
Concern from a variety of private, Tribal, industry, State,
Federal, and non-governmental entities over the conservation of the bi-
State DPS has been apparent since the late 1990's (Bi-State Local
Planning Group 2004, p. 1). This is reflected by the NDOW decision to
suspend hunting in the area in 1999 (Bi-State Local Planning Group
2004, p. 59). Significant effort was expended in the early 2000's and
culminated in 2004 with the first edition of a greater sage-grouse
conservation plan for the bi-State area of Nevada and eastern
California (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004). Since this time, many
conservation efforts have been completed, while many others are in
progress. After consideration of partially completed projects and
future conservation efforts that we have found to be sufficiently
certain to be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section,
above), we believe the bi-State DPS is not in danger of becoming
extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and is
not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
(threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to list the DPS as a
threatened species.
(12) Comment: Several commenters stated that listing the bi-State
DPS would be counterproductive to ongoing Bi-State LAWG conservation
efforts by affecting participation and funding.
Our Response: We recognize the significant efforts of all of our
partners in the conservation of the bi-State DPS. While we would be
disappointed by a reduction in participation and commitment of
resources for various conservation efforts, we also recognize that
there is a potential for this result to be realized regardless of the
outcome of our final agency action as outlined within this document.
The Act mandates that the Secretary shall determine whether any species
is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
Therefore, the Service does not have the ability to consider public
perception when evaluating a listing decision. However, after
consideration of partially completed projects and future conservation
efforts that we have found to be sufficiently certain to be implemented
and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section, above), including efforts that
involve the LAWG, we find the DPS is not in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and is not likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we are
withdrawing the proposed rule to list the DPS as a threatened species.
We remain committed to ensure conservation of the bi-State DPS through
continued cooperation with our partners currently and into the future.
(13) Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposal for
listing should better recognize current and ongoing voluntary
conservation efforts in addition to conservation measures that are in
place to minimize potential adverse effects resulting from activities
including livestock grazing, mineral development, and recreation and
fire management.
Our Response: We analyzed the best scientific and commercial
information available on both current and future conservation efforts,
and conservation measures intended to minimize potential adverse
effects to the bi-State DPS and its habitat (see Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms, Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts, and Policy for
Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)
sections). Any conservation-related actions, protection measures, and
commitments provided by partners and commenters were taken into
consideration for this final agency action.
(14) Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule
dismisses past conservation measures without fairly addressing their
breadth, effectiveness, and chance of success. Further they submit the
Service must evaluate the conservation measures through (at minimum) an
analysis consistent with PECE, and must fully consider how conservation
measures will reduce or remove threats. The commenters believe that a
fair evaluation of the past conservation efforts would demonstrate that
they are sufficient to protect the bi-State DPS.
Alternatively, several commenters argue that past conservation
efforts, while well-intended, have been inadequate to provide
sufficient conservation for the DPS. Further, the commenters contend
that the 2012 BSAP is voluntary in nature and does not meet the PECE
standard.
Our Response: We acknowledge and commend the commitment of many
partners in implementing numerous conservation actions within the range
of the bi-State DPS. The PECE policy applies to formalized conservation
efforts that have not yet been implemented or those that have been
implemented, but have not yet demonstrated whether they are effective
at the time of listing. Our analysis of all conservation efforts
currently in place and under development for the future is described in
detail in the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Ongoing and Future
Conservation Efforts, and Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) sections of this document. The
effect of such conservation efforts on the status of a species is
considered under the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section
of this document.
In this document, we considered whether formalized conservation
efforts are included as part of the baseline through the analysis of
the five listing factors, or are appropriate for consideration. After
consideration of partially completed projects and future conservation
efforts that we have found to be sufficiently certain to be implemented
and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section, above), we find the bi-State
DPS is not in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we are withdrawing
the
[[Page 22858]]
proposed rule to list the DPS as a threatened species.
(15) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that economic
development will be negatively impacted by listing and suggested that
it is necessary for the Service to conduct an analysis of the impacts
that listing a species may have on local economies prior to issuance of
a final rule. Alternatively, one commenter submitted that the local
economy will be positively benefited.
Our Response: Under the Act, the Secretary shall make
determinations whether any species is an endangered species or a
threatened species solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. Thus, the Service is not allowed to conduct
an analysis regarding the economic impact of listing endangered or
threatened species. However, the Act does require that the Service
consider the economic impacts of a proposed designation of critical
habitat. A draft of the economic analysis for the now withdrawn
proposed critical habitat is available to the public for informational
purposes on the Internet at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0042. As for the Service's proposal to list the bi-State DPS,
after consideration of partially completed projects and future
conservation efforts that we have found to be sufficiently certain to
be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section, above), we find
the bi-State DPS is not in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or
a significant portion of its range, and is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we are withdrawing
the proposed rule to list the DPS as a threatened species, and critical
habitat will not be designated.
(16) Comment: Several commenters stated that potential impacts to
the bi-State DPS and its habitat caused by roads will vary by road
type. Specifically, the commenters asserted that small, unimproved dirt
roads such as those typically associated with transmission line rights-
of-ways have no impact. Therefore, the commenters believe that
extrapolating research findings such as Forman and Alexander (1998),
Gelbard and Belnap (2003), and Connelly et al. (2000a) to all roads is
not appropriate.
Our Response: We agree that road type, the level and timing of
traffic activity, and associated extent of road maintenance appear to
influence the degree to which a road may affect sage-grouse and
adjacent sagebrush habitat. Where appropriate (e.g., Roads sections of
the Species Report and Infrastructure section of this document), we
clarified our analysis of potential road impacts to more explicitly
differentiate between road types. There is little direct evidence
regarding impacts caused by small, unimproved roads such as dirt two
tracks. Consequently, we cannot provide more definitive information
with regards to these road types.
We maintain that the literature identified above as well as
additional referenced material including Bui (2009) and Forman (2000)
are the best available information relative to potential impacts caused
by roads. We believe these sources are informative because the types of
roads investigated are present in the bi-State area. Our GIS analysis
(Service 2014, unpublished data) revealed that out of 55 leks sites
assessed in the bi-State area, 35 are currently within 5 km (3.1 mi) of
paved, secondary roads and therefore could potentially be impacted.
Analyses of road impacts to greater sage-grouse leks documented
decreasing lek counts and population trends (Johnson et al. 2011, p.
449). The actual mechanism for these declines remain elusive (Manier et
al. 2014, p. 50) but declining habitat condition and use from the
impacts described in Blickley et al. (2012, pp. 467-469; i.e., noise),
Gelbard and Belnap (2003, p. 426; i.e., invasive species), and Connelly
et al. (2000a, p. 974) have been implicated in declines from other
activities, such as energy development. Therefore, we anticipate
similar responses from the same impacts introduced by roads. For
further information, a detailed analysis of the potential impacts of
roads is provided in the Species Report (available at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072) and summarized
under in this document.
(17) Comment: Two commenters question our conclusion that the
number of roads in the bi-State area are likely to increase in the
future. Alternatively, one commenter stated that roads are likely to
increase.
Our Response: As stated in our proposed rule, we consider
substantial new development of improved (i.e., paved) roads unlikely in
the bi-State area (see section Infrastructure in the proposed rule).
With regards to the potential development of small, unimproved
secondary roads within the bi-State area, we stated in our proposed
rule (and reaffirm here; see Infrastructure, above) that development of
small, unimproved roads is likely, although we do not attempt to
quantify the extent of potential new road development.
As stated in our proposed rule, both the Inyo and Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forests have recently completed Travel Management Plans (USFS
2009, entire; USFS 2010, entire). During these planning processes,
nearly 2,000 km (1,225 mi) of previously unauthorized routes were
adopted into the National Forest System (USFS 2009, p. 3; USFS 2010, p.
5). While some of these routes have been in place for many years,
others were reported to be recent developments. We believe this
suggests a history of unauthorized road development, apparently due to
enforcement challenges, and to some extent is suggestive of future
activity. In addition, the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 18, 31, 36,
41) identifies the recent or potential future development of unimproved
roads as a concern in four of the six PMUs. Further, we know of one
recent project proposal to add a paved road segment to the Mammoth-
Yosemite Airport in Long Valley (Perloff 2014, pers. comm.) and
additional projects to improve/realign Highway 395 near Bridgeport,
California (Cornwell 2014, pers. comm.). Thus, we consider this
information, collectively, is an indication that additional development
of unimproved roads is foreseeable. While we remain challenged to
accurately quantify the extent of future unimproved road development,
or quantify potential road improvements, we maintain that the potential
exists and that it is likely to continue to occur.
Finally, there appears to be substantial and increasing interest
among recreational users of unimproved roads in the bi-State area, as
well as an increase in road traffic associated with a mine site in the
Mount Grant PMU (Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 36). As a result, we anticipate
that recreational and mining vehicle traffic will continue to increase,
especially in the Mount Grant and Pine Nut PMUs (see the roads
discussion under the Infrastructure section of the Species Report).
Based on the best available literature regarding potential impacts of
road activity on sage-grouse and their habitat (such as declines in lek
attendance, and alterations to predator or invasive species occurrence
(Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 426; Holloran 2005, p. 40; Bui 2009, p.
31; Blickley et al. 2012, p. 467)), traffic volume may be more
influential on habitat use by sage-grouse than mere road presence
(Gillan et al. 2013, p. 307), especially as it pertains to unimproved
dirt roads. Therefore, we consider roads to be a potential ongoing
impact and not merely a historic one, and as a result,
[[Page 22859]]
conservation efforts are being implemented currently and in the future
(e.g., temporary and permanent road closures) to reduce potential road
impacts (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.). The BSAP contains a number of
provisions to eliminate or reduce impacts assocaited with
infrasturcutre and human disturbance (Bi-State TAC 2012a), including
roads, that we have found to be sufficiently certain to be implemented
and effective in ameliorating this threat (see Policy for Evaluation of
Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section,
above).
(18) Comment: Several commenters submit that feral horses pose an
impact to sagebrush habitat and are a threat to sage-grouse
conservation.
Our Response: We agree with the commenters that feral horses can
degrade sagebrush habitat and in turn can have negative impacts on
sage-grouse populations in the bi-State area. As stated in our proposed
rule, there are seven Wild Horse Territories or Herd Management Areas,
as well as one Wild Horse Unit, which overlap sage-grouse habitat in
the bi-State area (see Grazing and Rangeland Management, above). The
most significant impacts are apparent in the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and
White Mountains PMUs, where associated horse numbers are currently
above the targeted management levels (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 37,
41). However, we have limited data to infer the degree of impact to
sage-grouse populations caused by apparent habitat degradation, and no
new information was received to further inform our understanding of
this potential impact. Management of herd size by Federal agencies is
an ongoing challenge as horses reproduce rapidly and management is
expensive and politically sensitive. Therefore, based on the current
known impacts from feral horses, we anticipate impacts from wild horse
management could continue into the future and as a result, conservation
efforts are being implemented currently and in the future (e.g.,
evaluate and manage wild horse herds throughout the bi-State DPS range)
to reduce potential impacts (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(19) Comment: Several commenters suggest that impacts caused by
hunting are more severe than we conclude in the proposed rule.
Alternatively, several other commenters generally agreed with our
conclusions on harvest but submit that we should consider the confusion
in public perception that is created by not more fully recognizing an
intentional and controllable form of mortality.
Our Response: The allowance of recreational sage-grouse hunting in
the bi-State area is based on the concepts of compensatory and additive
mortality. The compensatory mortality hypothesis contends that
populations compensate for harvest mortality by reducing rates of
natural mortality (e.g., starvation, predation, or disease); thereby,
overall mortality remains unchanged (Anderson and Burnham 1976, pp. 5-
10). Additive mortality results in an increase in total mortality with
increasing harvest mortality.
Results of studies to determine whether hunting mortality in sage-
grouse is compensatory or additive have been contradictory (Crawford
1982, p. 376; Crawford and Lutz 1985, p. 72; Braun 1987, p. 139;
Johnson and Braun 1999, p. 83; Connelly et al. 2003, p. 337; Sedinger
et al. 2010, p. 329). Thus, an appropriate harvest level has not been
determined for sage-grouse populations, including for the bi-State
area. Currently, State wildlife agencies across the range of the
greater sage-grouse attempt to keep harvest levels below 5 to 10
percent of the fall population based on recommendations in Connelly et
al. (2000a, p. 976). This harvest level of the fall populations appears
to be the adopted standard among States and, in general, species
experts agree this level is compatible with conservation (Reese and
Connelly 2011, entire).
In 1997, NDOW closed the hunting season for sage-grouse in the bi-
State area (NDOW 2012, in litt., p. 4); thus, sage-grouse in the bi-
State area can only be harvested in two select locations (i.e, the
North and South Mono Hunt Units, or the Bodie Hills and Long Valley
areas in Bodie and South Mono PMUs) in California. Since 1998, CDFW has
annually issued between 20 and 35 single-bird hunting permits for each
of these areas (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, p. 173; CDFW 2012,
in litt.). The estimated harvest from these permits averages
approximately 40 total birds annually: 20 birds for the North Mono and
20 birds for the South Mono Hunt Units (CDFW 2012, in litt.).
Comparing the recent (2011 and 2012) estimated harvest levels to
the estimated fall population in the California portion of the DPS over
the past decade, harvest has been on the order of 2 to 4 percent of the
estimated fall population in each of the Bodie and South Mono PMUs
(CDFW 2012, in litt.). As currently instituted, the permit system
employed by CDFW is keeping the estimated harvest rate below the
currently accepted harvest rate of 5 to 10 percent of the fall
population. We believe this harvest rate is compatible with a
compensatory mortality paradigm and, therefore, likely has a negligible
impact on the population.
We recognize that the public may be confused by our conclusion that
limited hunting (as described above and in the Overutilization Impacts
section) is not currently considered an impact to the DPS and that this
activity has the potential to lead to an individual's perception that
we are not fully recognizing an intentional and controllable form of
mortality. However, we note that according to section 4(b) of the Act,
we are required to make a listing determination based on the best
scientific and commercial data available, which as stated above,
indicates that the existing limited hunting is not an impact to the DPS
at this time.
(20) Comment: One commenter provided information that a 1,537-ha
(3,800-ac) conservation easement was recently completed near the West
Fork Walker River along the boundary delineating the Desert Creek-Fales
and Pine Nut PMUs.
Our Response: We are aware of this conservation easement, and
(along with other known conservation easements) this information was
taken into account during our evaluation of current conservation
efforts and their value at reducing potential impacts posed by
urbanization and habitat conversion (see Conservation Efforts section
of the Species Report and the Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts
section of this document.
(21) Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to why we
identified urbanization as a threat in the White Mountains PMU.
Our Response: Approximately 688,474 ha (1,701,258 ac) or 97 percent
of the White Mountains PMU is publicly owned. However, there is
potential for future urban development on the limited private lands
present in this PMU, as demonstrated by the recently expanded housing
developments near Chiatovich Creek in Nevada (Bi-State Lek Surveillance
Program 2012, p. 38; Bi-State TAC 2012a, p. 41) that are approximately
8 km (5 mi) south of two recently identified leks. The best available
data for this area indicate direct loss of sagebrush habitat, as well
as the potential that this activity may be influencing connectivity
between the northern and southern portions of this PMU (Bi-State TAC
2012a, p. 41). Without implementation of conservation actions, further,
additional habitat loss or fragmentation of this corridor area could
occur, potentially limiting connectivity between the White Mountains
PMU and Adobe Valley in the South Mono PMU and leading to
[[Page 22860]]
further isolation of the White Mountains population. See Urbanization
and Habitat Conversion above for further discussion of the potential
impacts of urbanization and resulting sagebrush habitat fragmentation
concerns and the conservation actions being implanted to address those
impacts.
(22) Comment: One commenter stated that additional discussion is
needed to address how urbanization is often driven by generational tax
issues influenced by increased regulation and uncertainty of business
operation.
Our Response: We recognize that many factors may influence a
private land owner's decision to sell or retain his or her property,
including the potential listing of federally endangered or threatened
species. Further, we also have concern that the subdivision of
currently intact parcels of private land may negatively affect sage-
grouse conservation in the bi-State area (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 18,
24, 31, 41), thus potentially contributing to additional loss and
fragmentation of existing sagebrush habitat and reducing connectivity
among populations. However, we believe that quantifying the likelihood
of a private parcel being subdivided as a result of our listing action
is speculative. We are unaware of specific information nor was any
information provided by the commenter regarding how generational taxes
or the perception of potential increased regulation as a result of
listing the bi-State DPS might affect a landowner's plans for the
disposition of his or her property.
(23) Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that predators are a
significant threat and that we did not account for this impact
accurately. Further, many commenters suggested predator removal
programs should be implemented. Alternatively, several commenters
suggested that predator control is not sustainable and may have
negative and unintended consequences.
Our Response: We recognize that predation of sage-grouse is the
most commonly identified cause of direct mortality during all life
stages (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228;
Casazza et al. 2009, p. 45; Connelly et al. 2011, p. 65). However, we
note that sage-grouse have coevolved with a suite of predators
(Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 9-10), yet the species has persisted. Thus,
this form of mortality is apparently offset by other aspects of the
species life-history under ``normal'' conditions. However, when non-
endemic predators are introduced into a system (one with which the prey
species did not evolve (e.g., domestic cats and dogs)), or when other
factors influence the balance between endemic predator and prey
interactions, such that a predator gains a competitive advantage,
predation may overwhelm a prey species life-history strategy and
ultimately influence population growth and persistence (Braun 1998, pp.
145-146; Holloran 2005, p. 58; Coates 2007, p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2;
Coates and Delehanty 2010, p. 243; Howe et al. 2014, p. 41). Therefore,
we agree that increases in sage-grouse predator abundance and predation
rates are a concern by potentially negatively affecting population
growth. However, we maintain that predation is a proximal cause of
mortality and increases in predator abundance and predation rates are
ultimately caused by changes in habitat conditions, which positively
influence predator occurrence or efficiency. See sections Urbanization
and Habitat Conversion, Infrastructure, and Predation sections in the
associated Species Report for a detailed analysis on the impacts of
predation.
As a point of clarification, we agree that targeted, short-term
predator removal programs may be warranted in instances where habitat
restoration cannot be achieved in a timely manner. In these instances,
predation rates and predator abundance may be artificially high and
high sage-grouse mortality may be a concern. However, data do not
appear to suggest that removal programs are sustainable or that they
result in increased sage-grouse numbers (Hagen 2011, pp. 98-99). We
intend to explore the potential benefits and negative ramifications
caused by predator control through our continued coordination efforts
with the Bi-State TAC and LAWG for continued conservation of the bi-
State DPS.
(24) Comment: Several commenters questioned our conclusion that
there has been a reduction in occupied sage-grouse habitat in the bi-
State area.
Our Response: In the proposed rule, we described that range loss
occurred due to woodland succession, urbanization and habitat
conversion, infrastructure, and more recently to fire (see Nonnative,
Invasive and Native Plants, Urbanization and Habitat Conversion,
Infrastructure, and Wildfire and Altered Fire Regimes sections of the
Species Report (Service 2015a)). Based solely on woodland succession
(see our response to Comment 3 above), we conclude that the loss of
sagebrush habitat in the bi-State area has been on the order of 50
percent. Further, we note that this estimate does not include
approximately 52,439 ha (129,582 ac) of habitat altered by fire over
the past 20 years nor areas that were known or could be anticipated to
have supported sage-grouse historically such as Minden/Gardnerville,
Nevada, Smith Valley, Nevada, Adobe Valley, California, and northern
Inyo County, California (USFS 1966, p. 4).
We recognize there will remain uncertainty concerning historical
occurrence of sage-grouse in the bi-State area; however, commenters did
not provide any additional information to demonstrate that the habitat
loss did not occur. Therefore, we reaffirm our conclusion, based on the
best available scientific and commercial information, that the occupied
habitat for the bi-State DPS was reduced as a result of habitat
alterations and possibly other mechanisms (such as local extirpations
of sage-grouse caused by harvest) that will remain unknown.
(25) Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that the degree of
impact we assign to specific threat factors is not accurate. Many of
these commenters provided opinions as to appropriate revisions.
Further, several commenters identified inconsistencies in our proposed
rule associated with our assignment of significance level to specific
threats.
Our Response: The threats analysis and associated discussion of the
degree of impact that is described in the Species Report (2013 and 2014
versions), our proposed listing rule, and this document is based upon
the best available scientific and commercial information. No additional
information or assessments were provided by the commenters to support
their claim that the analysis and conclusions in our proposed listing
rule were inaccurate. However, where applicable in our revised Species
Report (Service 2015a) and this document, we have updated these threats
analysis discussions based on new information received since the
proposed rule published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358). With regard
to potential inconsistencies in the threats analysis in the proposed
rule, we made corrections to any inconsistencies identified and as
applicable in both the revised Species Report (Service 2015a) and this
document.
(26) Comment: Numerous commenters stated that OHV recreation is not
an impact on sage-grouse or sagebrush habitat, especially in light of
specific modern management practices such as sound restrictions, timing
restrictions, and weed awareness programs.
Our Response: OHV recreation occurs on an extensive network of
roads in the bi-State area. The activity is generally difficult to
measure and we have little information to infer the amount of public
participation in OHV recreation.
[[Page 22861]]
Further, specific work assessing effects of OHV use on sagebrush and
sage-grouse have not been conducted. Therefore, in this document and
associated Species Report, we do not draw firm conclusions with respect
to the impact this recreational activity may have on the species.
However, we contend that it is reasonable to extrapolate relevant
research on roads and vehicle traffic to understand and anticipate
potential impacts from OHV activity. Potential impacts may include
noise disturbance, spread of invasive plants that degrades sage-grouse
habitat, sage-grouse displacement or avoidance behavior, effects to
predator and prey dynamics, collisions with vehicles, and habitat loss,
among others (Bui 2009, p. 31; Knick et al. 2011, p. 219; Blickley et
al. 2012, p. 467).
Therefore, we disagree with the commenter's assertion that OHV use
has no impact on sage-grouse or sagebrush habitats but recognize the
level of impact is more likely influenced by the degree and timing of
the activity. Thus, specific locations, due to proximity to roads or
extent of use, are likely to be more negatively influenced as compared
to sites that do not share these characteristics. In the bi-State area,
impacts appear most apparent in the Pine Nut PMU, especially on the
west side of the Pine Nut Range, where bird occurrence is now rare (Bi-
State TAC 2012a, pp. 18-19). Whether this localized reduction in sage-
grouse was the direct result of any single form of human activity is
not known, but it is likely it was caused by a combination of factors
related to human development. We note that on the edges of the
residential developments in this area, an extensive network of user-
created roads has been established and this has extended the impact
beyond the physical footprint of residential development.
We appreciate and agree that minimizing noise associated with
vehicles, establishing timing restrictions on OHV activity, and
educating users about weeds and the need to minimize their spread is
beneficial for sage-grouse conservation. The commenters did not provide
specific evidence as to how these management practices ameliorate
potential impacts to the DPS, nor the degree to which these
recommendations are embraced by the broader OHV community. Thus, we
could not evaluate these efforts more thoroughly. Therefore, while
these management practices have helped address some of the effects of
OHV activity on the bi-State DPS and its habitat, they have not
eliminated the impacts to the DPS and its habitat.
(27) Comment: One commenter suggested that the potential threat to
sage-grouse posed by fencing can be mitigated. Alternatively, another
commenter stated that fencing is a major threat and expressed concern
that there are no programs in place to require fencing to be removed.
Our Response: We agree that certain practices, such as making
fences more visible to sage-grouse through the use of visual markers or
employing the use of alternative fence designs (i.e., let-down
fencing), can reduce certain impacts to the bi-State DPS caused by
fencing, specifically collision. However, we do not anticipate that
these efforts will completely ameliorate the threat of collision. For
example, Stevens et al. (2012, p. 301) found that marking fences
reduced the fence collision rate during the sage-grouse breeding season
by 83 percent. Nevertheless, collisions still occurred at marked
fences, especially those in close proximity to spring breeding sites,
suggesting marking alone did not completely resolve the concern.
Furthermore, while direct mortality through collision may be minimized
by these approaches, indirect impacts caused by predation and other
forms of habitat degradation may remain (see the Fencing discussion
under the Infrastructure section of the Species Report (Service 2015a,
pp. 60-62)). Therefore, a combination of approaches to managing fences
and their impacts needs to be applied, which may include removal. These
efforts are currently ongoing in the bi-State area (Bi-State TAC 2012a,
p. 5) as part of the BSAP.
With regards to the comment that fencing may be considered a major
threat, we have described the impacts that may occur from fencing based
on the best scientific and commercial information available. We found
that fencing impacts are widespread but generally minor. In addition,
management actions are being undertaken to further ameliorate this
threat. For example, approximately 12 km (8 mi) of fencing has been
removed or modified in the bi-State area affecting nearly 36 ha (90 ac)
of habitat, and approximately 29 km (18 mi) of fencing has been marked
with visual flight diverters. Furthermore, the BLM Resource Management
Plan (RMP) and USFS LRMP draft amendments prepared by the Humboldt-
Toiyabe National Forest, and the Carson City District and Tonopah Field
Office of the BLM, specifically identify restrictions on new fence
installation and removal or marking of fences already in place within
3.2 km (2 mi) of an active lek (USDI and USDA 2015, entire). Although
these draft plans contain the mentioned provisions for fencing, we do
not rely on them for our determination.
We note that there is no requirement for Federal or non-Federal
landowners to develop a program that would require fencing to be
removed from the bi-State area. We also believe that the removal of
fencing throughout the bi-State area is not a reasonable consideration
for land managers. However, consideration of alternative approaches to
traditional fencing would help reduce impacts of fencing to sage-grouse
(for example, use of let-down fence designs), and we will continue to
work with partners to encourage implementation of reduced or
alternative approaches to fencing in areas that are most important to
the bi-State DPS. Conservation efforts that either underway currently
or planned forin the future can reduce fencing impacts in priority
areas (e.g., BLM's removal of racetrack fencing in Bodie PMU, marking
or modifying fencing in Pine Nut and South Mono PMUs) (Bi-State TAC
2014a, in litt.).
(28) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our characterization of
pinyon-juniper woodlands as a ``native invasive species.'' Two
additional commenters suggested woodlands and woodland expansion is
natural and should be left alone. Specifically, commenters speculated
that forest occurrence is a reestablishment of sites that were
harvested during historic mining in the later part of the 1800's.
Our Response: We agree that the term ``native invasive species'' is
inappropriately applied to characterize the current expansion of native
tree species into sagebrush habitats. Executive Order 13112 defined an
invasive species as an exotic or native species that is nonnative to
the specific ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction
causes or is likely to cause economic environmental harm or harm to
human health (64 FR 6183, February 8, 1999). This definition includes
species native to other parts of North America; however, Miller et al.
(2011, p. 157) defined ``increasers'' as species that occur within the
region of interest. Therefore, we have modified our language where
appropriate in this document and our revised Species Report (Service
2015a, entire).
Across the bi-State area, approximately 40 percent of the
historically available sagebrush habitat has been usurped by woodland
succession over the past 150 years (USGS 2012, unpublished data). As
described in the Nonnative Invasive and Native Increasing Plants
section of the Species Report, the cause of this increase is likely
multifaceted but most certainly includes recovery from past
[[Page 22862]]
disturbances such as mining. However, the support for this single
mechanism is not apparent. For example, there are locations within the
bi-State area where there are stumps from harvested trees that are
attributable to the mining era; however most locations do not contain
evidence of past tree cutting. Furthermore, genetic evidence suggests
that sage-grouse populations contained within the bi-State area were
historically more connected and not until relatively recently have
these connections begun to erode (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, pp. 10-
11). Thus, this suggests that barriers to movement, such as trees, were
less restrictive historically as compared to today.
Ultimately, the cause of woodland encroachment becomes less
relevant in light of its implications as the response to tree presence
by sage-grouse is uniformly negative (Commons et al. 1999, p. 238;
Doherty et al. 2008, p. 187; Freese 2009, pp. 84-85, 89-90; Casazza et
al. 2011, p. 159; Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013, p. 237). Therefore,
management of pinyon-juniper encroachment in specific areas that would
most benefit the bi-State DPS (e.g., lek sites, migration corridors,
brood-rearing habitat), and is consistent with our understanding of a
specific site's vegetation potential, is an important consideration by
land managers (as described in the BSAP) to reduce this impact on the
bi-State DPS and its habitat.
(29) Comment: One commenter disagreed with our conclusion that
cheatgrass is a significant threat to the bi-State DPS, which the
commenter believes was a departure from the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a).
Our Response: We identified cheatgrass as an impact to the bi-State
DPS and its habitat because it can replace vegetation essential to
sage-grouse and negatively impact sagebrush ecosystems by altering
plant community structure and composition, productivity, nutrient
cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek 1990, p. 7; Miller et al. 2011, pp.
160-164). We maintain that our assessment and that of the BSAP (Bi-
State TAC 2012a) are largely congruent. The BSAP recognizes cheatgrass
as a threat in each of the six PMUs, considering it a low-severity
threat in four PMUs, a moderate threat in one PMU, and a high-level
threat in one PMU (Bi-State TAC 2012a, pp. 19, 26, 32, 37, 41, 49). We
relied significantly on the assessment in the BSAP to inform our
analysis and discussion in the Species Report (Service 2013a, 2015a),
the proposed listing rule, and this document. However, we note that
climate change and the interaction between this change agent and other
stressors (such as cheatgrass) were not evaluated during the BSAP
assessment. Thus, our evaluation in the Species Report (Service 2013a,
2015a), the proposed listing rule, and in this document includes an
assessment of the potential influence climate change may have on
cheatgrass occurrence.
Available climate data suggest that future cheatgrass conditions
will be most influenced by precipitation and winter temperatures
(Bradley 2009, p. 200). Predictions on the timing, type, and amount of
precipitation contain the greatest uncertainty. In the bi-State area,
model scenarios that result in the greatest expansion of cheatgrass
suggest much of the area remains suitable to cheatgrass presence with
some additional high-elevation sites in the Bodie Hills, White
Mountains, and Long Valley becoming more suitable than they are today
(Bradley 2009, p. 204). On the opposite end of the spectrum, model
scenarios that result in the greatest contraction in cheatgrass range
suggest low-elevation sites such as Desert Creek-Fales and Mount Grant
PMUs become less suitable for this invasive species, but high-elevation
sites (i.e., Bodie and White Mountains PMUs) where habitat conditions
are generally marginal today become more suitable in the future.
Therefore, similar to the BSAP, we recognize that cheatgrass impacts
today vary across the bi-State region. However, in contrast to the
BSAP, we consider future impacts will influence this threat and even
the best-case scenario suggests challenges will persist, although the
location of these challenges may shift. Conservation efforts that are
either currenly under way or planned for in the future can reduce
potential cheatgrass impacts in priority areas (e.g., multiple BLM and
USFS invasive weed management treatments in multiple PMUs) (Bi-State
TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(30) Comment: One commenter suggested our estimate of woodland
expansion in the bi-State area is an overestimate.
Our Response: We stated in our proposed listing rule that across
the bi-State area approximately 40 percent of the historically
available sagebrush habitat has been usurped by woodland succession
over the past 150 years (USGS 2012, unpublished data). No additional
information was received by the commenter or others since the proposed
rule published that would modify our understanding of this threat.
Therefore, based on the best available information, we conclude that
woodland expansion is a potential threat in the bi-State area as it has
reduced habitat availability and negatively influenced population
connectivity. As a result, conservation efforts that are currently
underway or planned for in the future can reduce potential woodland
succession impacts in priority areas (e.g., BLM, USFS, and NRCS
treatments of Phase I and II pinyon-juniper encroachment in all six
PMUs) (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(31) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that listing the bi-
State DPS would impact culturally significant resources, specifically
referring to pinyon pine seed collection.
Our Response: We recognize that many Native American Tribes
consider pinyon pine seed collection to be a culturally significant
resource. Under the Act, we are required to use the best available
scientific and commercial information to assess the factors affecting a
species in order to make a status determination. The Act requires us to
consider all threats and impacts that may be responsible for declines
as potential listing factors. The evidence presented in the proposed
rule suggests that pinyon-juniper forest encroachment is impacting the
bi-State DPS and its habitat to a certain degree (see our response to
Comments 30 and 32 above, and the Native Increasing Plants section of
the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 78-84)). Furthermore, we do not
believe that it is reasonable (both ecologically and practicably) that
all pinyon-juniper woodlands will be removed from the bi-State area.
Ecologists have developed clear recommendations for targeting woodland
sites amenable to restoration (based on age class, tree density, soil
type, etc.) and in general these locations comprise younger age classes
of trees, which do not produce significant seed crops. Although the Act
does not allow us the discretion to consider culturally significant
resources to inform a listing decision, there does not appear to be a
remaining concern given our proposed listing action is being withdrawn.
(32) Comment: Several commenters suggest that fire is the most
significant threat to the bi-State DPS and post-fire restoration is
difficult. Alternatively, several other commenters suggest that fire is
a natural process and does not constitute a complete loss of habitat
for the bi-State DPS because sage-grouse will use burned areas.
Our Response: In this document, we address potential habitat
changes that may be related to wildland fires and post-fire restoration
activities. We agree that fire is a natural process on the landscape
within the bi-State area; however, we also note that we found that the
``too-little'' and ``too-much'' fire
[[Page 22863]]
scenarios present challenges for the bi-State DPS. In other words, in
some locations, the lack of fire has facilitated the expansion of
woodlands, especially into montane shrub communities. In other
locations, recent fires have been followed by invasive-weed
establishment facilitating a reoccurring fire cycle that restricts
sagebrush restoration. These scenarios present challenges for the
species, as habitat losses outpace habitat gains. Although fires have
occurred across the range of the bi-State DPS historically and
recently, we acknowledge that suitable habitat remains for sage-grouse
use. However, in some cases, remaining suitable habitat is threatened
by additional fire because of adjacent invasive annual plants and
woodland establishment, which can influence the frequency and intensity
of future fire events. Further, impacts to remaining sagebrush habitat
may be exacerbated due to other additive threats that are acting in the
bi-State area (see Synergistic ImpactsCumulative Effects section
above). To reduce impacts associated with nonnative, invasive plants
and woodland succession, conservation efforts are currently underway
and planned for in the future (e.g., multiple BLM and USFS invasive
weed management treatments in multiple PMUs), (e.g., BLM, USFS, and
NRCS treatments of Phase I and II pinyon-juniper encroachment in all
six PMUs) (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
Additionally, while short-term (and potentially long-term) impacts
from fire events to sage-grouse are known to occur, including but not
limited to habitat loss and population declines (Beck et al. 2012, p.
452; Knick et al. 2011, p. 233; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 469), we agree
that some information suggests sage-grouse use of burned habitat. Small
fires may maintain a suitable habitat mosaic by reducing shrub
encroachment and encouraging understory growth. However, without
available nearby sagebrush cover, the broad utility of these sites is
questionable (Woodward 2006, p. 65). For example, Slater (2003, p. 63)
reported that sage-grouse using burned areas were rarely found more
than 60 m (200 ft) from the edge of the burn and may preferentially use
the burned and unburned edge habitat.
In summary, we recognize that fire is natural and the primary
disturbance mechanism in the sagebrush ecosystem. We also recognize
that sage-grouse will selectively utilize portions of burned habitat.
However, the challenge remains that the sustainability of this system
is questionable where habitat loss outpaces habitat gain, especially
given the currently limited and fragmented suitable sagebrush habitat
in the bi-State area. Therefore, land managers within the range of the
bi-State DPS are currently and will continue to implement conservation
efforts into the future that are expected to reduce the potential
impacts of wildfire as it relates to nonnative, invasive plants and
pinyon-juniper encroachment (Bi-State TAC 2014a, in litt.).
(33) Comment: One commenter stated that the Benton County landfill
will close in 2023. Another commenter stated that there is no guarantee
that the landfill will close.
Our Response: We identified the Benton County landfill (located in
Long Valley, California) as a potential threat factor to the bi-State
DPS because the landfill helps support a significant population of
common ravens and Larus californicus (California gulls). Common ravens
(and possibly California gulls) can potentially affect population
growth in sage-grouse by negatively impacting nesting and brood-rearing
success (Coates et al. 2008, pp. 425-426). While predation has not been
studied explicitly, data do demonstrate that nest success in Long
Valley (South Mono PMU) is significantly lower as compared to other
sage-grouse populations within the bi-State area (Kolada et al. 2009a,
p. 1,344) and this result may be attributable to an increased number of
sage-grouse predators (i.e., ravens and gulls) subsidized by landfill
operations (Casazza 2008, pers. comm.).
The Benton County landfill is located on private property owned by
the LADWP and leased by Mono County, California. The lease is set to
expire in 2023 and both the LADWP and Mono County state the lease will
not be renewed (Weiche 2013, pers. comm.; Johnston 2014, in litt.).
(34) Comment: One commenter stated that impacts to the bi-State DPS
caused by cellular towers can be mitigated by installing anti-perching
devices to prevent perching by avian predators.
Our Response: We identified cellular towers as an impact to the bi-
State DPS and its habitat because the presence of this form of
infrastructure has been shown to be correlated with extirpated range
(Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 463). Furthermore, distance to cellular towers
appeared to be a highly discriminatory variable explaining extirpation.
The mechanism by which this feature may lead to sage-grouse extirpation
has not been studied. Thus, whether cellular towers function in a cause
and effect manner (such as facilitating predation) or simply are
aligned with other detrimental factors (such as being an indicator of
intense human development) is not known.
The Service acknowledges that installation of anti-perching devices
on tall structures (such as cellular towers) may influence predation
rates. However, the efficacy of this practice to discourage raptor and
corvid perching is debatable (Prather and Messmer 2010, p. 798), and
increased predation may not be the mechanism leading to extirpation.
Thus, while we generally agree that perch deterrents may ameliorate any
increased predation impacts caused by cellular towers on sage-grouse,
available data do not support the idea that these devices (currently)
can eliminate the threat entirely. We will continue to work with
landowners and partners to remove or reduce impacts from existing or
potential future cellular towers, especially in proximity to breeding,
nesting, and brood-rearing habitats.
(35) Comment: Several commenters suggested that climate change
poses a significant impact to the bi-State DPS and its habitat,
including one commenter that stated we underestimated the impact that
climate change may have on the DPS.
Our Response: In this document under Factors A and E, we address
potential impacts associated with climate change. We found that
projected climate change and its associated consequences have the
potential to affect sage-grouse, and sagebrush habitat in the bi-State
area. The impacts of climate change interact with other stressors such
as disease, invasive species, prey availability, moisture, vegetation
community dynamics, disturbance regimes, and other habitat degradations
and loss that are already affecting the species (Global Climate Change
Impacts in the United States 2009, p. 81; Miller et al. 2011, pp. 174-
179; Walker and Naugle 2011, entire; Finch 2012, pp. 60, 80). We
concluded that without consideration of conservation actions, the
overall impact of climate change to the bi-State DPS at this time is
moderate. Neither the commenters nor others provided new information
related to climate change that would result in a change in our
analysis. However, since the publication of the proposed rule, ongoing
implementation of various conservation measures in the BSAP has reduced
the significance of the threat of wildfire and invasive plants, which
could work synergistically with climate to impact sage grouse.
Continued implementation of the BSAP further reduces the impacts of
these threats to the bi-State sage-grouse. Therefore, even should
climate change increase the threat of wildfire
[[Page 22864]]
and invasive plants to some degree, we no longer conclude that climate
change acting in concert with these other threats constitutes a
significant threat to the bi-State DPS. See the Climate section of the
Species Report for further discussion (Service 2015a, pp. 91-99).
(36) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed listing rule
violates Executive Order 13563, as the Service fails to identify a
recovery goal.
Our Response: We disagree that Executive Order 13563 (76 FR 3821)
should be interpreted to require the Service to identify a recovery
goal when proposing a listing rule under the ESA. The ESA requires the
Service to create recovery plans for all listed species that contain
objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would lead to removal of
the species from the list. These recovery plans are created following a
final determination to list a species as threatened or endangered. In
this case, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the bi-state DPS of
greater sage-grouse.
(37) Comment: Several commenters stated that the court-mandated
timeline for making a final listing determination is too short and does
not allow adequate time to determine if conservation efforts, such as
those identified in the 2012 BSAP, are sufficient to maintain a viable
sage-grouse population in the bi-State area.
Our Response: In 2011, we reached, and the court accepted, a
stipulated settlement agreement with several plaintiffs in Endangered
Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., Misc. Action No. 10-377 (EGS),
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Docket No. 2165 (D. DC) (known as the
``MDL case''). This settlement established a multiyear workplan,
whereby we committed to publish proposed rules or not-warranted
findings on 251 species designated as candidates as of 2010 no later
than September 30, 2016. Our time line associated with the bi-State DPS
reflects this workplan.
(38) Comment: Several commenters stated that we should have
proposed listing the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse as an
endangered species as opposed to a threatened species.
Our Response: Section 3 of the Act defines an endangered species as
any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as any
species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Endangered species are at the brink of extinction today, while
threatened species are likely to be at the brink in the foreseeable
future if their status does not improve or at least stabilize.
With regard to the bi-State DPS, we have identified potential
threats across the range of the bi-State DPS that are synergistically
resulting in the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range, and other natural or manmade
threats affecting the DPS's continued existence. We have determined
that, in the absence of any conservation efforts, these impacts are
such that the DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future (i.e., the definition of a threatened species). Many
of these impacts could act cumulatively upon the bi-State DPS and
increase the risk of extinction, but not to such a degree that the DPS
is in danger of extinction today (see Determination, above). However,
after consideration of partially completed projects and future
conservation efforts that we have found to be highly certain to be
implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section, above), we
believe the bi-State DPS is not in danger of becoming extinct
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and is not likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened),
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the
bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse does not meet the definition of a
threatened or endangered species, and we are withdrawing the proposed
rule to list the DPS as a threatened species.
(39) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the decline of the
bi-State DPS is a natural evolutionary process, and that the presence
of environmental stressors is a normal driver of evolution and
extinction.
Our Response: Under the Act, we are required to use the best
available scientific and commercial information to assess the factors
affecting a species in order to make a status determination. The Act
requires the Service to consider all threats and impacts that may be
responsible for declines as potential listing factors. The evidence
presented suggests that the threats to the species are both natural and
manmade (see impacts associated with Factor E, including (but not
limited to) infrastructure, wildfire, small population size,
urbanization, and recreation).
(40) Comment: A few commenters were concerned about the effects of
listing on mining and associated activities conducted under the General
Mining Law of 1872. One commenter suggested that listing did not take
into consideration Federal mining law and recognition of valid existing
rights. Another commenter was concerned that there would be no
assurances that development of a mining claim will result in the
ability to mine it.
Our Response: In the proposed listing rule, we identified mining
and associated activities to be a threat to the bi-State DPS; however,
we consider it a less significant impact and one that does not occur
across the entire bi-State area. On federally managed land outside of
designated wilderness, new mining may occur pursuant to the Mining Law
of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), which was enacted to promote
exploration and development of domestic mineral resources, as well as
the settlement of the western United States. It permits U.S. citizens
and businesses to prospect hardrock (locatable) minerals and, if a
valuable deposit is found, file a claim giving them the right to use
the land for mining activities and sell the minerals extracted. Gold
and other minerals are frequently mined as locatable minerals, and, as
such, mining is subject to the Mining Law of 1872. Authorization of
mining under the Mining Law of 1872 is a discretionary agency action
pursuant to section 7 of the Act. Therefore, Federal agencies with
jurisdiction over land where mining occurs will review mining and other
actions that they fund, authorize, or carry out to determine if listed
species may be affected in accordance with section 7 of the Act.
Because we have withdrawn our proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS
and it will not be placed on the list of federally endangered or
threatened species, consultations under section 7 of the Act will not
be required specific to the bi-State DPS.
(41) Comment: Several commenters stated that conservation efforts
to date have not been adequate to address known threats.
Our Response: While considerable effort has been expended over the
past several years to address some of the known threats throughout
portions or all of the bi-State DPS's estimated occupied range, without
implementation of conservation actions, threats to the continued
viability of the DPS into the future would remain. The development of
the 2012 BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012a, entire) has highlighted the
importance of not only habitat restoration and enhancement but also the
role of the States and other partners in reducing many of the known
threats to the bi-State DPS. Cooperative, committed efforts by Federal
and State agencies, as well as Mono County will result in full
implementation of the BSAP, including funding and staffing
[[Page 22865]]
commitments over the next 10 years to address the most significant
impacts to the DPS and its habitat (BLM 2014c, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in
litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.; NDOW 2014b, in litt.; USDA 2014, in
litt.; USGS 2014c, in litt.). Such plans provide the ongoing, targeted
implementation of effective conservation actions that are essential for
the conservation of the bi-State DPS and its habitat into the future.
We discuss the various conservation efforts that are currently ongoing
and planned for in the future within the estimated occupied range of
the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse in more detail in the Ongoing
and Future Conservation Efforts section and the Policy for Evaluation
of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE)) sections
of this document.
(42) Comment: Numerous commenters questioned our conclusion that
sage-grouse populations in the bi-State area have declined. Further,
several commenters stated that listing is not warranted because recent
data suggest stable to increasing population trends.
Our Response: Our analysis in the proposed rule and presented in
this document was based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, and constitutes our final determination, in
accordance with section 4(b)(6)(A) of the Act. Based on our analysis of
the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and as
explained further in the published finding, we have concluded that
population declines have been on par with reductions in sagebrush
extent (see our response to Comment 3 above).
Further, as discussed above (see our response to Comment 7), we
determined in the Species Information section of the proposed rule and
Bi-State DPS Population Trends section of the Species Report that
declining population trends were apparent in the Pine Nut, Desert
Creek-Fales, and Mount Grant PMUs. Further, we concluded that the South
Mono and Bodie PMUs appeared stable and the population trend in the
White Mountains PMU was unknown. In this final analysis and the Bi-
State DPS Population Trends section of the updated Species Report, we
describe new information received related to populations and trends. In
summary, these new data estimate that population growth has been stable
across the bi-State area between 2003 and 2012 (Coates et al. 2014,
entire). Specifically, estimated population growth was positive for
four of the six populations analyzed (Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Bodie
Hills, Long Valley) and negative for the remaining two populations
analyzed (Fales, Parker Meadows) over this time period. A population
trend assessment was not conducted for the Mount Grant and White
Mountains PMUs due to lack of data.
Based on our analysis of the five factors identified in section
4(a)(1) of the Act, and after consideration of partially completed and
future conservation efforts that we have found to be certain of
implementation and effectiveness (as described in our detailed PECE
analysis available at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-
0072), we believe the bi-State DPS is not likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future (threatened).
(43) Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that our grazing and
rangeland management assessment in the proposed rule is not accurate
and requires additional clarification. Specifically, they suggested
that: (1) Current livestock grazing is compatible with sage-grouse
conservation in the bi-State area, (2) a more clearly defined
delineation is needed between past and present grazing impacts, and (3)
additional delineation is needed among grazing animals (i.e., cattle,
horses, sheep, insects, etc.). Alternatively, several other commenters
suggested that grazing and rangeland management are a significant
threat to the bi-State DPS's conservation, and this threat is not
adequately controlled by existing management programs.
Our Response: In this document we present a summary of the Grazing
and Rangeland Management section of the Species Report (Service 2015a,
pp. 71-77), in which we found that the majority of allotments in the
bi-State area are not significantly impacted by livestock grazing.
Specifically, Rangeland Health Assessments (RHAs) or their equivalents
(i.e., the standard used by Federal agencies to assess habitat
condition) have been completed on allotments covering approximately 81
percent of suitable sage-grouse habitat in the bi-State area. Of the
allotments with RHAs completed, 81 percent (n=97) are meeting upland
vegetation standards, suggesting that approximately 352,249 ha (870,427
ac) out of approximately 563,941 ha (1,393,529 ac) of suitable sage-
grouse habitat are known to be in a condition compatible with sagebrush
community maintenance. Furthermore, of the allotments with RHA
completed, 45 percent are meeting riparian standards and 27 percent are
not, with the remainder being unknown or the allotment does not contain
riparian habitat. Of those not meeting riparian standards,
approximately 15 percent, livestock were a significant or partially
significant cause for the allotment failing to meet identified
standards while the remainders were attributed to other causes such as
past mining activity or road presence. In each instance (upland or
riparian) of an allotment not meeting standards due to livestock,
remedial actions have been taken by the representative land managing
agency (such as changes in intensity, duration, or season of use by
livestock). Therefore, we concluded that modern livestock grazing is
not a significant impact on sage-grouse habitat.
Furthermore, we note that historical impacts from livestock grazing
and impacts caused by feral horses are apparent, but data to assess
these impacts are largely limited. None of the commenters provided
additional data to assist with this assessment. In total, we believe
that historical impacts (past grazing and other land uses) and impacts
from feral horse use is apparent in local areas, but we consider
current management to be sufficient to address these issues.
(44) Comment: Several commenters suggested that existing regulatory
mechanisms are insufficient to affect conservation of the bi-State DPS.
Alternatively, several other commenters suggested that existing
regulatory mechanisms are adequate.
Our Response: Under the Act, we determine that a species is
endangered or threatened based on our analysis of the five listing
factors, which includes the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms. For the bi-State DPS, we must evaluate the adequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms from the baseline of the DPS not being
federally listed under the Act.
In the proposed listing rule, we concluded that most existing
regulatory mechanisms are sufficiently vague as to offer limited
certainty as to managerial direction pertaining to sage-grouse
conservation, particularly as they relate to addressing the threats
that are significantly impacting the bi-State DPS (i.e., nonnative,
invasive and certain native plants; wildfire and altered wildfire
regime; infrastructure; and rangeland management). However, we note one
exception: Our support for the BLM Bishop Field Office's 1993 RMP,
which precludes any discretionary action that may adversely affect
sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitat (BLM 1993, p. 18). Furthermore, we
recognize that some County policies and ordinances while not precluding
development have, at times, limited development (Service 2015a, pp.
129-
[[Page 22866]]
130); thus, these efforts also need to be recognized.
Since that proposal, we have fully evaluated the BSAP and
determined that it ameolirates threats to the species, lessening the
need for regulatory mechanisms to manage stressors. The currently
proposed BLM and Forest Service Land Use Plan amendments will provide
additional specificity and certainty that compliment the BSAP
conservation of the bi-State DPS and its habitat. We mention the draft
plans in this document to recognize that the BLM and the USFS have
taken steps to draft such plans, which will make their language
consistent with the actions being undertaken in the BSAP. However, we
are not relying on them as part of this review because they are not
finalized and would require speculation on the Service's part as to the
final outcomes of the plans. Since we have determined that the ongoing
and future conservation efforts under the BSAP are removing the threats
to the bi-State DPS as discussed above, we find that the currently
existing regulatory mecanisms are adequate.
(45) Comment: Two commenters suggested that our conclusion in the
proposed rule about the potential impacts to the bi-State DPS caused by
transmission lines is incorrect. Additionally, other commenters
disagree with our conclusion that the number of transmission lines may
increase.
Our Response: In the Infrastructure section of this document and
the Power Lines section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 56-
60), we address potential impacts associated with transmission lines.
We found that a variety of power lines (transmission and distribution)
currently occur throughout the range of the bi-State DPS. While we
recognize that the potential impact caused by power line presence
remains debatable in the scientific community (Johnson et al. 2011, p.
440; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 463; Messmer et al. 2013, entire), the best
available information infers that power line presence negatively
impacts sage-grouse. Since the proposed rule published, we received
additional information on transmission lines that further supports our
conclusion (Gibson et al. 2013, p. 23; Gillan et al. 2013, p. 307).
Therefore, we maintain that power line presence negatively affects the
DPS.
Also, in our proposed rule, we stated that ``infrastructure
features are likely to increase (secondary roads, power lines, fencing,
and communication towers).'' While this forecast remains uncertain, it
is logical that power line development will occur to some unknown
degree in light of potential future energy, mineral, and housing
development in the bi-State area. As a result, land managers implement
conservation efforts that reduce potential infrastructure-related
impacts, including (but not limited to) reducing human disturbance,
development, and associated infrastructure (e.g., power lines) in Mono
County (e.g., Mono County 2014, in litt.), or in some cases removing
power lines in critical sage-grouse areas (e.g., the BLM's removal of
the Bodie-sub to Fletcher-sub power line in the Bodie PMU) (Bi-State
TAC 2014a, in litt.)
(46) Comment: Several commenters stated that they believe mining is
not a threat to the bi-State DPS. Alternatively, another commenter
suggested impacts from mining are significant.
Our Response: In the Mining section of this document, we address
potential impacts associated with mining activities. We found that
sage-grouse could be impacted directly or indirectly from an increase
in human presence, land use practices, ground shock, noise, dust,
reduced air quality, degradation of water quality and quantity, and
changes in vegetation and topography (Moore and Mills 1977, entire;
Brown and Clayton 2004, p. 2) (Factor E). However, we recognize that
while theoretical effects are clear and logical, information relating
sage-grouse response to mineral developments is not extensive. Neither
the commenters nor others provided new information related to this
threat. While we maintain that it is reasonable to assume a negative
impact from mining on sage-grouse, based on the current extent and
location of mineral developments in the bi-State area we conclude that
by itself, mining is not considered a significant impact at this time.
However, mining is a potential concern for the future based on the
potential for mining activities to impact important lek complexes and
population connectivity, and the likely synergistic effects occurring
when this threat is combined with other threats acting on the bi-State
DPS currently and in the future. See the Mining section of the Species
Report for a complete discussion of the potential effects of mining
activities on the bi-State DPS and its habitat (Service 2015a, pp. 65-
68).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this document is
available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072 or upon request from the Field Supervisor, Reno
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Pacific Southwest Regional Office and Reno Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: April 13, 2015.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09417 Filed 4-21-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
