Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species, 59857-59942 [2015-24292]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59857-59942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24292]



[[Page 59857]]

Vol. 80

Friday,

No. 191

October 2, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 
Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an 
Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 191 / Friday, October 2, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 59858]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2015-0146]; [4500030113]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 
as an Endangered or Threatened Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on petitions to list the greater sage-grouse 
(Centrocercus urophasianus), both rangewide and the Columbia Basin 
population, as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the 
Columbia Basin population does not qualify as a distinct population 
segment. In addition, we find that listing the greater sage-grouse is 
not warranted at this time. However, we ask the public to submit to us 
any new information that becomes available concerning the threats to 
the greater sage-grouse or its habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 2, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2015-0146. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, 134 Union 
Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228. Please submit any new information, 
materials, or questions concerning this finding to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, P.O. Box 25486, 
DFC, Mailstop 60120, Denver, CO 80225.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Thabault, 303-236-9779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish this document. Under the Endangered Species 
Act (hereafter, Act), a species may warrant protection through listing 
if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. We issued a 12-month finding that greater sage-
grouse was warranted for listing in 2010 (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). 
However, since that time, new information about the status of the 
species, potential threats, regulatory mechanisms, and conservation 
efforts indicates that listing is not warranted.
    The basis for our action. Under the 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. Based on new information about these factors and 
the adequacy of regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts in 
managing them, we have determined that the greater sage-grouse is not 
in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range and that listing the species is 
no longer warranted.
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we have determined that the primary threats to greater sage-grouse have 
been ameliorated by conservation efforts implemented by Federal, State, 
and private landowners. In 2010, we identified habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as 
factors leading to a warranted determination. Since that time, 
regulatory mechanisms through Federal and three State plans that 
incorporate conservation principles identified by the scientific 
experts have substantially reduced these risks in approximately 90 
percent of the breeding habitat through avoidance and minimization 
measures. Advancements in oil and gas technologies have reduced the 
anticipated footprint of future development; the future conversion of 
sagebrush habitats to agriculture is unlikely to impact greater sage-
grouse because high densities of breeding sage-grouse do not occur in 
habitats that are suitable for agriculture; and renewable energy 
development, although still a potential, is unlikely to occur in areas 
where greater sage-grouse occur in the highest densities. Fire and 
invasive species continue to occur in greater sage-grouse habitats, 
especially in the Great Basin, but existing management and commitments 
for suppression, restoration, and noxious weed treatments are reducing 
that impact.
    Rangewide, a number of relatively large greater sage-grouse 
populations continue to be distributed across the landscape and are 
supported by undisturbed expanses of habitat. Some habitat loss 
associated with energy development, infrastructure, wildfire, and 
invasive plants will continue into the future. However, regulatory 
mechanisms provided by Federal and three State plans reduce threats on 
approximately 90 percent of the breeding habitat across the species' 
range.

Acronyms Used in This Document

    We use many acronyms throughout this document. To assist the 
reader, we provide a list of the most frequently used acronyms here for 
easy reference:

AML Appropriate Management Level
AUM Animal Unit Months
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BSU Biologically Significant Unit
CCA Candidate Conservation Agreement
CCAA Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances
CED Conservation Efforts Database
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNRMP Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan
COT Conservation Objectives Team
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
DPS Distinct Population Segment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FIAT Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool
FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
FR Federal Register
GHMA General Habitat Management Area
GIS Geographic Information System
HMA Herd Management Areas
HMAP Herd Management Area Plan
INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
LHS Land Health Standards
MZ Management Zone
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFMA National Forest Management Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSO No Surface Occupancy
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
PACs Priority Areas for Conservation
PHMA Priority Habitat Management Areas
RDF Required Design Features
ROW Right-of-Way
RFPA Rangeland Fire Protection Associations
SARA Canada's Species at Risk Act
SFA Sagebrush Focal Areas
SGI Sage Grouse Initiative
SGMAs Sage-grouse Management Areas
SGPA Sage-grouse Protection Area
SPR Significant portion of the range
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFS U.S. Forest Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
WAFWA Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
WNv West Nile virus

[[Page 59859]]

YTC Joint Base Lewis-McChord Yakima Training Center

Overview of Sections

    The following is an outline of the major sections included in this 
document:

 Background
    [cir] Previous Federal Actions
 Species Information
    [cir] Bi-State Distinct Population Segment
    [cir] Columbia Basin Population
    [cir] Greater Sage-grouse Listable Entity Summary
 Distribution
 Habitat
 Life-History Characteristics and Seasonal Habitat Selection
 Sage-grouse Connectivity and Landscape Genetics
 Population Abundance and Trends
    [cir] Abundance and Distribution Models
    [cir] Population Abundance and Trends Summary
 Changes Since the 2010 Finding
    [cir] New Scientific Information
    [cir] Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning
    [cir] Summary of New Information Since 2010
 Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
    [cir] Habitat Fragmentation
    [cir] Nonrenewable Energy Development
    [cir] Infrastructure
    [cir] Agricultural Conversion
    [cir] Wildfire and Invasive Plants
    [cir] Grazing and Rangeland Management
    [cir] Free-Roaming Equids
    [cir] Conifer Encroachment
    [cir] Mining
    [cir] Renewable Energy
    [cir] Urban and Exurban Development
    [cir] Recreation
    [cir] Climate Change and Drought
    [cir] Predation
    [cir] Disease
    [cir] Recreational Hunting
    [cir] Scientific and Educational Use
    [cir] Contaminants
    [cir] Military Activity
    [cir] Small Populations
    [cir] Regulatory Mechanisms
 Finding
    [cir] Significant Portion of the Range
 Conclusion

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information that listing the species may be warranted, we 
make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. 
In general we must determine whether a petitioned action is: (1) Not 
warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) warranted, but the immediate proposal 
of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by 
other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register. See below for further discussion of the limitations imposed 
through various means on this determination.

Previous Federal Actions

    From 1999 to 2005, we received eight petitions to list the greater 
sage-grouse throughout its range or within specific populations (Table 
1). Among those, two were petitions to list the bi-State Distinct 
Population Segment (DPS) of the greater sage-grouse (2002 and 2005), 
which we have addressed separately and, hence, are not included in this 
status assessment (see Bi-State Distinct Population Segment, below). 
The responses to the other six petitions and the outcomes of ensuing 
lawsuits and court settlements are detailed in the 2010 finding (75 FR 
13910, March 23, 2010), and are summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1--Summary of Previous Federal Actions for Greater Sage-Grouse, Including the Eastern and Western Subspecies and Columbia Basin Population
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Request of        90-day petition      Status review                           Determination
           Petitioner                    Date              petition             finding             finding        Legal challenges         upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Dremann...................  Jul. 2, 2002......  List rangewide....  These three         Not warranted;      Western Watersheds  Finding remanded
(Institute for Wildlife           Mar. 24, 2003.....  List rangewide....   petitions were      Jan. 12, 2005 (70   Project             in 2007;
 Protection.                      Dec. 29, 2003.....  List rangewide....   combined in one     FR 2244).           challenged in       warranted finding
American Lands Alliance [lead] +                                           substantial                             2006.               published March
 20 other organizations).                                                  finding: Apr. 21,                                           23, 2010 (75 FR
                                                                           2004 (69 FR                                                 13910).
                                                                           21484).
Institute for Wildlife            Jan. 24, 2002.....  List the western    Non-substantial;    N/A...............  Institute for       Positive 90-day
 Protection.                                           subspecies.         Feb. 7, 2003 (68                        Wildlife            finding April 29,
                                                                           FR 6500).                               Protection          2008 (73 FR
                                                                                                                   challenged.         23170); part of
                                                                                                                                       March 23, 2010,
                                                                                                                                       finding, but
                                                                                                                                       determined it was
                                                                                                                                       not a recognized
                                                                                                                                       subspecies (75 FR
                                                                                                                                       13910).
Institute for Wildlife            Jul. 3, 2002......  List the eastern    Non-substantial;    N/A...............  Institute for       Judge ruled in
 Protection.                                           subspecies.         Jan. 7, 2004 (69                        Wildlife            favor of the
                                                                           FR 933).                                Protection          Service on Sept.
                                                                                                                   challenged.         28, 2004, and
                                                                                                                                       dismissed
                                                                                                                                       plaintiff case.
NW Ecosystem Alliance and         May 28, 1999......  List the Columbian  Substantial; Aug.   Warranted but       N/A...............  Committed to
 Biodiversity Legal Foundation.                        Basin population    24, 2000 (65 FR     precluded; May 7,                       resolve the DPS
                                                       as a DPS.           51578).             2001 (66 FR                             status in the
                                                                                               22984).                                 rangewide status
                                                                                                                                       review.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, we found that listing the greater sage-grouse rangewide 
was warranted, but precluded by other higher priority actions. That 
finding was based on continuing population declines, with some areas of 
local

[[Page 59860]]

extirpations, resulting from habitat fragmentation. At that time, 
habitat fragmentation was caused by a number of land use activities, 
but energy development, agricultural conversion, conifer encroachment, 
wildfire, and invasive species were of particular concern. Significant 
habitat fragmentation was expected to continue into the foreseeable 
future, and regulatory mechanisms were ineffective in addressing this 
threat. As a result of these findings, the greater sage-grouse was made 
a candidate for listing rangewide with a listing priority number of 8, 
indicating that threats were of moderate magnitude and imminent (75 FR 
13910, March 23, 2010).
    On May 10, 2011, we filed a multiyear workplan as part of a 
proposed settlement agreement with Wild Earth Guardians and others in a 
consolidated case in the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia. On September 9, 2011, the Court accepted our agreement with 
the plaintiffs in Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litig., 
Misc. Action No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D. D.C.) (known as 
the ``Multi-District Litigation case''), on a schedule to publish 
proposed rules or not-warranted findings for the 251 species designated 
as candidates as of 2010 no later than September 30, 2016. The workplan 
included a deadline to submit a proposed rule or not-warranted finding 
to the Federal Register for greater sage-grouse, including any DPSs 
(but excluding the bi-State DPS), by September 30, 2015. Further, 
Congress prohibited the expenditure of funds to publish a proposed rule 
for the greater sage-grouse or the Columbian Basin population (Pub. L. 
Number 113-235). The publication of this finding complies with the 
workplan and is consistent with Congressional direction.

Species Information

    Greater sage-grouse are birds in the Phasianidae family, which is a 
diverse taxonomic group consisting of over 50 genera including turkeys 
(Meleagris spp.), pheasants (Phasianus spp.), and partridges (Perdix 
spp.). Adult male greater sage-grouse range in length from 66 to 76 
centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 inches (in)) and weigh between 2 and 3 
kilograms (kg) (4.4 and 6.6 pounds (lb)). Adult females are smaller, 
ranging in length from 48 to 58 cm (19 to 23 in) and weigh between 1 
and 2 kg (2.2 and 4.4 lb). Males and females have dark grayish brown 
body plumage with many small gray and white spots, fleshy yellow combs 
over the eyes, long pointed tails, fully feathered legs and feet, and 
dark green toes. Males also have blackish chin and throat feathers, 
conspicuous phylloplumes (specialized erectile feathers) at the back of 
the head and neck, and white feathers forming a ruff around the neck 
and upper belly. During breeding displays, males exhibit olive-green 
apteria (fleshy bare patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et 
al. 1999, p. 2).

Bi-State Distinct Population Segment

    In 2010, we found the bi-State population to be a DPS because it is 
genetically unique and markedly separate from the rest of the greater 
sage-grouse range (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). This DPS has been 
addressed in a separate status review and was determined to be not 
warranted for listing (80 FR 22828, April 23, 2015). Therefore, the bi-
State population of greater sage-grouse will not be addressed in this 
status review.

Columbia Basin Population

    In 2001, we concluded in a 12-month finding that the Columbia Basin 
population of the western sage-grouse, a subspecies of the greater 
sage-grouse, was a valid DPS that warranted listing under the Act (66 
FR 22984, May 7, 2001). The subspecies was previously described as 
being found in southern British Columbia, central Washington, and parts 
of Oregon, Nevada, and California. Since that 12-month finding, new 
information emerged that led us to conclude in 2010 that the best 
scientific and commercial information does not support the recognition 
of and the taxonomic validity of the western subspecies (75 FR 13910, 
March 23, 2010). In that finding, we also reported that we would 
reevaluate the status of the Columbia Basin population as it relates to 
the greater sage-grouse in the future. Therefore, in the following 
section we reevaluate the validity (i.e., discreteness and 
significance) of the Columbia Basin population as a possible DPS with 
respect to the correct taxon to which it belongs: The greater sage-
grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus).
    Within our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments Under the Endangered Species Act (61 FR 4722, 
February 7, 1996), three elements are considered in the decision 
concerning the establishment and classification of a possible DPS. 
These elements include:

    (1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the 
remainder of the species to which it belongs;
    (2) The significance of the population segment to the species to 
which it belongs; and
    (3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to 
the Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (is 
the population segment endangered or threatened).

Discreteness

    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions:

    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same 
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or 
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries 
within which differences in control of exploitation, management of 
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that 
are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.

    In our 2001 12-month finding on the Columbia Basin DPS (66 FR 
22984, May 7, 2001), we found that the population, which is located in 
Washington, was physically discrete from other populations of what we 
then considered the western subspecies of greater sage-grouse in 
central and southern Oregon. Below, we reevaluate that finding giving 
consideration to new information and conducting our analysis with 
respect to the entire range of greater sage-grouse.
    Markedly Separate--Greater sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin occur 
in four relatively small, disconnected areas. Two of these areas (the 
Army's Joint Base Lewis-McChord-Yakima Training Center (YTC) and 
Douglas County) have endemic populations, and two areas (Yakama Indian 
Nation and Lincoln County) are in the process of being repopulated by 
translocations of individuals from outside the Columbia Basin (WWHCWG 
2010, p. 55; WWHCWG 2012, pp. A.2-3). Translocations began in 2004 with 
augmentation efforts on the YTC (Schroeder et al. 2014, p. 8; Stinson 
and Schroeder 2014, p. 15). Translocations to reestablish populations 
on Yakama Nation lands and in Lincoln County were initiated in 2006 and 
2008, respectively (Schroeder et al. 2014, pp. 8-15).
    The pre-European settlement distribution of greater sage-grouse is 
generally described as being continuous from central Oregon, north to 
the Columbia Basin (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 368). However, this 
continuity was lost between the pre- and post-settlement period, mostly 
due to habitat fragmentation (Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 105, 110; 
2004, pp. 369-370). Breeding populations of greater sage-grouse in the 
Columbia Basin are now separated by approximately 250

[[Page 59861]]

kilometers (km) (155 miles (mi)) of fragmented and unsuitable habitat 
from the next nearest breeding population, the Baker population in 
Oregon (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 409, Knick et al. 2013, p. 1544). The 
second closest breeding population, in central Oregon, is approximately 
260 km (162 mi) from the nearest breeding population in the Columbia 
Basin (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 409, Knick et al. 2013, p. 1544). The 
area between these populations consists of relatively small patches of 
fragmented Artemisia spp. (sagebrush) within a matrix of croplands 
(Knick et al. 2003, pp. 615-618). At the narrowest point, sagebrush 
habitats on either side of this forested mountain range are 
approximately 25 km (15 mi) apart, and no historical greater sage-
grouse records exist for this area (Knick et al. 2013, p. 1544).
    No documented instances exist of greater sage-grouse moving between 
the Columbia Basin and any other greater sage-grouse populations 
without the aid of translocations. Seasonal migration in sage-grouse 
over 100 km (62 mi) has been observed (Hagen 1999, p. 39; Tack et al. 
2012, p. 65), but in Washington, seasonal movements tend to be less 
than 30 km (19 mi) between breeding and wintering areas (Schroeder and 
Vander Haegen 2006, entire; WWHCWG 2010, pp. 54-55). Despite 
documentation of extensive seasonal movements in this species (Fedy et 
al. 2012, p. 1066; Tack et al. 2012, p. 65; Davis et al. 2014, pp. 715-
716), the natal dispersal abilities of sage-grouse have been shown to 
be low (Dunn and Braun 1985, p. 622; Thompson 2012, p. 193). Based on 
data from radio-marked greater sage-grouse, the maximum distance 
translocated birds in the Columbia Basin moved from the point of 
release was 85 km (53 mi). The average maximum distance removed from 
the release site for all birds with two or more locations was only 14 
km (9 mi) (Schroeder et al. 2014, p. 17).
    The ability of greater sage-grouse to move through the landscape is 
affected by many factors, including the presence of suitable habitats 
or topographic features that impede movement (Schulwitz et al. 2014, p. 
568; Row et al. 2015, pp. 1965-1966). An assessment of habitat linkages 
between greater sage-grouse in Washington and Oregon showed relatively 
high landscape resistance to greater sage-grouse movements and no 
modeled linkages between the Columbia Basin and other greater sage-
grouse populations (WWHCWG 2010, pp. 57-59). A separate modeling effort 
evaluating contemporary connectivity among leks (communal breeding 
centers where males perform courtship displays) spanning the Great 
Basin and Columbia Basin also showed little to no movement potential 
between the Columbia Basin and other greater sage-grouse populations 
(Knick et al. 2013, p. 1548).
    Analysis of genetic variation across the range of greater sage-
grouse is consistent with relatively short-distance dispersal, with 
gene flow (the transfer of genetic material from one population to 
another) decreasing as the distance between populations increases 
(i.e., isolation by distance) (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1306). 
Landscape resistance can also influence patterns of gene flow in 
greater sage-grouse, with broad-scale distribution of low-quality 
nesting and wintering habitats identified as the most important factors 
driving patterns of effective dispersal (Row et al. 2015, pp. 1963-
1964). Landscape-scale analyses of genetic variation show low levels of 
gene flow between the Columbia Basin and other populations of greater 
sage-grouse (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1306). Analysis of allele 
frequencies in greater sage-grouse on the YTC prior to augmentation 
efforts showed that these individuals had low genetic diversity and 
were distinguishable from individuals translocated from Oregon and 
Nevada (Blankenship et al. 2011, pp. 7, 10); a result that is 
consistent with little to no contemporary gene flow.
    Greater sage-grouse have been translocated to the Columbia Basin 
from Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, and Wyoming (Livingston et al. 2006, pp. 2-
3; Schroeder et al. 2014, pp. 8, 14-15). Moving greater sage-grouse 
from other areas into the Columbia Basin population means that, while 
this population is physically discrete from other populations, it has 
been connected through human intervention. Genetic data collected post-
augmentation on the YTC confirms that breeding between endemic 
individuals and translocated individuals has occurred (Blankenship et 
al. 2011, p. 10). It is unknown if translocated greater sage-grouse 
released on the Yakama Nation or in Lincoln County are interbreeding 
with endemic populations of greater sage-grouse. However, at least one 
bird translocated to Lincoln County is known to have dispersed to the 
Douglas County population (Schroeder et al. 2014, p. 17). In addition, 
two males released in Lincoln County moved to the Douglas County 
population for a few days early in the 2015 breeding season, but 
returned to Lincoln County and were observed strutting on the Lincoln 
County lek (McPherron, USFWS, pers. comm. 2015).
    International Boundaries--Greater sage-grouse occurrences were 
documented in British Columbia from 1864 to 1918 (Campbell and Ryder 
2010, p. 7), in the Okanogan Valley, an area considered part of the 
Columbia Basin ecosystem. From 1918 to the 1950s, no occurrence records 
were reported (Campbell and Ryder 2010, entire). Translocations were 
conducted to reintroduce greater sage-grouse in the late 1950s, but 
given the lack of occurrence records since the 1960s, the species is 
considered extirpated from the province (Campbell and Ryder 2010, pp. 
7-10). Therefore, greater sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin are not 
delimited by international governmental boundaries.
    Summary for Discreteness--Greater sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin 
are physically separated from the nearest populations by approximately 
250 to 260 km (155 to 162 mi). Information on movement and dispersal 
ecology, telemetry data, habitat and connectivity modeling, and genetic 
analyses, when viewed together, suggest that greater sage-grouse are 
unlikely to move between the Columbia Basin population and other 
greater sage-grouse populations. Based on this information alone, we 
could conclude that the Columbia Basin population is discrete based on 
marked separation from other populations as a consequence of physical 
and ecological factors. However, ongoing translocation efforts provide 
a connection that artificially links the Columbia Basin population to 
other populations of greater sage-grouse. The connectivity provided by 
human-intervention complicates any conclusions about the Columbia Basin 
population's discreteness. Therefore, we will assume that the 
population could be discrete and move on to assess the significance of 
the population to the taxon.

Significance

    If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of 
the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and 
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional 
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly'' (see 
Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session) while encouraging the 
conservation of genetic diversity. In making this determination, we 
consider available scientific evidence of the DPS's importance to the 
taxon to which it belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to 
vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe 
all the classes of information that might be used in

[[Page 59862]]

determining the biological and ecological importance of a discrete 
population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible classes of 
information that provide evidence of a population segment's biological 
and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs. As 
specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), this 
consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but 
is not limited to, the following:

    (1) Persistence of the population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the population segment would result in 
a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
    (3) Evidence that the population segment represents the only 
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; 
or
    (4) Evidence that the population segment differs markedly from 
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.

    A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions 
to be considered significant. Furthermore, other information may be 
used as appropriate to provide evidence for significance.
    In our 2001, 12-month finding on the Columbia Basin DPS, we found 
that the population was significant to the western subspecies because 
it occurred in a unique ecological setting to the subspecies and 
because loss of the Columbia Basin would have resulted in a significant 
gap in the range of the western subspecies (66 FR 22984, May 7, 2001, 
p. 22992). Below we reevaluate these findings giving consideration to 
new information and conducting our analysis on the significance of the 
population segment to the greater sage-grouse species, rather than to 
the no-longer-recognized western subspecies.
    Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--In our 12-month finding 
published in 2001, relative to unusual or unique ecological setting, we 
found that:

    (1) The Columbia Basin is a unique ecosystem, whose 
characteristics were the result of a unique combination of 
elevation, soil, influences of historical geologic processes, and 
climatic conditions; as a result, sagebrush habitats in the Columbia 
Basin could be differentiated from sagebrush habitats outside of the 
Columbia Basin by a number of floristic characteristics, including 
the presence of Juniperus spp. (juniper) woodlands, salt-desert 
shrub habitats, and the type and distribution of sagebrush taxa and 
forb species;
    (2) Sage-grouse occupying the Columbia Basin were, 
``necessarily,'' differentially exploiting the resources that are 
available, as compared with sage-grouse in central and southern 
Oregon; and that these differences in exploitation of resources had 
bearing on their food and cover preferences, distribution, 
movements, reproductive fitness, and ultimately, their survival; and
    (3) The unique elements of the Columbia Basin held different 
management implications for western sage-grouse within this 
ecosystem (66 FR 22984, May 7, 2001).

Below, we reevaluate these findings giving consideration to new 
information and conducting our analysis on the entire greater sage-
grouse range, rather than the no-longer-recognized western subspecies 
range.
    As stated in the DPS Policy, occurrence in an unusual ecological 
setting may indicate that a population segment represents a significant 
resource warranting conservation under the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996). In considering whether the population occupies an ecological 
setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon, we evaluate whether 
the habitat includes unique features not used by the taxon elsewhere 
and whether the habitat shares many features common to the habitats of 
other populations. We further evaluate whether any of these differences 
could play an important biological role with respect to the remainder 
of the taxon, such as by contributing to the taxon's prospects for 
survival, to a degree that the population warrants conservation under 
the Act.
    The Columbia Basin represents a separate floristic province within 
the range of the greater sage-grouse and is unique in that none of the 
ecosystems within the range of the greater sage-grouse are exactly the 
same with respect to elevation, soil, influences of historical geologic 
processes, and climatic conditions. As we found in 2001, these 
differences have resulted in some differences to the types of sagebrush 
and other vegetative components present in the ecosystem (66 FR 22984, 
May 7, 2001, pp. 22989-22991). However, simply the occurrence of a 
species within a definable ecosystem does not, by itself, make it 
significant to the taxon under the DPS Policy. Sagebrush-dominated 
plant communities vary considerably across the range of greater sage-
grouse (West and Young 2000, pp. 259-267), and specific habitat 
components used by greater sage-grouse can vary due to biotic and 
abiotic factors (Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 70). Yet, common to all 
greater sage-grouse is the use of sagebrush and their dependence on 
this habitat for food and cover during all periods of the year 
(Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-1--4-19).
    The greater sage-grouse appears to be fairly adaptable to a variety 
of conditions as it: (1) Occurs throughout a wide variety of sagebrush 
habitats in western North America; (2) occurs and breeds from less than 
610 m (2,000 ft) to more than 3,000 m (9,842 ft) above sea level; (3) 
spans a variety of climatic conditions from relatively wet montane 
sagebrush communities to dry sagebrush types; and (4) uses a wide range 
of understory vegetation during the breeding and brood-rearing periods 
(Aldridge and Brigham 2002, pp. 440-442; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-
1--4-19; Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 366-368; Guttery 2011, pp. 20, 50-
51). Stated more simply, the species is able to occupy a broad range of 
sagebrush communities throughout western North America. Therefore, the 
ability of the Columbia Basin population of greater sage-grouse to 
exist within a particular amalgamation of habitat features does not 
necessarily contribute to the survival of the greater sage-grouse 
species, or otherwise serve an important biological role with respect 
to the taxon.
    The degree to which regional differences in habitat components 
affect greater sage-grouse distribution, reproductive fitness, and 
survival is complex (Connelly et al. 2011a, pp. 71-83). Greater sage-
grouse in the Columbia Basin are comparable to other populations of 
greater sage-grouse in their date of nest initiation, variation in the 
date of nest initiation, length of incubation, nest success, lek 
visitation by females, and fidelity of males to leks (Schroeder 1997, 
pp. 937-939; Schroeder and Robb 2003, pp. 295-296). Differences 
reported for the Douglas County population include higher reproductive 
effort than greater sage-grouse in other regions and lower fidelity to 
nest sites (Schroeder 1997, p. 939; Schroeder and Robb 2003, p. 296). 
The degree to which these differences are the result of habitat 
fragmentation in north-central Washington or other factors is unknown 
(Schroeder and Robb 2003, p. 297). Nevertheless, greater sage-grouse in 
the Columbia Basin appear to have reproductive output and survival 
estimates that are within the range of values observed elsewhere across 
the range of the species (Stinson et al. 2004, p. 6, Connelly et al. 
2011b, pp. 56-58).
    Under the DPS Policy, a determination of significance can be made 
if a population segment persists in a unique or unusual ecological 
setting that is significant to the taxon to which it belongs. Although 
the Columbia Basin differs in some ways from other habitats that the 
greater sage-grouse inhabits, this is not unusual for the greater sage-
grouse rangewide given the diversity of

[[Page 59863]]

sagebrush habitats the species utilizes across its range. Further, 
nothing about the Columbia Basin population's life history or habitat 
use is unique when compared to other populations across the range. 
Given that Columbia Basin habitat and birds fall within the natural 
range of variability for greater sage-grouse across its range, we 
conclude that the best information available indicates that the 
Columbia Basin population is not significant to the species as a whole 
because of persistence in an unusual or unique ecological setting.
    Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--In our 12-month finding 
published in 2001, relative to gap in the range, we found that:

    (1) Columbia Basin greater sage-grouse represent the extreme 
northwestern extent of greater sage-grouse range and the 
northernmost extent of the historical distribution of the western 
sage-grouse;
    (2) The Columbia Basin historically encompassed roughly 55 
percent of the entire range of western sage-grouse; and
    (3) Due to its potential isolation, greater sage-grouse in the 
Columbia Basin are likely experiencing increased directional 
selection due to marginal and varied habitats at the taxon's range 
periphery, exhibiting genetic consequences of reduced gene flow from 
other population segments, and responding (and will continue to 
respond) to the different anthropogenic (human caused) influences in 
the region (66 FR 22984, May 7, 2001).

Below, we reevaluate these findings giving consideration to new 
information and conducting our analysis on the entire greater sage-
grouse range, rather than the previously designated western subspecies' 
range.
    Greater sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin are the northwestern 
extent of the sage-grouse range, but greater sage-grouse in Alberta and 
Saskatchewan and northern Montana make up the northernmost extent of 
the range. To assess the degree to which being the northwestern extent 
of the range makes the population significant, we must consider the 
proportion of individuals in this extent of the range and the amount of 
habitat available there for greater sage-grouse; being a peripheral 
population, by itself, does not connote significance to the taxon. 
Relative to the rest of the range of greater sage-grouse (excluding the 
bi-State DPS), the Columbia Basin is estimated to contain only 0.6 
percent of the rangewide population estimate (Doherty et al. 2015, 
entire), 2.7 percent of the rangewide distribution of sagebrush 
habitats (Knick 2011, p. 25), and 4 percent of the total occupied range 
(Knick 2011, p. 25).
    In addition, given new information since 2001, we must reevaluate 
our conclusion relative to the likelihood of directional selection due 
to the isolation of this peripheral population. The best available 
population and genetic data suggest that greater sage-grouse in the 
Columbia Basin have undergone a severe reduction in population size, 
and are now isolated from other populations (Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 
106-109; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307). This has resulted in the 
loss of genetic diversity, and the population now has the lowest levels 
of genetic diversity, as measured in mitochondrial and nuclear markers, 
reported for any greater sage-grouse population (Oyler-McCance et al. 
2005, p. 1307). However, the extent to which this isolation is causing 
``selection'' or has resulted in the development of traits in greater 
sage-grouse that are adapted to the Columbia Basin is not definitive.
    Morphological or behavioral differences in greater sage-grouse may 
be indicators of adaptive traits not revealed through analysis of 
neutral genetic markers. Comparisons of greater sage-grouse in the 
Columbia Basin with other greater sage-grouse populations suggest they 
are heavier than birds in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and California, but 
are similar in mass to greater sage-grouse in northern Colorado to 
Alberta (Schroeder 2008, pp. 5-9). Although some wing and tail 
measurements differed between greater sage-grouse from the Columbia 
Basin and elsewhere, the comparison included only a small number of 
other populations, measurement bias was unknown, and the conclusion of 
the author was that the available morphometric data did not illustrate 
any unique morphological characteristics in the Columbia Basin birds 
(Schroeder 2008, p. 10). Similarly, an assessment of the available 
behavioral data did not reveal any substantial differences in greater 
sage-grouse behavior in the Columbia Basin (Schroeder 2008, pp. 9-10).
    In summary, loss of the Columbia Basin population would not result 
in a significant gap in the range of greater sage-grouse. This area 
represents less than 1 percent of the rangewide population estimates 
and less than 3 percent of sagebrush habitat. While loss of this 
population would reduce the occupied range of the species, it would not 
remove a habitat type found nowhere else in the range nor would it 
create a barrier to the movement of birds from other populations. 
Although the Columbia Basin population is peripheral and isolated, 
there is no evidence that it has been isolated for long periods of 
evolutionary time, resulting in significant adaptive traits that might 
indicate its loss would be significant to the taxon.
    Marked Genetic Differences--In our 12-month finding published in 
2001, we found that the results from rangewide genetic studies were 
``suggestive'' and demonstrated a marked difference between the 
population segment of greater sage-grouse within the Columbia Basin and 
the population segment in central and southern Oregon. However, we 
concluded that these results did not necessarily indicate that genetic 
differentiation of this population segment is significant to the 
remainder of the taxon, as we were unsure to what extent the forces of 
isolation, adaptive change, genetic drift, and/or inbreeding may have 
influenced the regional profiles of greater sage-grouse (66 FR 22984, 
May 7, 2001). Below, we reevaluate these findings giving consideration 
to new information and conducting our analysis on the entire greater 
sage-grouse range, rather than the previously recognized western 
subspecies range.
    Additional rangewide studies of neutral genetic variation since 
2001 support the conclusion that greater sage-grouse in the Columbia 
Basin segregate from the other populations when evaluated using 
quantitative measures of genetic diversity (Benedict et al. 2003, pp. 
308-309; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, pp. 1304-1305). The reason that 
genetic diversity can be significant to a species is that the presence 
of novel haplotypes (set of genes inherited from one parent) or alleles 
(a variant form of a gene) could provide the species with adaptive 
capacity if faced with deteriorating environmental conditions. However, 
the quantitative differences in genetics between this population and 
the species as a whole were largely the result of greater sage-grouse 
in the Columbia Basin having extremely low levels of genetic diversity 
(Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307), rather than a being a function of 
having a large proportion of novel haplotypes or alleles.
    Evaluation of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) revealed that approximately 
90 percent of the sampled greater sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin had 
a single mitochondrial DNA haplotype, while only one novel haplotype 
was present (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, pp. 1298-1300). This novel 
haplotype (Haplotype DS) was in the same grouping as one of the most 
common haplotypes observed in greater sage-grouse (Haplotype X) with 
only a single base-pair difference from this common haplotype (Oyler-
McCance et al. 2005, pp. 1299, 1301). This indicates that only

[[Page 59864]]

a single mutational event was necessary to produce this novel 
haplotype, which could have occurred over a relatively short amount of 
evolutionary time. Thus, the available genetic evidence from studies of 
mtDNA does not lead us to conclude that the populations in Washington 
are markedly genetically different from other populations of greater 
sage-grouse found throughout the Great Basin.
    Nuclear genetic data evaluated using microsatellite markers showed 
that populations in the Columbia Basin had the lowest genetic diversity 
of the 46 populations of greater sage-grouse studied (Oyler-McCance et 
al. 2005, p. 1307). Although genetic distance comparisons showed that 
the Columbia Basin populations were some of the most differentiated of 
all greater sage-grouse populations, this finding is largely a 
reflection of the small number of alleles found there (Oyler-McCance et 
al. 2005, p. 1307). Therefore, while statistically different, these 
differences cannot be attributed to greater sage-grouse being isolated 
for a long period of evolutionary time, which might have indicated that 
they had developed some adaptive traits not found elsewhere in the 
range of greater sage-grouse.
    Summary for Significance--We have considered significance of the 
Columbia Basin population by evaluating the uniqueness of the 
ecological setting; the potential for a significant gap in the range of 
greater sage-grouse if the population was lost; and genetic 
distinctness from other greater sage-grouse populations. We conclude 
that the Columbia Basin greater sage-grouse do not occur in a unique 
ecological setting, and their loss would not result in a significant 
gap in the range of the greater sage-grouse. While genetic diversity is 
low, the population is not markedly genetically different from other 
populations of greater sage-grouse. Based on this information, we find 
that this population does not meet the definition of significance as 
defined in our 1996 DPS policy.

Greater Sage-Grouse Listable Entity Summary

    In 2010, we determined that the bi-State population qualified as a 
DPS under the Act. At that time, we deferred any other decisions about 
potential DPSs, including an assessment of the Columbia Basin 
population, until this status review. After consideration of the 
distinctness and significance of the Columbia Basin population, giving 
consideration to new information, and conducting our analysis on the 
significance of the population to the greater sage-grouse rangewide 
instead of to the previously recognized western subspecies, we have 
determined that it does not meet the criteria for a DPS. Therefore, the 
Columbia Basin population will be considered together with the other 
populations in the greater sage-grouse range (hereafter referred to as 
sage-grouse). Specifically, when we discuss sage-grouse in the Great 
Basin, we are including Columbia Basin in those discussions. The 
remainder of this status review will consider all populations and 
habitat across the range of the species, with the exception of the bi-
State DPS.

Distribution

    Prior to European settlement of western North America in the 19th 
century, sage-grouse occurred in an area that today would cover 13 
States and 3 Canadian provinces--Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 
Washington, Wyoming, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan 
(Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369; Figure 1). Sagebrush habitats that 
potentially supported sage-grouse occurred over approximately 1.2 
million square kilometer (km\2\) (460,000 square miles (mi\2\)) before 
1800 (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 366). Currently, sage-grouse occur in 
11 States (California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming), and 2 Canadian 
provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), occupying approximately 56 
percent of their historical range (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369; 
Figure 1). Approximately 2 percent of the total range of sage-grouse 
occurs in Canada, with the remainder in the United States (Knick 2011, 
p. 24).

[[Page 59865]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.000

    The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 
Conservation Strategy for Greater Sage-grouse (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 
1-6) delineated seven sage-grouse Management Zones (MZ; Figure 1) to 
guide conservation and management. The boundaries of these MZs were 
delineated based on their ecological and biological attributes 
(floristic provinces) rather than on political boundaries (Stiver et 
al. 2006, p. 1-6); therefore, vegetation is similar within each MZ, and 
sage-grouse are likely to respond similarly to environmental factors 
and management actions. For this reason, we conducted analyses for some 
potential threats at the MZ-scale. While the Conservation Objectives 
Team (COT) Report (see Conservation Objectives Team Report below for 
further description) identifies Priority Areas for Conservation (PACs) 
as the areas needed for the species persistence, not all data used in 
our potential analyses was available at the PAC scale and the data did 
not provide a consistent rangewide data set, so PACs were not used as 
the unit of analysis for the impact analysis.
    Sagebrush occurs in two natural vegetation types that are 
influenced by elevation, temperature, and patterns of precipitation 
(Miller et al. 2011, pp. 147-148). In general, the Great Basin portion 
of the range, which encompasses MZs III, IV, V, and VI, is lower in 
elevation and experiences less precipitation. The Rocky Mountain 
portion of the range, which encompasses MZs I, II, and VII, generally 
is higher in elevation and has greater precipitation. Due to the 
variance in the ecological conditions, the regions have differential 
susceptibility to potential threats (see Summary of Information 
Pertaining to the Five Factors, below).
    Sage-grouse currently occupy a portion of their historical range 
and are more concentrated in certain Core Areas. Sage-grouse have been 
extirpated from Nebraska, British Columbia, and Arizona (Schroeder et 
al. 1999, p. 2; Young et al. 2000 p. 445; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 
369). Changes from the estimated historical distribution are the result 
of sagebrush alteration and degradation (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 363; 
Knick and Connelly 2011, p. 6). The current distribution of sage-grouse 
is estimated at 703,453 km\2\ (271,604 mi\2\; USFWS 2015a). 
Approximately half of the sage-grouse occur in the Rocky Mountain 
portion of the range and half in the Great Basin portion of the range. 
Management Zones with the highest relative amounts of birds are MZ II 
(37.5 percent of the rangewide population estimate) and MZ IV (30.7 
percent of the rangewide population estimate). As a result, impacts in 
these MZs may have greater impact to the species rangewide (see Summary 
of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors, below).

Habitat

    Sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub-steppe habitats throughout 
their life cycle and are considered a sagebrush obligate (Patterson 
1952, p. 48). Sage-grouse use a variety of sagebrush species such as 
Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis (Wyoming big sagebrush), A. t. 
vaseyana (mountain big sagebrush), A. t. tridentata (basin big 
sagebrush), A. nova (black sagebrush),

[[Page 59866]]

A. frigida (fringed sagebrush), A. cana (silver sagebrush), and A. 
arbuscula (little sagebrush) (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 145-151). Sage-
grouse distribution is strongly correlated with the distribution of 
sagebrush vegetation (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364).
    Sagebrush is the most widespread vegetation in the intermountain 
lowlands in the western United States (West and Young 2000, p. 259). 
Sagebrush occurs in two natural vegetation types that are delineated by 
temperature and patterns of precipitation (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 147-
148). The first, sagebrush-steppe, ranges across the northern portion 
of sage-grouse occupied range, from British Columbia and the Columbia 
Basin, through the northern Great Basin, Snake River Plain, and 
Montana, and into the Wyoming Basin and northern Colorado. Sagebrush is 
a co-dominant plant, along with perennial bunchgrasses, in sagebrush-
steppe. The second vegetation type, Great Basin sagebrush, occurs south 
of sagebrush-steppe, and extends from the Colorado Plateau westward 
into Nevada, Utah, and California (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 147-148). In 
the Great Basin sagebrush zone, sagebrush is usually the dominant plant 
layer accompanied by sparse understories. Other sagebrush types within 
the sage-grouse occupied range include mixed-desert shrubland in the 
Bighorn Basin of Wyoming, and grasslands in eastern Montana and Wyoming 
that also support silver sagebrush and A. filifolia (sand sagebrush) 
(Miller et al. 2011 p. 148).
    Sagebrush is long-lived, with plants of some species surviving up 
to 150 years (West 1983, p. 340). Sagebrush is resistant to 
environmental extremes, with the exception of fire and occasionally 
defoliating insects (West 1983, p. 341). Natural sagebrush re-
colonization depends on the presence of adjacent live plants for a seed 
source or on the seed bank, if present (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 
17). Although seed viability and germination are high, seed dispersal 
is limited (West and Young 2000, p. 260). Additionally, sagebrush seeds 
typically do not remain viable for more than one growing season, and 
evidence suggests that seeds do not persist in the soil more than 1 
year; however, seeds have higher odds of persisting in the seed bank if 
they are buried (Wijayratne and Pyke 2012, p. 438). Productivity of 
plants associated with the sagebrush understory varies widely and is 
influenced by moisture availability, soil characteristics, climate, and 
topographic position (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 151-154). Forb abundance 
can be highly variable from year to year and is largely affected by the 
amount and timing of precipitation.
    Sage-grouse depend on large areas of contiguous sagebrush to meet 
all seasonal habitat requirements (Connelly et al. 2011a, pp. 82-83; 
Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 465). Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity 
(loyalty to a particular area, even when the area no longer provides 
habitat) to seasonal habitats used for breeding, nesting, brood-
rearing, and wintering (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-1; Connelly et al. 
2011b, p. 60). Little information is available regarding minimum 
sagebrush patch sizes required to support populations of sage-grouse. 
Home range calculations range from 4 to 615 km\2\ (1.5 to 237.5 mi\2\; 
Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 60), and migratory populations (which are 
discussed in more detail below) may use areas exceeding 2,700 km\2\ 
(1,042 mi\2\, 667,185 acres; Leonard et al. 2000, p. 269, Davis et al. 
2014, p. 713). Large seasonal and annual movements emphasize the 
landscape nature of the species (Knick et al. 2003, p. 624; Connelly et 
al. 2011b, p. 60).
    Federal lands encompass the majority of the sage-grouse occupied 
range, with MZs III, IV, and V being more than 60 percent federally 
owned (Table 2). Primary Federal land managers within the sage-grouse 
occupied range include Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS), which together manage 51 percent of the sage-
grouse occupied range. Other Federal owners include the National Park 
Service, Department of Defense (DoD), the Service, and Department of 
Energy (DOE). Private lands comprise approximately 39 percent of the 
species' occupied range, with the largest proportion of private lands 
occurring in MZs I and VI. Tribal lands cover approximately 3 percent, 
and State lands cover approximately 5 percent of the current sage-
grouse occupied range.

   Table 2.--Percent of the Currently Occupied Sage-Grouse Range Within Management Zones, by Surface Managing
                                                     Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Other
                   Management zone                       BLM      USFS     Federal   Tribal     State    Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Great Plains......................................        16         2         1         5         8        69
II Wyoming Basin....................................        49         2         2         3         6        38
III Southern Great Basin............................        69        14         1         1         2        13
IV Snake River Plain................................        52         8         3         1         5        30
V Northern Great Basin..............................        62         7         6         1         2        23
VI Columbia Basin...................................         5         0        13        11         7        63
VII Colorado Plateau................................        39         0         0        25        11        25
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
    Rangewide Totals................................        45         6         2         3         5        39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Life-History Characteristics and Seasonal Habitat Selection

    During the breeding season, male sage-grouse gather together to 
perform courtship displays on areas called leks. These areas are often 
characterized by having bare soil, shortgrass-steppe, windswept ridges, 
exposed knolls, or other relatively open sites (Connelly et al. 2004, 
pp. 3-7). Leks are often surrounded by denser shrub-steppe cover used 
for shelter and to escape predators. Leks can be formed 
opportunistically at any appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting 
habitat (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970), and, therefore, lek habitat 
availability is not considered to be a limiting factor for sage-grouse 
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4).
    After mating, females travel to nesting areas characterized by 
sagebrush with an understory of native grasses and forbs that provides 
cover, an insect prey base, and herbaceous forage for pre-laying and 
nesting females (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971; Connelly et al. 2004, 
pp. 4-18). Females typically move 1.3 to 5.1 km (0.8 to 3.2 mi) from 
leks to nest (Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 62), although the juxtaposition 
of habitats, disturbance, and the extent of habitat fragmentation may 
influence nest location distance from leks (Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 
62 and references therein).

[[Page 59867]]

Sage-grouse clutch size ranges from six to nine eggs with an average of 
seven eggs (Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 62). Males do not participate in 
incubation of eggs or rearing chicks.
    The likelihood of a female nesting in a given year averages 82 
percent in the eastern portion of the range and 78 percent in the 
western portion of the range (Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 63). Nest 
success varies widely, and the average nest success for sage-grouse is 
51 percent in non-altered habitats and 37 percent in altered habitats 
(Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 58). Re-nesting occurs only if the original 
nest is lost (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 11) with an average re-nesting 
rate of 28.9 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 3-11). Approximately 
2.25 chicks per female may be necessary to maintain stable to 
increasing populations (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). Due to low 
chick survival and limited re-nesting, there is little evidence that 
populations of sage-grouse produce large annual surpluses (Connelly et 
al. 2011b, p. 67).
    Females rear their broods near the nest site for the first 2 to 3 
weeks following hatching (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-8). Forbs and 
insects are essential nutritional components for chicks (Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 4-9). Therefore, early brood-rearing habitat must provide 
adequate cover adjacent to areas rich in forbs and insects to ensure 
chick survival during this period (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-9).
    Approximately 12 weeks after hatching, sage-grouse gradually move 
from sagebrush uplands to more mesic (wet) areas during the late brood-
rearing period (Peterson 1970, p. 149) as herbaceous vegetation dries 
during the hot summer (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). Summer use areas 
can include sagebrush habitats as well as riparian areas, wet meadows, 
and Medicago spp. (alfalfa) fields (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4). These 
areas provide an abundance of forbs and insects for both females and 
chicks (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). 
Males and broodless females will also use more mesic areas in close 
proximity to sagebrush cover during the late summer, often arriving 
before females with broods (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-10).
    During the winter, sage-grouse depend almost exclusively on 
sagebrush for both food and cover (Thacker et al. 2012, p. 588). Winter 
areas are characterized by large expanses of big sagebrush and tall 
shrubs, predominantly located on relatively gentle south- or west-
facing slopes that provide more favorable thermal conditions and above 
snow forage (Doherty et al. 2008, p. 192; Hagen et al. 2011, p. 536; 
Dzialak et al. 2013, p. 16). The timing of movement to winter ranges 
varies considerably, but peaks around mid-October through late November 
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10). Sage-grouse exhibit fidelity to winter 
sites (Berry and Eng 1985, p. 239); however, some birds shift winter 
habitat use in response to severe conditions (Smith 2010, p. 8).
    The availability of winter habitat is important to sage-grouse 
persistence. Across the range of sage-grouse, winter habitat comprised 
from 6.8 to 18 percent of the total landscape used by different 
populations (Dzialak et al. 2013, p. 10; Smith et al. 2014, p. 12). 
Winter habitat availability is reduced during severe winters when heavy 
snowfall and increasing snow depths further decrease or even eliminate 
access to sagebrush. During harsh winters, birds become even more 
concentrated in the few remaining areas of exposed sagebrush (Hupp and 
Braun 1989, p. 828). As a result, the loss of winter habitats used in 
harsh winter conditions can have impacts disproportionate to their 
makeup on the landscape (Swenson et al. 1987, p. 128). During the 
average winter, sage-grouse typically experience low over-winter 
mortality, estimated at 2 to 4 percent, but could be as high as 15 
percent (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 229; Wik 2002, p. 40; Sika 2006, p. 
90; Bruce et al. 2011, p. 421). During notably severe winters, however, 
higher mortality rates have been documented (Moynahan et al. 2006, p. 
1,536; Anthony and Willis 2008, p. 544). In some cases, the locations 
of these wintering habitats are known, but there is not a consistent 
data set of this information across the range of the species.
    The distances sage-grouse move between seasonal habitats are highly 
variable across the occupied range (Connelly et al. 1988, pp. 119-121). 
Sage-grouse may migrate between two or three distinct seasonal ranges, 
or not migrate at all. Non-migratory sage-grouse have seasonal 
movements of less than 10 km (6.2 mi; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 968-
969), while birds in migratory populations (which are discussed in 
detail below) may travel well over 100 km (62 mi) (Tack et al. 2012, p. 
65).
    Despite the documentation of extensive seasonal movements in this 
species (Fedy et al. 2012, p. 1066; Tack et al. 2012, p. 65; Davis et 
al. 2014, p. 716), the dispersal abilities of sage-grouse are assumed 
to be low. One study estimated median natal dispersal distances of 8.8 
km (5.5 mi) for females and 7.4 km (4.6 mi) for males (Dunn and Braun 
1985, p. 622); another study estimated natal dispersal distances of 3.8 
km (2.4 mi) for males and 2.7 km (1.7 mi) for females (Thompson 2012, 
p. 193). Small-scale differences in habitat are not likely to influence 
sage-grouse dispersal at landscape scales. Rather, the arrangement of 
habitat quality was more influential on sage-grouse dispersal (Row et 
al. 2015, pp. 1964-1965) than the presence of unsuitable habitats.

Sage-Grouse Connectivity and Landscape Genetics

    Habitat-based measures show that maintaining population 
connectivity is essential for sage-grouse population persistence. 
Connectivity between sage-grouse populations declined from 1965 to 2007 
due to the loss of leks that historically provided connectivity and 
lower numbers of birds left to disperse (Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 
395). As connectivity declined, isolated leks, those leks with low 
connectivity, were lost first (Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 395), with 
small decreases in lek connectivity resulting in large increases in 
probability of lek abandonment (Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 403). This 
suggests that as connectivity between leks at the edge of the range is 
lost, the probability these leks will persist is likely to decline 
(Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 396).
    Maintaining sagebrush distribution is the most important factor in 
maintaining sage-grouse population connectivity (Knick and Hanser 2011, 
p. 404). Habitat loss decreases the connectivity between seasonal 
habitats, increasing the potential that a population may be lost 
(Doherty et al. 2008, p. 194). Loss of connectivity can increase 
population isolation (Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 402 and references 
therein) and, therefore, lead to a higher probability of loss of 
genetic diversity and extirpation due to stochastic events. Habitat 
fragmentation, habitat loss, and altered habitat disturbance regimes 
(e.g., fire frequency), rather than stochastic events, were identified 
as the likely primary influences on sage-grouse population trend (Knick 
and Hanser 2011, p. 403). Large areas of unsuitable habitat, such as 
mountain ranges, have been found to segregate sage-grouse and restrict 
genetic mixing (Row et al. 2015, p. 1965; Crist et al. 2015, p. 16).
    Studies of genetic information among populations have revealed 
patterns of sage-grouse movement and isolation across the landscape. A 
genetic analysis revealed that the movement of individuals tends to be 
among neighboring populations and is unlikely to occur over great 
distances (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, entire; Oyler-

[[Page 59868]]

McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91). Genetic analysis further indicated that 
sage-grouse in fragmented areas on the periphery of the range in 
Colorado, Utah, and Washington were not extensively moving between or 
breeding with other nearby populations (Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, 
p. 92).
    A recent analysis shows that core population centers and the 
habitat between those centers are important for maintaining 
connectivity (Crist et al. 2015, p. 18). This study examined the 
connectivity of populations across the range of sage-grouse and found 
that 20 of 188 priority areas contributed the most to range-wide 
connectivity (Crist et al. 2015, p. 11). These results affirm the 
conclusion by Knick and Hanser (2011) that relatively large populations 
in southwestern Wyoming, and straddling the borders between Idaho, 
Nevada, Oregon, and Utah, were the most highly connected areas within 
the range of sage-grouse (Crist et al. 2015, p. 11) and, therefore, 
essential to species persistence. However, other priority areas likely 
contribute to maintaining connections by serving as habitat pathways 
between and within priority areas, or by maintaining local connectivity 
in an area (Crist et al. 2015, p. 11). Active management will be 
essential to maintain connectivity between priority areas and to ensure 
long-term species persistence (Crist et al. 2015, p. 16).

Population Abundance and Trends

    Estimating population sizes and trends of sage-grouse is difficult 
due to the large, 11-State range of the species, incomplete sampling, 
and challenges counting females (Garton et al. 2011, pp. 295-296). As a 
result, sage-grouse population sizes are estimated from counts of male 
sage-grouse on leks during the breeding season (Garton et al. 2011, p. 
296). While lek surveys do not provide an accurate estimate of total 
population, the annual counts of males on leks provide the best 
indicator of sage-grouse trends (Stiver et al. 2006, p. 3-2; WAFWA 
2015, p. 2). The relationship of lek survey data to actual population 
size is unknown (WAFWA 2008, p. 3). When counts are done according to a 
standardized protocol, these counts can be a useful metric of long-term 
population trends (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-6; Johnson and Rowland 
2007, p. 20; WAFWA 2008, p. 3, Blomberg et al. 2013a, p. 1590, Gregory 
and Beck 2015, p. 7).
    Recent work by MacKenzie and Evans (2015) has indicated the current 
sampling framework across the range of sage grouse which makes 
interpreting trend and population data difficult. However, their 
analysis has indicated that there has been a long-term decline in the 
number of males per lek which is consistent with other recent trend 
analyses (Garton et al. 2015 and WAFWA 2015). The analysis goes on to 
indicate that over time and in virtually all management zones the 
probability of extinction of leks has been relatively stable. 
Additionally, the probability of recolonization of leks had been 
decreasing until the mid-1990s but that probability has stabilized to 
the current point in time. The conclusion of this work indicates that 
over the last 15 years the rate of extinction of leks and the 
probability of recolonization of leks has been remarkably stable.
    Sage-grouse populations increase and decrease over time, making 
assessments of population size and short-term trends difficult. The 
length of these population cycles appears to vary across the range, but 
most populations have an 8- to 10-year population cycle (Rich 1985, pp. 
5-8; Fedy and Doherty 2011, pp. 919-922). The drivers of the cycle are 
unknown, but may be caused by the amount and timing of precipitation 
(Rich 1985, p. 14; Fedy and Doherty 2011, p. 921).
    In the 2010 finding, we concluded that rangewide, sage-grouse were 
experiencing a long-term decline in abundance (75 FR 13910, March 23, 
2010, pp. 13920-13923). We noted the difficulty in determining the 
actual rate and magnitude of the declines, but noted that three 
independent studies had concluded that declines were occurring 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71; WAFWA 2008, p. 12; Garton et al. 2011, 
pp. 307-359). In particular, the 2008 WAFWA analysis of lek-count data 
collected from 1965 to 2007 estimated a long-term decline of 3.1 
percent per year during 1965 to 2007 (WAFWA 2008, p. 12). That 
assessment also found the rate of decline slowed from 1985 to 2007 to 
an average annual decline of 1.4 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-
71; WAFWA 2008, p. 58). A 2011 study (Garton et al. 2011, entire) 
assessed declining trends similar to the Connelly et al. (2004) and 
WAFWA (2008) analyses. Garton et al. (2011, p. 374) also predicted 
future population declines.
    Both Garton et al. (2011) and WAFWA (2008) have updated their lek 
trend analyses to include additional data from 2013 through 2015 
(Garton et al., 2015; WAFWA 2015). Garton et al. (2015) examined the 
trend in the years 1965-2013 and reported that the rate of decline has 
decreased for MZs I, II, and VI when compared to their previous 
analyses (1965-2007). There was insufficient data from the other MZs to 
do a similar comparison, but the updated analyses suggest that MZs I-VI 
have all experienced a long-term abundance decline (Garton et al. 
2015). Insufficient data in MZ VII prevented a trend analysis in both 
Garton et al. 2011 and Garton et al. 2015. The updated WAFWA analyses 
reported declines in all MZs since 1965, with the exception of MZ III, 
where a slight increase was noted. In MZ III, the increasing trend was 
not uniform across the management zone, as peripheral populations are 
continuing to decline. The rates of decline have increased in MZs I and 
V in recent years (WAFWA 2015, pp. 17, 26), while the overall rate of 
decline across the species' range has slowed in recent years. In five 
MZs, most of the population estimates are primarily trending down at 
the periphery of the species' range (WAFWA 2015, p. 1), indicating that 
the denser, interior population areas are more insulated from declining 
trends. The number of males counted on leks range-wide in 2015 has 
increased 63 percent since the most recent population trough in 2013 
(WAFWA 2015, p. 1).
    Analysis of trend data is sensitive to the start and stop dates of 
the period analyzed due to the cyclic nature of sage-grouse 
populations. Garton et al. (2015) examined data only through 2013, at 
which time most populations were experiencing a cyclic decline. Lek 
counts increased in nearly all locations in 2014 and 2015 (WAFWA 2015, 
p. 1). However, both updated trend analyses are consistent with 
previous studies showing a long-term rangewide decline of sage-grouse 
has occurred since 1965 (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13922). The 
rate of decline lessened during 1985 to 2007, with an average annual 
decrease of 1.4 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71; WAFWA 2008, p. 
58). The updated WAFWA analysis reported that, rangewide, rates of 
declines were less for the past 10 years (2005-2015) than the long-term 
decline rates (1965-2015) (WAFWA 2015, pp. 10-11).

Abundance and Distribution Models

    We developed two models for use in this status assessment: (1) 
Population Index Model and (2) Occupied Breeding Habitat Distribution 
Model. These models were developed to evaluate risk to sage-grouse 
populations and benefits of conservation actions designed to ameliorate 
those risks. Our models, built with collaboration from WAFWA, are used 
as metrics for risk analyses and general Geographic Information System 
(GIS) queries. Full discussions of how the models were created and used 
are below.

[[Page 59869]]

    In the 2010 finding, we assessed impacts to sage-grouse and their 
habitat based on the portion of occupied range where a disturbance 
occurred. This approach was based on the best available GIS data at 
that time, but may have overestimated some impacts, because all lands 
within the occupied range were assumed to provide habitat. We used this 
analysis in 2010 because current information available to us about the 
occupied sage-grouse range was developed at a very broad scale and 
included large areas of non-habitat. The Occupied Breeding Habitat 
Distribution Model was developed to more accurately portray the 
breeding areas that are important to sage-grouse. The Occupied Breeding 
Habitat Distribution Model uses sage-grouse lek data as a proxy for 
landscapes important to breeding sage-grouse, because leks are central 
to the breeding ecology of sage-grouse. We developed a model that 
statistically links habitat characteristics around known lek locations 
to habitat features such as the amount of sagebrush or tree cover 
within a 6.4-km (4-mi) radius. The output of the model is a prediction 
of the probability that each 120-m\2\ (393-ft\2\) area within a sage-
grouse management zone provides habitat to support a breeding 
population of sage-grouse (Figure 2). These spatial predictions of 
occupied breeding habitat are then able to be linked with spatially 
explicit risk models to better understand how potential impacts to 
sage-grouse overlap with breeding habitat. A consistent data set for 
other important seasonal habitat is not available, so while the model 
may not specifically include other seasonal habitats, it is the best 
available information for predicting impacts to the species 
consistently across the range. This model was the primary tool used to 
assess how the location and scope of potential threats may impact the 
species currently and into the future (see Summary of Information 
Pertaining to the Five Factors, below). 
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.001

    We developed the Population Index Model to spatially identify Core 
Areas on the landscape that contain population centers of sage-grouse 
(Figure 3). We did this because sage-grouse populations are highly 
clumped, and relatively small areas can contain a disproportionate 
amount of sage-grouse. To create our Population Index Model, we used 
lek data to identify hotspots using standard statistical methods. We 
used the Occupied Breeding Habitat Distribution Model to develop our 
final Population Index Model. The model results are grids that 
represent an index to the relative amount of breeding birds for each 
120 m\2\ (393 ft\2\) within management zones. Similar to our Occupied 
Breeding Habitat Distribution Model, our Population Index Model can be 
linked with other spatially explicit risk models or conservation 
actions to understand spatial overlap with sage-grouse populations. We 
would expect high levels of future impacts to occur if current sage-
grouse population centers overlap areas with high probabilities of 
future land use activities. Conversely, we would expect future impacts 
to be low, if current sage-grouse population centers do not overlap 
areas with high probabilities of future land use activities. The 
Population Index Model was used to assess potential impacts from 
Nonrenewable Energy and Agricultural Conversion (see Summary of 
Information Pertaining to the Five Factors, below).

[[Page 59870]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.002

    Unfortunately we did not receive population or habitat data from 
the two Canadian provinces within the species range and, therefore, 
could not include these areas in our modeling efforts. The abundance of 
sage-grouse is low in both Canadian provinces (Alberta Environment and 
Sustainable Resource Development 2013, p. 8). Due to the low number of 
birds remaining in Canada, coupled with the limited amount of existing 
habitat in Canada, we do not anticipate that the exclusion of these 
areas affects the outcome of this range-wide model.

Population Abundance and Trends Summary

    Estimating sage-grouse abundance is difficult due to changes in 
seasonal distributions, the cryptic coloration, and behavior of females 
and their offspring, and the lack of a systematic survey protocol and 
sampling scheme across the range of the species (WAFWA 2015, pp. 44-
46). Lek counts do not provide a precise estimate of population size; 
however, these counts provide a useful index to the population size 
that detects population changes over time (Johnson and Rowland 2007, p. 
20). Although an imperfect measure, peak counts of males on leks are 
the best available information about the number of sage-grouse in an 
area (Johnson and Rowland 2007, p. 20) and are the accepted method to 
assess sage-grouse abundance trends (WAFWA 2015, p. 2; Garton et al. 
2015, entire).
    Information reviewed for the 2010 finding indicated a long-term 
decline of sage-grouse abundance since lek count surveys were initiated 
in the 1960s. New information since 2010 confirms that long-term 
declines have occurred from 1965 to 2014 across all MZs where 
sufficient data exist to make inferences (Garton et al. 2011, 2015, 
entire; WAFWA 2008, 2015, entire). While models agree about downward 
abundance trends since the 1960s, the actual rates of decline differ 
among MZs and studies. Our confidence in these rates of decline is 
limited due to a variety of statistical sampling issues associated with 
counting peak males on leks (see Johnson and Rowland 2007, pp. 17-20), 
as well as the cyclic nature of sage-grouse populations. Regardless, 
the best information available indicates that the rangewide population 
of sage-grouse is declining.

Changes Since the 2010 Finding

    The landscape of the western United States has undergone 
significant changes since the onset of European settlement, including 
the dramatic alteration of key sage-grouse habitats. Despite human 
population growth and accompanying development, sagebrush habitats 
persist on millions of acres across 11 States in the west. Sage-grouse 
numbers have declined since pre-European settlement, but sage-grouse 
distribution (Figure 3) has remained relatively unchanged since our 
first status review in 2005 (70 FR 2244, January 12, 2005). In other 
words, despite historical and current population declines, sage-grouse 
are still distributed throughout their range.
    The 2005 status review found that, despite a growing number of 
serious threats, large numbers of birds continued to be distributed 
across the range (70 FR 2244, January 12, 2005, p. 2279). At that time, 
92 percent of the known active leks occurred in 8 of 41 populations; 5 
of those populations were so large and expansive that they were 
subdivided into 24 subpopulations to facilitate analysis (Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 13-4). We subsequently

[[Page 59871]]

determined that the species did not warrant listing, but emphasized the 
need for ongoing sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation efforts to 
moderate the rate and extent of habitat loss for the species in the 
future (70 FR 2244, January 12, 2005, p. 2279). Following the 2005 
finding, the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) 
released a rangewide conservation strategy for sage-grouse, which 
established an overarching goal of maintaining and enhancing 
populations and distribution of sage-grouse ``by protecting and 
improving sagebrush habitats and ecosystems that sustain these 
populations'' (Stiver et al. 2006, p. i). The WAFWA conservation 
strategy included actions such as increasing capabilities in habitat 
restoration, habitat conservation, research, and improving regulatory 
mechanisms. The WAFWA conservation strategy also identified 
quantifiable conservation goals (Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 1-8).
    In 2010, we conducted a second status review for sage-grouse (75 FR 
13910, March 23, 2010, entire). Although the species remained widely 
distributed across the landscape, we found it warranted for listing 
under the Act due to continued loss and fragmentation of habitat 
exacerbated by a lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms to address 
habitat loss. The primary drivers of habitat fragmentation identified 
were renewable and nonrenewable energy development in prime sage-grouse 
habitats, continued expansion of supporting infrastructure, the spread 
of invasive annual grasses and associated changes in wildfire regimes, 
and the lack of adequate regulatory structures to address these 
impacts. In addition, trend data showed a continuation of population 
declines identified in 2005. Without regulatory mechanisms in place to 
control continued habitat loss and fragmentation, we determined the 
sage-grouse was at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and, 
therefore, warranted protection under the Act. However, due to the 
workload of managing higher priority species, we designated the sage-
grouse a ``candidate'' species, assigning it a listing priority number 
of 8 to indicate the moderate magnitude of imminent threats. Species 
with lower listing priority numbers are addressed before those with 
higher priority numbers.
    We also concluded that the extinction risk was not imminent. As 
noted in the 2010 finding when determining its listing priority status: 
``We consider the threats that the sage-grouse faces to be moderate in 
magnitude because the threats do not occur everywhere across the range 
. . . and where they are occurring they are not of uniform intensity or 
of such magnitude that the species requires listing immediately to 
ensure its continued existence. While sage-grouse habitat has been lost 
or altered in many portions of the species' range, substantial habitat 
still remains to support the species in many areas of its range. We 
believe the ability of these population centers to maintain high 
densities in the presence of several threat factors is an indication 
that the magnitude of threats is moderate overall'' (75 FR 13910, March 
23, 2010, pp. 14008-14009). The 2010 finding has galvanized a rangewide 
conservation effort that includes new management plans developed by 
Federal and State agencies to establish regulatory mechanisms adequate 
to address identified threats.

New Scientific Information

    Since 2010, the already voluminous scientific literature on sage-
grouse has been augmented by extensive, newly published research on 
sage-grouse biology, sagebrush habitat, and impacts to both. We 
collected this information for our status review through a direct 
request to our conservation partners and through general literature 
reviews. We have used this data to inform our understanding of the 
current status of sage-grouse and how its status has changed since 
2010. All relevant published resources, as well as unpublished data, 
were considered in our status review. Not all of this new information 
is cited in this document, as it either did not provide additional 
information on impacts to the species or response to conservation, or 
was repetitive of other studies already cited in our assessment. In 
addition, we considered all new scientific information presented to us 
in response to our data call for this status review, information 
received during our previous annual Candidate Notice of Review data 
calls, data entered into the Conservation Efforts Database (CED), and 
recently published articles. Several articles providing new information 
since 2010 are summarized below.
    New population trend analyses incorporating up to 7 years of 
additional data have been completed (Garton et al. 2015, WAFWA 2015) 
and provide greater insight into population cycling and species status. 
We recognize the difficulty in detecting short-term trends for a 
species with decadal cycles; longer term trends show a small, but 
detectable decline since the 1960s. For more information, see 
Population Abundance and Trends section, above.
    An evolving appreciation of mechanisms that affect sage-grouse and 
sagebrush habitats assisted in the development of new applied science 
for conservation efforts, including wildfire and invasive management 
(Chambers et al. 2014a, entire), conifer removal (Miller et al. 2014, 
entire), and energy development (Patricelli et al. 2013, entire; Drouin 
2014). These important, applied conservation tools have been essential 
in assessing species and habitat persistence and aiding the 
minimization of impacts to the species and its habitat. Specifically, 
the resilience and resistance matrix developed by WAFWA and published 
in 2014 provided a new applied science framework to better understand 
the likelihood of habitats to ability to resist Bromus tectorum 
(cheatgrass) invasion and recover following wildfire (Chambers et al. 
2014a, entire). Conservation actions designed to minimize risk have 
also been furthered by application of new scientific information and 
tools. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) has incorporated new scientific research 
on impacts to guide the development of grazing plans, conifer removal, 
fence marking, and other conservation actions on private lands to 
benefit sage-grouse and its habitat (NRCS 2015a, entire).
    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) compiled the findings of 
published scientific literature evaluating the influence of human 
activities and infrastructure on sage-grouse (Manier et al. 2013, 
entire). An additional report (Manier et al. 2014, entire) provided 
information on biologically relevant buffer distances around sage-
grouse habitats to help reduce habitat avoidance caused by human 
disturbance and infrastructure. The revised and amended BLM and USFS 
Federal Plans adopted and incorporated the recommendations in the 
Manier et al. report (2014), as discussed below in the Sagebrush 
Landscape Conservation Planning section. These new analyses and tools, 
plus all the other information we considered, are addressed throughout 
this document and our administrative record.
    Many partners across the range of the sage-grouse are working to 
conserve sage-grouse habitat. In 2014, we developed the CED, a 
spatially explicit, online platform for efficiently collecting data 
from conservation partners about their sage-grouse conservation 
efforts. More than 100 partners across the range of the species entered 
information about 6,200 projects into the CED. Of these projects, 44 
percent (2,700 projects) cover more than 1.2 million ha (3

[[Page 59872]]

million ac) and were deemed complete and effective at addressing the 
primary threats identified in the Conservation Objectives Team (COT) 
Report (See Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning section below for 
a description of this report) (USFWS 2013, entire). Examples of these 
projects include conservation easements, conifer removal, and 
treatments to remove or reduce invasive weeds and annual grasses. The 
other 3,500 projects (56 percent), as reported in the CED, were of more 
limited scope and scale; and some did not contain enough information 
for us to reliably assess their effectiveness or implementation even on 
a local scale. Thus, while these efforts will continue to be helpful in 
conserving sage-grouse and its habitat now and into the future, we took 
a conservative approach and did not rely on these efforts in this 
finding.

Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning

    The expansive range of sagebrush habitat has compelled managers to 
take a landscape approach to conservation efforts, with sage-grouse 
assuming the focus of these efforts for the past decade. In 2006, WAFWA 
developed a comprehensive strategy for conserving habitat for the 
benefit of this species. The strategy outlined the need to develop 
partnerships among local, State, Provincial, Tribal, and Federal 
agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private landowners to 
design and implement cooperative actions to support robust populations 
of sage-grouse and the landscapes and habitats upon which they depend 
(Stiver et al. 2006, p. i). This was the first of several documents to 
outline the conservation needs of the species and its habitat.
    In 2011, the BLM assembled a National Technical Team (NTT) of sage-
grouse and sagebrush habitat experts to identify the best available 
science[hyphen]based information to guide the development of Federal 
land management plans for the greater sage[hyphen]grouse (BLM 2011a, 
entire). The NTT Report proposed conservation measures based on habitat 
requirements and other life-history aspects of the species. The NTT 
Report also described the scientific basis for some of the conservation 
measures proposed within each of the Federal land planning program 
areas. These conservation measures included actions such as development 
of sage-grouse specific habitat objectives relative to domestic 
livestock management, criteria to inform leasing decisions in sage-
grouse habitats, and monitoring of sage-grouse and their habitats (BLM 
2011a, entire).

Conservation Objectives Team Report

    In 2013, we, together with the States, chartered a team of sage-
grouse and habitat experts to identify the conservation goals for the 
species. The Conservation Objectives Team (COT) Report was a ground-
breaking, collaborative approach to develop rangewide conservation 
objectives for the sage-grouse, both to inform this finding and to 
inform the collective conservation efforts of the many partners working 
to conserve the species (USFWS 2013, entire). The highest level 
objective identified in the COT Report is minimization of habitat 
threats to the species so as to meet the objective of the 2006 WAFWA 
Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy: Reversing 
negative population trends and achieving a neutral or positive 
population trend.
    The conservation principles of redundancy, representation, and 
resilience guided the development of the conservation goals, priority 
areas for conservation, conservation objectives, and measures included 
in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 12). The COT Report found that 
satisfying these conservation principles for sage-grouse meant having 
multiple, geographically distributed populations across the species' 
range (USFWS 2013, p. 12). The COT Report further stated, ``By 
conserving well distributed sage-grouse populations across geographic 
and ecological gradients, species adaptive traits can be preserved, and 
populations can be maintained at levels that make sage-grouse more 
resilient in the face of catastrophes or environmental change'' (USFWS 
2013, pp. 12-13).
    In particular, the COT Report, using State information, identified 
the habitats most critical for the conservation of the species, which 
were described as Priority Areas for Conservation (PAC, Figure 4) 
(USFWS 2013, entire). Priority Areas for Conservation are ``. . . the 
most important areas needed for maintaining sage-grouse representation, 
redundancy and resilience across the landscape'' (USFWS 2013, p. 13). 
Identifying PACs ensured that conservation partners direct their 
efforts to the highest priority habitats. Since the completion of the 
COT Report, improved habitat mapping and further discussions with the 
States has resulted in changes to the PAC map in Nevada, Montana, and 
Utah. For the purposes of this document, we refer to those areas that 
were added as Important Priority Areas.

[[Page 59873]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.003

Federal and State Planning Efforts

    As discussed above, in 2010 we concluded that sage-grouse 
populations were well-distributed across the occupied range, but 
without the habitat protections provided by adequate regulatory 
mechanisms, populations were likely to become smaller, fewer, and 
separated by fragmentation, placing the species at risk of extinction 
in the future (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13986). Because the 2010 
finding indicated that adequate regulatory protections could prevent 
the need to list sage-grouse, numerous Federal and State agencies 
undertook planning efforts to improve regulatory mechanisms and 
conserve sage-grouse into the future. A centerpiece of all of the 
conservation efforts is the protection of the most important habitats 
for sage-grouse that are necessary to maintain redundant, 
representative, and resilient populations (i.e., PACs). These important 
habitats for conservation were identified in conservation planning 
efforts (Figure 4) as the places where large, undisturbed expanses of 
sagebrush habitat were supporting leks and the highest density of 
breeding birds (USFWS 2013, p. 15). These important habitats for 
conservation also correspond with the population centers referred to in 
the 2010 finding. The maintenance of these areas and the birds that use 
them would provide a network of resilient and connected populations 
across the landscape that would provide for long-term species 
viability.
    Using the recommendations provided in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, 
entire) and the NTT Report (BLM 2011a, entire), the Federal agencies 
developed conservation strategies to protect the important habitats for 
conservation. These strategies focus not only on the most important 
habitats for conservation, but also on conservation objectives to 
address the greatest threats to the species, as identified in the COT 
Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 31-52).
    While 10 of the 11 States in the range of the sage-grouse updated 
their State plans to conserve the species by incorporating new 
information, which is a testimony to their concern and commitment to 
protect the grouse and its habitats, not all of these plans have been 
implemented or are regulatory in scope. We will specifically highlight 
the regulatory conservation actions mandated by the State plans in 
Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon because they provide the greatest degree 
of regulatory certainty in addressing potential threats on State and 
private lands not under the jurisdiction of Federal plans. We 
appreciate the work that each State has completed, but not all planning 
efforts met a level of certainty for implementation and effectiveness. 
We acknowledge that sage-grouse conservation plans have been developed 
for Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah that 
could provide long-term benefits to sage-grouse. For example, the Idaho 
Plan includes the following measures: Technical and monetary assistance 
for fire rehabilitation and restoration efforts in areas where wildfire 
has impacted both State and Federal lands; assistance with 
implementation of Federal landscape fuels management projects on lands 
adjacent to Federal lands (such as the extension of fuel break projects 
onto State lands); development, coordination, and training for 
Rangeland Fire Protection Associations (RFPAs); and adoption of a 
general strategy to reduce Idaho Plan ownership of key habitat within 
Core Habitat Areas through land exchanges with BLM. We encourage all of 
the States to fully implement their

[[Page 59874]]

sage-grouse plans as they will further contribute to the long-term 
conservation of the sage-grouse.
    In this section, we provide a summary of the various conservation 
programs and efforts put in place at the Federal, State, and local 
levels that are most important to our analysis of regulatory mechanisms 
in addressing potential threats to sage-grouse: The Federal plans, 
State plans in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon; and the voluntary 
conservation efforts on private lands provided by SGI and Candidate 
Conservation Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs). The Wyoming Plan is 
analyzed based on its 7-year track record of implementation, and SGI is 
also analyzed based on its accomplishments to date.
    The sections below provide an analysis of the implementation and 
effectiveness of the Federal plans, Montana program, Oregon efforts, 
and Secretarial Order 3336 pursuant to our Policy for Evaluation of 
Conservation Efforts (PECE) (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003). The purpose 
of PECE 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. In this finding, we evaluated the certainty that the 
Federal Plans, and the Montana and Oregon Plans will be implemented 
into the future and the certainty that they will be effective in 
addressing threats, based on the best available science and 
professional recommendations provided in the COT and other scientific 
literature and reports. We also evaluated the Secretarial Order using 
PECE, which is discussed below in the Wildfire and Invasive Plants 
section.
    The Federal plans and three State Plans provide protective, 
regulatory mechanisms for the majority of the most important habitat 
for sage-grouse. The Federal Plans divide habitat into two habitat 
management area categories--Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) 
and General Habitat Management Areas (GHMAs). Priority Habitat 
Management Areas largely correspond to PACs (USFWS 2013, p. 13) and 
State-identified Core Areas (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). The PHMAs are 
the highest priority for conservation because they contain large, 
undisturbed expanses of breeding habitat and the highest densities of 
sage-grouse. The most restrictive conservation measures, such as 
excluding certain activities and requiring avoidance and minimization 
measures, apply to 64 percent of the species' breeding habitat 
designated as PHMAs (USFWS 2015a). The Federal and three State plans 
protect an additional 26 percent of breeding habitat in GHMAs (USFWS 
2015a) that contain fewer leks and sage-grouse than PHMAs, but provide 
habitat and connectivity between populations. As discussed above in 
Sage-Grouse Connectivity and Landscape Genetics, connectivity between 
core population areas has been identified as an important strategy to 
ensure long-term sage-grouse persistence (Crist et al. 2015, p. 17). 
The required conservation measures in GHMAs are less restrictive than 
in PHMAs and provide greater land-use flexibility, but still deliver 
measures that minimize potential impacts. To assess the effectiveness 
of the Federal Plan, we completed a geospatial analysis of how much the 
areas designated as PHMAs and GHMAs overlapped with areas modeled as 
breeding habitat. Collectively, the regulatory mechanisms provided by 
the Federal plans and three State plans reduce potential impacts to 
approximately 90 percent of the sage-grouse breeding habitat rangewide 
(USFWS 2015a). Later in this document, we will discuss how all of these 
conservation efforts are expected to address adverse effects from 
potential threats, and lastly, we will assess the adequacy of these 
efforts as regulatory mechanisms (See Regulatory Mechanisms, below).

Federal Plans

    The BLM and USFS sage-grouse planning effort was unprecedented in 
scope and scale, and represents a significant shift from management 
focused within administrative boundaries to managing at a landscape 
scale. This effort also represented a concerted effort by the agencies 
to balance their multiple-use mandates with conservation objectives. 
The BLM and USFS completed this effort by issuing amendments or 
revisions to 98 land management plans governing over half of the 
occupied range. These land management plans are the principal 
regulatory documents for the activities allowed on BLM and USFS lands, 
are grounded in the agencies' organic statutes (e.g., Federal Land 
Management and Policy Act, National Forest Management Act), and are at 
the core of the agencies' National Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy 
outlined in their plan revisions and amendments. We were a key partner 
working closely with BLM and USFS throughout the process to develop and 
complete the Federal Plans. In this section, we will discuss the 
Federal plans across the 11-State range of sage-grouse, except for the 
plans in Wyoming. For Wyoming, because the Federal and State plans work 
together to conserve sage-grouse on all lands, they will be discussed 
together in a separate section below.
    The BLM and USFS have broad authorities to manage the lands and 
resources within their jurisdiction. The Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is the primary 
Federal law governing most land uses on BLM-administered lands and 
directs development and implementation of Resource Management Plans, 
which direct management at a local level. Resource Management Plans are 
the basis for all actions and authorizations involving BLM-administered 
lands and resources. Management of activities on National Forest System 
lands is guided principally by the National Forest Management Act 
(NFMA) (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614, August 17, 1974, as amended). The NFMA 
specifies that the USFS must have a Land and Resource Management Plan 
(16 U.S.C. 1600) to guide and set standards for all natural resource 
management activities on each National Forest or National Grassland. 
For the purposes of this document, Resource Management Plans and Land 
and Resource Management Plans are collectively referred to as Federal 
Plans.
    Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to establish Resource Management 
Plans for the management and use of public lands in accordance with the 
principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield. Similarly, pursuant to 
the NFMA, the USFS is required to establish plans for the management 
and use of National Forest System lands in accordance with the 
principles of multiple-use and sustained-yield. The Federal Plans are 
the basis for on-the-ground actions that the BLM and USFS undertake and 
authorize. Decisions in Federal Plans guide future land management 
actions and subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. Land use 
plan decisions establish goals and objectives for resource management 
(desired outcomes) and the measures needed to achieve these goals and 
objectives (land use allocations for the BLM; Standards and Guidelines 
for the USFS).
    These Federal Plans are regulatory mechanisms. The Federal Plans 
establish goals and objectives and measures to address the potential

[[Page 59875]]

threats to sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat. The Federal Plans 
establish mandatory constraints and were established after notice and 
comment and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 
Therefore, changes to the Federal Plans would require additional notice 
and comment and further analysis under NEPA. All future management 
authorizations and actions undertaken within the planning area must 
conform to the Federal Plans, thereby providing reasonable certainty 
that the plans will be implemented. The BLM has already made 
substantial financial commitments to ensure success of actions 
identified in their Plans, including allocating more than 10 million 
dollars to support fire management (DOI 2015a, entire). In 2015, BLM 
directed resources to fund monitoring crews, and funded activities, 
like data management, to ensure successful implementation of the 
monitoring commitments; and BLM's fiscal year 2016 budget request 
included an additional 8 million dollars to directly support monitoring 
the implementation and effectiveness of the land use plans (Lueders, 
BLM, 2015, pers. comm.). The Department of the Interior identified 
additional high-priority actions that the BLM will complete in the next 
5 years including prioritizing control of invasive plants and removal 
of free-roaming equids from high-priority sage-grouse habitat (DOI 
2015a, entire). Based upon past Federal land planning efforts, we 
expect these plans to be implemented for the next 20-30 years. The BLM 
and USFS have committed to full funding and implementation of these 
plans, and have included monitoring and adaptive management to ensure 
their long-term effectiveness.
    The Federal Plans represent a paradigm shift in western Federal 
lands management in their focus on maintaining large expanses of the 
sagebrush ecosystem for the benefit of sage-grouse and many other 
species. Federal Plans are structured around a layered management 
approach that aims to preclude or minimize additional surface 
disturbance in priority conservation habitats, while providing some 
management flexibility in sage-grouse habitat areas that are less 
critical for conservation. In addition to these land use allocations 
and associated conservation actions, the Federal Plans include 
direction for wildfire and invasive species management, minimization 
measures, mitigation strategies, monitoring, and adaptive management 
that provide further conservation benefits for sage-grouse, as 
discussed below. There are differences across 98 plans as necessary to 
address differing ecological conditions; however, the general 
regulatory framework is consistent amongst all the plans. Because of 
the commitments from the Federal Government to implement these plans 
and because of the Plans' consistency with the COT Report 
recommendation for measures to reduce threats, these Federal Plans 
provide substantial conservation benefits to sage-grouse, now and in 
the future
    Land Management--The Federal Plans adopt a tiered land use 
allocation regime that provides the greatest level of protection for 
the most important habitats. We, together with State agencies, helped 
the BLM and USFS designate priority habitat areas using the best 
available scientific data to identify the location of the highest 
quality habitat with the greatest number of breeding sage-grouse. These 
areas largely coincide with the PACs identified in the COT Report 
(USFWS 2013, p. 14) and were designated by BLM and USFS in the Federal 
Plans as Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMAs) (BLM and USFS 2015, 
entire). Based on our recommendation to further protect sage-grouse 
population centers that have been identified in the scientific 
literature as critically important for the species and areas identified 
through our analysis as important for conservation, BLM and USFS 
designated areas as Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA) and added protections 
that would further limit new, human-caused surface disturbance in SFAs. 
Lastly, BLM and USFS designated General Habitat Management Areas 
(GHMAs) that represent areas with fewer leks and lower densities of 
breeding birds where disturbance is limited, while providing greater 
flexibility for land use activities.
    Federal Plans mapped approximately 27 million ha (67 million ac) of 
sage-grouse habitat, of which 14 million ha (35 million ac) were 
designated as PHMAs, 4.5 million ha (11 million ac) were designated as 
SFAs (and overlap generally with PHMAs), and 13 million ha (32 million 
ac) were designated as GHMAs (no habitat was mapped in Washington, as 
minimal habitat occurs on BLM and USFS land in that State). The Federal 
Plans authorize and establish allowable resource uses for each of these 
Management Area designations. The Federal Plans also establish 
stipulations for certain authorizations to protect resources. Land use 
allocations of specific activities are generally categorized as:

     Exclusion/Closed: Areas that are not available for 
development or use of particular resources; or
     Avoidance: Areas to be avoided but may be available for 
development or use of particular resources with special 
stipulations; or
     Open: Areas open to development or use of particular 
resources, although use may be restricted by stipulations.

    Using this targeted and tiered approach to habitat conservation, 
the Federal Plans have a number of components for conserving sage-
grouse and their habitats. The primary components of the Federal Plans 
are a combination of: (1) Land use allocations; (2) human-caused 
disturbance caps and density limitations; (3) lek buffers; (4) 
monitoring; (5) adaptive management; (6) mitigation; and (7) a 
landscape-scale strategy for addressing the threat of fire and invasive 
grasses.
    The BLM, USFS, and other partners recognize the variability in 
habitat value across sage-grouse habitat, both in terms of habitat 
characteristics and habitat quality. Priority sage[hyphen]grouse 
habitats are areas that have the highest conservation value to 
maintaining or increasing sage[hyphen]grouse populations. These areas 
include breeding, late brood[hyphen]rearing, winter concentration 
areas, and where known, migration or connectivity corridors (BLM 2011a, 
p. 7). The BLM developed a rangewide Breeding Bird Density Map to 
highlight locations where the highest densities of breeding males were 
found on leks (Doherty et al. 2010a). Using this information and 
additional State agency expertise, BLM highlighted seasonal habitats 
needed for the sage-grouse (BLM 2011a, p. 7). In those instances where 
the BLM State offices did not complete this delineation, BLM relied 
upon the Breeding Bird Density maps (Doherty et al. 2010a, entire; BLM 
2011b, entire). An Instructional Memorandum (IM; IM 2012-043) 
established two habitat categories. Preliminary Priority Habitat forms 
the basis for PHMA in the final plans and represents the habitat 
designated to maintain distribution and sustainable sage-grouse 
populations (BLM 2011b, entire). The second category was Preliminary 
General Habitat, the precursor to GHMA, which represents areas with 
fewer leks and lower densities of breeding birds where disturbance is 
limited, while providing greater flexibility for land use activities. 
Many of these areas were already impacted by human activities or 
wildfire. General sage-grouse habitat is described as occupied 
(seasonal or year[hyphen]round) habitat outside of priority habitat 
(BLM 2011a, p. 9).

[[Page 59876]]

    The Federal Plans focus on land use management within these two 
management areas (Figure 5). The discussion below analyzes PHMA and 
GHMA separately to distinguish the different management considerations 
in the most important habitats (PHMA) and the measures provided in 
other occupied habitats (GHMA).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.004

    Priority Habitat Management Areas--The BLM and USFS evaluated the 
occupied habitat within their jurisdiction and designated the areas 
with the best habitat and the majority of the leks as PHMAs. 
Approximately 14 million ha (35 million ac) were designated as PHMA 
(Figure 5), corresponding with approximately 64 percent of breeding 
habitat. The PHMA consists of the most important habitat on Federal 
lands occupied by the species. Because this is the most important 
habitat on Federal lands within the range of the species, the land use 
allocations and other measures are more restrictive in these habitats. 
Below we analyze the land use allocations and other measures in the 
revised and amended Federal Plans to conserve and maintain these 
important habitat areas on Federal lands. The Federal Plans in Wyoming 
are discussed separately below with the Wyoming State strategy as they 
collectively address all lands in Wyoming in a coordinated effort.
    Fluid Minerals (Including Oil, Gas, and Geothermal): Under the 
revised or amended Federal Plans, PHMAs are closed to new leasing or 
subject to leasing with No Surface Occupancy (NSO). No surface 
occupancy areas are open to leasing, but human-caused surface-
disturbing activities, such as development of well pads, cannot be 
conducted on the surface of the land. Access to oil and gas deposits 
would require directional drilling from outside the boundaries of the 
NSO areas. There will be no waivers, exceptions, or modifications, 
unless the following condition is met: ``A lease exception may be 
considered where a portion of the proposed lease is determined to be in 
non-habitat, the area is not used by sage-grouse, nor would it have 
direct, indirect or cumulative effects to sage-grouse or its habitat. 
The determination would be made by a team of agency sage-grouse 
experts, including an expert from the state wildlife agency, the 
Service, and BLM/USFS. All exceptions must be approved by the State 
Director.'' Further, priority will be given to leasing and development 
of fluid mineral resources, including geothermal, outside of sage-
grouse habitat. The implementation of these priorities will be subject 
to valid existing rights and any applicable law or regulation, 
including, but not limited to, 30 U.S.C. 226(p) and 43 CFR 3162.3-
1(h).''
    On existing leases, the BLM will work with the lessees, operators, 
or other project proponents to avoid, reduce and mitigate adverse 
impacts to the extent compatible with lessees' rights to drill and 
produce fluid mineral resources. The BLM will work with the lessee, 
operator, or project proponent in developing for the lease an 
application for a permit to drill to avoid and minimize impacts to 
sage-grouse or its habitat and will ensure that the best information 
about the sage-grouse and its habitat informs and helps to guide 
development of such Federal leases. See the Nonrenewable Energy section 
below for a further discussion of valid existing rights.
    Fluid minerals land use allocation decisions are more complex than 
the typical open, avoidance, and closed/exclusion decisions. Allocative 
decisions within the Federal Plans for fluid minerals can be one of the 
following:

     Open: These areas are open to leasing with minor to no 
constraints, subject to existing laws and regulations, and formal 
orders, as well as any standard terms and conditions.

[[Page 59877]]

     Open with moderate constraints: These are areas where 
it has been determined that moderately restrictive lease 
stipulations may be required to mitigate impacts. These stipulations 
include timing limitations and controlled surface uses.
     Open with major constraints: These are areas where it 
has been determined that highly restrictive lease stipulations are 
required to mitigate impacts.
     No Surface Occupancy (NSO): These areas are open to 
leasing, but surface-disturbing activities are precluded. Access to 
oil and gas deposits would require directional drilling from outside 
the boundaries of the NSO areas. The NSO areas are also avoidance 
areas for Rights-of-Way (ROWs); no ROWs would be granted in NSO 
areas unless there are no feasible alternatives.
     Closed: These are areas where it has been determined 
that other land uses or resource values cannot be adequately 
protected with even the most restrictive lease stipulations and 
appropriate protection can be ensured only by closing the lands to 
leasing.

    In 2010, there were few habitat restrictions specific for sage-
grouse for fluid mineral leasing on Federal lands within the range of 
the species. The new land use allocations in the Federal Plans 
designating PHMAs as either closed or open with NSO restrictions 
represent an unprecedented change in the management of areas important 
for sage-grouse (PHMAs) with fluid mineral potential. These land use 
allocations are consistent with the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 43) 
recommendations to reduce and eliminate disturbance in PACs. Closing 
areas to development and requiring NSO with only very limited 
exceptions, substantially reduces the potential for future disturbance 
in PHMAs. Considered together, these measures avoid or minimize impacts 
to fluid mineral development in priority habitat for conservation; this 
signifies a substantial improvement in the effectiveness of regulatory 
mechanisms since the 2010 finding.
    Non-Energy Leasable Minerals: Under the Federal Plans, PHMAs are 
closed to new permits for non-energy leasable minerals (e.g., 
phosphate, sodium, potassium), but expansion of existing operations 
could be considered, subject to specific conditions outlined in the 
plans. This provision reduces the potential impacts from non-energy 
leasable mineral development. The BLM leases certain solid minerals on 
public and other Federal lands. When mineral rights owned by the 
Federal Government underlie privately owned surface lands, the BLM can 
also lease these minerals. The restrictions in PHMAs reduce the 
likelihood that future development to non-energy leasable minerals will 
occur in these areas. Closing areas is an effective measure to reduce 
disturbance.
    Mineral Materials: Since July 23, 1955, common varieties of sand, 
gravel, stone, pumice, pumicite, and cinders were removed from the 
General Mining Law and placed under the Materials Act of 1947, as 
amended. Use of salable minerals requires either a sales contract or a 
free-use permit (free permit for personal, noncommercial use). Under 
the Federal Plans, PHMAs are closed to new mineral material sale with 
limited exceptions for free use permits (described below) and the 
expansion of existing active pits, subject to compensatory mitigation 
and disturbance caps. Required design features (RDF) will be applied to 
all free use permits to minimize any potential impacts. As with other 
mineral development, disturbance in important habitat areas will be 
minimized through disturbance caps, lek buffers, and other measures. 
The closure of PHMAs to the sale of mineral materials effectively 
eliminates new impacts from this activity in PHMAs providing effective 
conservation in the most important habitats for the species.
    Solar/Wind: The Federal Plans generally exclude new utility scale 
and commercial solar and wind developments from PHMAs. Limited 
exceptions must be based on an explicit rationale that biological 
impacts to sage-grouse will be avoided. Rights-of-way are required for 
wind testing, associated development structures, or solar energy 
development projects implemented on public lands. In Nevada, 
California, Utah, and Colorado, the Solar Energy Development 
Programmatic EIS (BLM 2012, entire) excludes development of utility-
scale solar facilities outside the Solar Energy Zones and variance 
areas (variance areas are potentially available for utility-scale solar 
energy development, subject to additional environmental review), 
protecting a majority of the sage-grouse habitat in these States. 
Exclusion is an effective tool to reduce disturbance and minimize 
impacts in the most important habitats for conservation on federally 
managed lands because the activity will not be allowed in important 
habitats.
    Rights-of-way: Under the Federal Plans, PHMAs are either avoidance 
or exclusion areas for both major and minor rights of way with limited 
exceptions, which must be based on an explicit rationale that 
biological impacts to sage-grouse are being avoided. Existing 
designated corridors for major transmission lines and pipelines will 
remain open. Federal Plans designate existing and potential ROW 
corridors to minimize adverse environmental impacts and the 
proliferation of separate ROWs (43 CFR part 2806). Any new disturbance 
within these corridors would count towards the disturbance cap. All 
new, modified, or deleted corridors will require a land use plan 
amendment (including NEPA analysis and notice and comment), thereby 
limiting new or expanded corridors in priority habitats for 
conservation in the future.
    Livestock Grazing: The Federal Plans have not substantively changed 
livestock land use allocations; however, the BLM and USFS have 
committed to implementation of vegetative standards and habitat 
objectives specifically for sage-grouse based on local ecological 
conditions and prioritization of monitoring in PHMAs to determine if 
they are meeting sage-grouse habitat objectives consistent with site-
specific guidelines or ecological site descriptions. The Federal Plans 
call for grazing to benefit or be neutral to sage-grouse, including in 
times of drought. Specifically, the BLM and USFS have committed to 
implementing the following measures in the Federal Plans:

     The habitat assessment framework (Stiver et al. 2010, 
entire) will be used to monitor progress at achieving rangeland 
health objectives at multiple spatial scales.
     The BLM and USFS will prioritize the following first in 
SFAs followed by PHMAs outside of the SFAs: (1) The review of 
grazing permits/leases, in particular to determine if modification 
is necessary prior to renewal, and (2) the processing of grazing 
permits/leases. In setting workload priorities, precedence will be 
given to existing permits/leases in these areas not meeting Land 
Health Standards, with focus on those containing riparian areas, 
including wet meadows. The BLM may use other criteria for 
prioritization to respond to urgent natural resource concerns (e.g., 
fire) and legal obligations.
     The NEPA analysis for renewals and modifications of 
livestock grazing permits/leases that include lands within PHMAs 
will include specific management thresholds based on sage-grouse 
Habitat Objectives Table and Land Health Standards (43 CFR 4180.2) 
and defined responses that will allow the authorizing officer to 
make adjustments to livestock grazing without conducting additional 
NEPA analysis.
     Allotments within SFAs, followed by those within PHMAs, 
and focusing on those containing riparian areas, including wet 
meadows, will be prioritized for field checks to help ensure 
compliance with the terms and conditions of the grazing permits. 
Field checks could include monitoring for actual use, utilization, 
and use supervision.
     At the time a permittee or lessee voluntarily 
relinquishes a permit or lease, the BLM and USFS will consider 
whether the public lands where that permitted use was authorized 
should remain available for livestock grazing or be used for other 
resource management objectives.
     Structural range improvements will be managed to 
benefit or not adversely affect sage-grouse by restricting locations 
of ranch

[[Page 59878]]

facilities (e.g., fences, windmills, and corrals) around leks, 
marking or removing fences, and controlling invasive plants.

    Prioritizing the onsite monitoring to the most important areas for 
sage-grouse consistent with the rangewide monitoring plan, the 
certainty of implementation is improved because monitoring and 
management changes will occur in the most important areas for sage-
grouse first. The vegetative objectives in the Federal Plans were 
developed using the best available scientific information, taking into 
consideration ecological differences across the range of the species. 
The Federal Plans specifically cite to the literature relied upon to 
develop these objectives. The Federal Plans commit to implementation of 
any habitat enhancement projects and other activities to meet these 
objectives. The monitoring framework is designed to add consistency to 
this effort and will, with adaptive management, provide additional 
certainty that measures will be implemented to meet habitat objectives. 
These changes represent a significant change from having virtually no 
or only general land health standards for sage-grouse to a system that 
establishes specific standards for sage-grouse, prioritizes the most 
important habitats, and targets monitoring to ensure compliance. This 
framework represents an effective suite of measures that reduces the 
impacts from improper grazing.
    Sagebrush Focal Areas--Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) are the areas 
that the Federal Plans manage as the highest priority lands in PHMAs 
for sage-grouse conservation (Figure 5). The BLM requested input from 
us about additional conservation opportunities, and we provided a memo 
that identified ``strongholds'' for sage-grouse (USFWS 2014a, entire). 
These ``strongholds'' represented areas identified in the scientific 
literature as essential for the persistence of the species. Some of the 
important characteristics of these areas include large, contiguous 
blocks of Federal lands; high population connectivity; and high 
densities of breeding birds (USFWS 2014a, entire). Our recommendations 
directly informed the BLM and USFS development of SFAs, important 
conservation units within which land managers will apply the most 
conservative strategies to protect sage-grouse and habitat. Sagebrush 
Focal Areas encompass 4.5 million ha (11 million ac) of federally 
administered lands in PHMAs (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). All of the 
measures listed above in PHMAs also apply in SFAs; in addition, the 
following more restrictive measures also apply in SFAs.
    Locatable Minerals: The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, 
opened the public lands of the U.S. to mineral acquisition by the 
location and maintenance of mining claims. Mineral deposits subject to 
acquisition in this manner are generally referred to as locatable 
minerals. Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (e.g., gold, 
silver, lead, copper, zinc, and nickel), nonmetallic minerals (e.g., 
fluorspar, mica, gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and 
gemstones), and certain uncommon variety minerals. Under the Federal 
Plans, the BLM and FS have recommended that lands in SFAs be withdrawn 
from location and entry under the Mining Law, subject to valid existing 
rights. (BLM and USFS 2015). Under FLPMA, the first step of the 
withdrawal process implementing that recommendation is for the 
Secretary (or Deputy or Assistant Secretary) to ``propose'' a 
withdrawal. 43 U.S.C. 1714(b). Upon publication of such a proposal in 
the Federal Register, the lands are immediately segregated from 
location and entry under the Mining Law as specified in the notice for 
a period of two years. That segregation temporarily has essentially the 
same effect as a withdrawal; that is, it closes the lands to location 
and entry under the Mining Law, subject to valid existing rights. 
Although the Secretary is free to make a final decision prior to or 
after its expiration, the segregation is intended to allow time for 
public input and allow time for her to make a final decision as to 
whether to withdraw the lands. The Assistant Secretary took this first 
step and proposed withdrawal of the SFAs on September 16, 2015. The BLM 
will publish notice of the proposal concurrent with the announcement of 
the BLM Records of Decision, which will segregate the lands. After 
public involvement and preparation of various reports, including a NEPA 
analysis, the Secretary will make a final decision as to whether to 
withdraw the lands. 43 CFR 2310.3-2, 3. A withdrawal aggregating more 
than 5,000 acres is limited by law to a term of 20 years (subject to 
renewals) and is subject to Congressional notification. 43 U.S.C. 
1714(c).
    Fluid Minerals (Including Oil, Gas, and Geothermal): The Federal 
Plans manage SFAs as NSO, without waiver, exception, or modification, 
for fluid mineral leasing (with the exception of plans in Wyoming, as 
discussed below). No Surface Occupancy is where areas are open to 
leasing but surface-disturbing activities associated with development 
of the lease cannot be conducted on the surface of the land. Access to 
oil and gas deposits would require horizontal/directional drilling from 
outside the boundaries of the NSO areas. This is the most restrictive 
designation that allows for development of resources and protects 
habitat.
    Habitat Management: BLM and USFS will prioritize management and 
conservation actions in SFAs, including, but not limited to, review of 
livestock grazing permits/leases, free-roaming equid gathers, fire 
management projects, and sagebrush restoration projects. Ensuring these 
areas are analyzed first provides certainty that, if degraded habitat 
conditions occur in the most important areas for the species, 
management actions will be taken and possible restoration will occur.
    The actions identified for implementation in the SFAs are more 
restrictive versions of the measures described above for PHMAs. As 
such, the measures implemented within SFAs are more effective at 
reducing threats within these important areas. These measures have been 
determined to be effective because they eliminate or reduce the impacts 
from new development or improper grazing on Federal lands in SFAs.
    General Habitat Management Areas--The Federal Plans designate 
approximately 12.5 million ha (31 million ac) as GHMA (Figure 5), which 
corresponds with approximately 27 percent of breeding habitat 
rangewide. The GHMAs represent habitats that contain fewer leks and 
sage-grouse than PHMAs. The designation as GHMAs provide sage-grouse 
conservation by protecting habitat and connectivity between populations 
and potential refugia in the event of catastrophic events such as 
wildfire. While the amelioration of threats in GHMAs will likely be 
less than in PHMAs due to less stringent required conservation 
measures, GHMAs do have restrictions that benefit sage-grouse 
conservation.
    Specifically, the Federal Plans contain the following measures that 
apply in GHMAs:
    Fluid minerals (Including Oil, Gas, and Geothermal): General 
Habitat Management Areas are open with constraints. Areas with standard 
constraints may be open to mineral leasing with no specific management 
decisions defined in the Federal Plans; however, these areas are 
subject to lease terms and conditions. Terms and conditions may include 
but not be limited to concentrating development, moving or supporting 
infrastructure, or reducing project footprints, thereby reducing 
habitat impacts. Moderate constraints include controlled surface

[[Page 59879]]

use, which can reduce habitat impacts and timing limitations which 
reduce human activities during the times sage-grouse are most sensitive 
to their presence.
    Non-Energy Leasable Minerals: General Habitat Management Areas are 
open to non-energy leasable mineral development, subject to 
stipulations. In GHMA, development, including mineral exploration, is 
subject to lek buffers to protect breeding birds, timing restrictions 
to reduce human activities in important seasonal habitats while sage-
grouse are present, mitigation requirements, and other protective 
measures discussed throughout this section, thereby reducing and 
minimizing the impacts to the species and its habitat.
    Rights-of-Way: For major transmission lines and pipelines, GHMAs 
are either avoidance or exclusion areas, and may be available for 
installation of pipeline and transmission lines/ROWs within existing 
infrastructure corridors. Protective stipulations such as limiting road 
use (to minimize disturbance to birds) or eliminating perching areas 
(to reduce predation) will be incorporated into the ROW grants to 
protect sage-grouse and its habitat. For minor ROWs (e.g., roads), 
GHMAs are open and subject to stipulations that will protect sage-
grouse and its habitat, such as lek buffers and seasonal restrictions 
(BLM and USFS 2015, entire). For solar and wind energy rights of way, 
GHMAs are either designated avoidance or exclusion areas with limited 
exceptions and available for location of new utility scale and/or 
commercial development ROWs only with special stipulations that 
minimize the impact to sage-grouse.
    Mineral Materials: General Habitat Management Areas can be open to 
new mineral material sales and free use permits subject to mitigation 
requirements and application of RDFs that will protect sage-grouse and 
its habitat.
    Livestock Grazing: Federal Plans call for grazing to benefit or be 
neutral to sage-grouse in GHMAs and PHMAs. However, GHMAs will be the 
lower priority for monitoring as they comprise habitat with fewer leks 
and sage-grouse.
    Measures Applicable in Both PHMA and GHMA--In addition to specific 
land use allocations described above, the new Federal Plans include 
other protective measures that will further limit disturbance and 
impacts to sage-grouse and their habitats. Additionally the plans 
include monitoring and adaptive management to help ensure that 
implementation of the allocative decisions and limitations on 
disturbance are effective at conserving sage-grouse and their habitats, 
and mitigation provisions where disturbance cannot be avoided. These 
measures apply regardless of the habitat designation (PHMA, SFA, or 
GHMA).
    Land Tenure: The land tenure land use allocation refers to whether 
the BLM or USFS intend to dispose of, or retain, Federal lands. A land 
use allocation of retain means that the agencies will seek to retain 
the land in Federal ownership, with limited exceptions. An allocation 
of dispose means that the agencies may transfer the land out of Federal 
ownership. Under the Federal Plans, PHMAs and GHMAs will be retained in 
Federal management, with limited exceptions. Those limited exceptions 
may occur when: (1) The agency can demonstrate that disposal of lands 
will provide a net conservation gain to the sage-grouse; or (2) the 
agency can demonstrate that the disposal of lands will have no direct 
or indirect adverse impact on conservation of sage-grouse. The land 
tenure allocation ensures that BLM and USFS lands within PHMAs and 
GHMAs will be managed for sage-grouse into the future.
    Trails and Travel Management: Travel management regulations require 
BLM and USFS to establish lands as open, limited, or closed to off-road 
vehicle use. In open areas all types of vehicle use is permitted at all 
times, anywhere in the area. Limited areas are restricted at certain 
times, in certain areas, and/or to certain vehicular use. Closed areas 
are those that are closed to all types of vehicle use and include units 
of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Areas that have not 
been designated in one of these categories are undesignated and have no 
restrictions on motorized access.
    In PHMA and GHMA, temporary closures will be considered in 
accordance with several regulations, including Closures and 
Restrictions (43 CFR subpart 8364); Designated National Area (43 CFR 
subpart 8351); Use of Wilderness Areas, Prohibited Acts, and Penalties 
(43 CFR subpart 6302); and Conditions of Use (43 CFR subpart 8341). 
These regulations help control access to sensitive areas and have been 
employed strategically in the past to minimize access and disturbance 
during critical time periods such as spring breeding. These measures 
ensure that travel management decisions in PHMA and GHMA are made with 
consideration of sage-grouse conservation needs. These measures help to 
address concerns with potential disturbance due to travel on Federal 
lands and will continue to be used by the agencies as needed.
    Disturbance Caps and Density Limitations--Each Federal Plan 
includes a disturbance cap that will serve as an upper limit (the 
maximum disturbance permitted). Anthropogenic disturbance has been 
identified as a key impact to sage-grouse. To limit new anthropogenic 
disturbance within sage-grouse habitats, the Federal Plans establish 
disturbance caps, above which no new development is permitted (subject 
to applicable laws and regulations; e.g., General Mining Law of 1872, 
and valid existing rights). This cap acts as a backstop to ensure that 
any implementation decisions made under the Federal Plans will not 
permit substantial amounts of new disturbance within the distribution 
of sage-grouse on BLM and USFS lands.
    For all States, except Wyoming and Montana, the BLM and USFS have 
established a 3 percent disturbance cap at two spatial scales--the 
Biologically Significant Unit (BSU) and at the project scale within 
PHMAs (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). The BSU is a geographical/spatial 
area, defined in conjunction with the States, within sage-grouse 
habitat that contains habitats supporting several interconnected 
populations. The disturbance cap calculation includes all anthropogenic 
disturbances in PHMAs at the project scale regardless of land 
ownership. If 3 percent disturbance is reached at the project level 
scale, no further anthropogenic disturbances will be permitted by BLM 
or USFS within PHMAs in the analysis area until the disturbance has 
been reduced to less than the cap. For BSUs the disturbance 
calculations will include anthropogenic disturbances in all habitat 
designations. Those disturbance calculations will be completed on an 
annual basis by the BLM's National Operation Center. If 3 percent 
disturbance is reached, the Federal land management agencies will 
examine all activities under their authority to determine if adaptive 
management is necessary (depending on the spatial scale at which the 3 
percent cap is hit). In Montana, the same disturbance cap approach is 
used, but disturbance is limited to 5 percent, due to more detailed 
mapping and disturbance calculations. Wyoming uses a different approach 
to limiting disturbance in Core Areas, as discussed in Wyoming State 
and Federal Plans, below. As previously stated, sage-grouse are 
sensitive to disturbance, and small amounts of development within sage-
grouse habitats can negatively affect sage-grouse population viability 
(Knick and Connelly 2011, p. 1). Thus, limiting future disturbances in 
sage-grouse

[[Page 59880]]

habitats is an essential component of reducing or eliminating effects 
related to disturbance, as recommended in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, 
p. 13).
    In addition to the percent disturbance cap at the BSU and project 
scales, the BLM and USFS will use a density cap related to the density 
of energy and mining facilities during project-scale authorizations. If 
the disturbance density is greater than an average of 1/259 ha (1/640 
ac) in PHMA, the project will either be deferred or co-located in an 
existing disturbed area (subject to applicable laws and regulations, 
such as the General Mining Law of 1872, valid existing rights, etc.).
    Lek Buffers--Sage-grouse leks are communal breeding centers that 
are representative of the breeding and nesting habitats. Conservation 
of these areas is crucial to maintaining sage-grouse populations. 
Protective buffers around leks conserve these important habitats 
(Manier et al. 2014, pp. 1-2).
    To develop ``biologically relevant and socioeconomically 
practical'' lek buffer distances for use in the Federal Plans, the DOI 
commissioned the USGS to review the scientific information on 
conservation buffer distances for sage-grouse. The result was the 
publication of a USGS Open-File Report, entitled Conservation Buffer 
Distance Estimates for Greater Sage-Grouse--A Review, in 2014 (Manier 
et al. 2014, entire). In addition to the land use allocations described 
in this section, the BLM and USFS will apply the lek buffer distances 
specified as the lower end of the interpreted range in PHMAs as 
described in the report unless justifiable departures are determined to 
be appropriate (see below). The lower end of the interpreted range of 
the lek buffer distances are presented in Table 3. Note that for many 
potential activities in PHMAs, the Federal Plans land use allocations 
result in no or few activities allowed in these important areas (e.g., 
no surface occupancy restrictions). Thus, for those types of projects, 
buffers are unnecessary in PHMAs because the activity is already 
restricted.

             Table 3--Lek Buffer Distances in Federal Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Disturbance                           Lek buffer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linear Features (e.g., roads)..........  5 km (3.1 mi).
Infrastructure related to energy         5 km (3.1 mi).
 development.
Tall structures (communication or        2 km (1.2 mi).
 transmission towers, transmission
 lines).
Low structures (e.g., fences, rangeland  2 km (1.2 mi).
 structures).
Surface disturbance (human activities    5 km (3.1 mi).
 that alter or remove natural
 vegetation).
Noise and related disruptive activities  0.4 km (0.25 mi).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLM and USFS may approve actions in PHMAs that are within the 
applicable lek buffer distance identified above only if the BLM or USFS 
determine that a buffer distance other than the distance identified 
above offers the same or greater level of protection to sage-grouse and 
its habitat. The BLM or USFS will make this determination based on best 
available science, landscape features, and other existing protections, 
with input from the local State fish and wildlife agency. The BLM or 
USFS will explain its justification for determining that the approved 
buffer distances meet these conditions in its project decision.
    For actions in GHMAs, the BLM and USFS will apply the lek buffer 
distances in Table 3 as required conservation measures to fully address 
any impacts to sage-grouse identified during the project-specific NEPA 
analysis. However, if it is not possible to locate or relocate the 
project outside of the applicable lek buffer distance(s) identified 
above, the BLM or USFS may approve the project only if: (1) Based on 
best available science, landscape features, and other existing 
protections, (e.g., land use allocations, State regulations), the BLM 
or USFS determine that a lek buffer distance other than the applicable 
distance identified above offers the same or a greater level of 
protection to sage-grouse and its habitat, including conservation of 
seasonal habitat outside of the analyzed buffer area; or (2) the BLM or 
USFS determines that impacts to sage-grouse and its habitat are 
minimized such that the project will cause minor or no new disturbance 
(e.g., co-location with existing authorizations); and (3) any residual 
impacts within the lek buffer distances are addressed through 
compensatory mitigation measures sufficient to ensure a net 
conservation gain, as outlined in the Mitigation Strategy (see below). 
By applying lek buffers in addition to other measures, the Federal 
Plans provide an additional layer of protection to the habitat in 
closest proximity to leks and the areas documented in the literature to 
be the most important for breeding and nest success (Manier et al. 
2014, entire).
    Required Design Features--Required Design Features (RDFs) are best 
management practices to reduce potential effects to sage-grouse for 
certain project-level features. The RDFs establish the minimum 
specifications for certain activities to help mitigate adverse impacts. 
Because of site-specific circumstances, some RDFs may not apply to some 
projects (e.g., a resource is not present on a given site) and/or may 
require slight variations (e.g., a larger or smaller protective area). 
The need to apply RDFs to a project or to modify RDFs to address any 
concerns unique to a project is determined during the project-specific 
planning and environmental assessment. All variations in RDFs would 
require that at least one of the following be demonstrated in the NEPA 
analysis associated with the project/activity:
     A specific RDF is documented to be not applicable to the 
site-specific conditions of the project/activity (e.g., due to site 
limitations or engineering considerations). Economic considerations, 
such as increased costs, do not necessarily require that an RDF be 
varied or rendered inapplicable;
     An alternative RDF is determined to provide equal or 
better protection for greater sage-grouse or its habitat;
     A specific RDF will provide no additional protection to 
sage-grouse or its habitat.
    While the applicability and overall effectiveness of each RDF 
cannot be fully assessed until the project level when the project 
location and design are known, the Federal Plans include the 
requirement to implement appropriate RDFs and these RDFs are expected 
to further minimize impact to the species and its habitat. These RDFs 
were developed based on the COT and NTT conservation objectives and the 
best professional judgment of BLM and USFS wildlife biologists. For 
example, any project that includes the development of a pond or similar 
water feature would require RDFs that direct the design, construction, 
and maintenance of the pond so that it would not provide habitat for 
mosquitos that could carry West Nile virus (WNv).
    Monitoring--While monitoring does not in and of itself reduce 
impacts, it is an integral component of any conservation program's 
long-term success. We take into consideration monitoring when 
evaluating the overall adequacy and effectiveness of a conservation 
strategy. The regulations for the BLM (43 CFR 1610.4-9) and the USFS 
(36 CFR part 209, published July

[[Page 59881]]

1, 2010) require that Federal Plans establish intervals and standards, 
as appropriate, for monitoring and evaluations based on the sensitivity 
of the resource to the decisions involved. Pursuant to these 
regulations, an interagency team developed The Greater Sage-grouse 
Monitoring Framework that describes the methods to be used to collect 
monitoring data and to evaluate implementation and effectiveness of the 
sage-grouse planning strategy and the conservation measures contained 
in the Federal Plans (BLM and USFS 2014, entire).
    To ensure that the BLM and the USFS are able to make consistent 
assessments about sage-grouse habitats across the range of the species, 
this framework lays out the methodology--at multiple scales (broad, 
mid, fine, and site scales)--for monitoring of implementation and 
disturbance and for evaluating the effectiveness of the BLM and USFS 
actions to conserve the species and its habitat. Monitoring efforts 
will include data for measurable quantitative indicators of sagebrush 
availability, anthropogenic disturbance levels, and habitat conditions. 
Implementation monitoring results will allow the BLM and the USFS to 
evaluate the extent that decisions from their Federal Plans to conserve 
sage-grouse and their habitat have been implemented. State fish and 
wildlife agencies will continue to collect population monitoring 
information, which will be incorporated into effectiveness monitoring 
as it is made available.
    Managing and monitoring sage-grouse habitats are complicated by the 
differences in habitat selection across the range and habitat use by 
individual birds within a given season. Therefore, the monitoring 
framework evaluates multiple habitat suitability indicators to evaluate 
plan effectiveness. Descriptions of these habitat suitability 
indicators for each scale are provided in the ``Sage-Grouse Habitat 
Assessment Framework: Multiscale Habitat Assessment Tool'' (Stiver et 
al. 2010, entire).
    Results from monitoring data will define when habitat objectives 
are not being achieved, disturbance caps have been breached, and 
adaptive management triggers have been met (see below). Having a 
consistent framework for all management units will allow the agencies 
to track information and trends across management units, which has not 
been possible in the past. The BLM and USFS have and committed to 
increased monitoring, and we expect the results to give the agencies 
valuable data to assist and improve implementation and improve the 
overall effectiveness of the BLM and USFS plans.
    Adaptive Management--Like monitoring, adaptive management is a key 
element of complex long-term conservation strategies, particularly 
where there is uncertainty. Adaptive management is a decision process 
that promotes flexible resource management decision-making that can be 
adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management 
actions and other events become better understood. This flexibility is 
critical for ensuring long-term conservation of sage-grouse into the 
future, as it will allow the Federal Plans to adjust to changed 
conditions or new science that cannot be foreseen at this time. Careful 
monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and 
helps with adjusting resource management directions as part of an 
iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the 
importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological 
resilience and productivity. An effective adaptive management program 
will ultimately improve the overall effectiveness of the conservation 
program through time.
    Adaptive management will help ensure that sage-grouse conservation 
measures in the Federal Plans are effective, and if they are not 
effective, that corrective actions will be implemented. Each planning 
area (with the exception of the Lander and North Dakota Plans) has 
identified adaptive management soft and hard triggers and responses. 
Soft triggers represent an intermediate threshold indicating that 
management changes are needed at the project/implementation level to 
address habitat and population losses. If a soft trigger is met, the 
BLM will apply more conservative or restrictive implementation 
conservation measures to mitigate for the specific causal factor in the 
decline of populations and/or habitats, with consideration of local 
knowledge and conditions. These types of adjustments will be made to 
preclude meeting a hard trigger (which signals more severe habitat loss 
or population declines). Hard triggers represent a threshold indicating 
that immediate action is necessary to stop a deviation from sage-grouse 
conservation objectives as set forth in the Federal Plans. Tripping a 
hard trigger will result in BLM or USFS switching to a more restrictive 
alternative from the Final Environmental Impact Statement either in 
whole or in part to address the causal factors (e.g., immediate 
cessation of authorizing land use authorizations within the area). 
After the hard-trigger is tripped, the BLM or USFS will determine the 
causal factor and develop and implement a corrective strategy. While 
adaptive management is not a land use allocation decision, the Federal 
Plans have developed species and habitat triggers and tied them to 
appropriate management actions in the Federal Plans, providing an 
additional certainty that action will be taken if the species or 
habitat objectives are not being met.
    Mitigation--All of the Federal Plans require that impacts to sage-
grouse habitats are mitigated and that compensatory mitigation provides 
a net conservation gain to the species. All mitigation will be achieved 
by avoiding, minimizing, and compensating for impacts following the 
regulations from the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
(40 CFR 1508.20; e.g., avoid, minimize, and compensate), hereafter 
referred to as the mitigation hierarchy. If impacts from BLM/USFS 
management actions and authorized third party actions that result in 
habitat loss and degradation remain after applying avoidance and 
minimization measures (i.e., residual impacts), then compensatory 
mitigation projects will be used to provide a net conservation gain to 
the species. Any compensatory mitigation will be durable, timely, and 
in addition to that which would have resulted without the compensatory 
mitigation.
    The Federal Plans will establish a Management Zone Greater Sage-
Grouse Conservation Team (hereafter, Team) to help guide the 
conservation of sage-grouse, within 90 days of the issuance of the 
Record of Decision. This Team will develop a Management Zone Regional 
Mitigation Strategy using the BLM's Regional Mitigation Manual as a 
framework. The Team will also compile and report on monitoring data 
(including data on habitat condition, population trends, and mitigation 
effectiveness) from States across the MZs and will use these data to 
either modify the appropriate Regional Mitigation Strategy or recommend 
adaptive management actions. Requiring mitigation for residual impacts 
provides additional certainty that, while impacts will continue at 
reduced levels on Federal lands, those impacts will be offset to a net 
conservation gain standard.
    Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool (FIAT)--The Federal Plans 
recognize that fire and invasive plants are the primary impact to sage-
grouse habitat in the Great Basin. The BLM and USFS convened an 
interagency team to develop a rangewide assessment and step-down 
approach to address these impacts (i.e., FIAT). The result was the 
``Greater Sage-Grouse Wildfire, Invasive Annual Grasses and Conifer 
Expansion

[[Page 59882]]

Assessment'' report (BLM 2014, entire). The FIAT assessments are 
incorporated in the Federal Plans. The assessments identify the 
habitats most resistant and resilient to wildfire and invasive plants 
to target fire management and ecosystem restoration activities (BLM and 
USFS 2015, entire). The FIAT Assessments ensure that wildfire and 
invasive plant management and restoration resources are deployed in the 
landscapes where they will be most effective in reducing this potential 
threat.
    As part of the assessment process, Instructional Memorandum (IM) 
2014-134 was released August 28, 2014. This IM, in part, provided 
guidance for the BLM field offices to cooperate with interagency 
partners to complete FIAT assessments at local scales for five priority 
landscapes in sage-grouse habitat, which roughly corresponded to PACs 
in the Great Basin as identified in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 14) 
(i.e., Central Oregon, Northern Great Basin, Snake/Salmon/Beaverhead, 
Southern Great Basin, Western Great Basin/Warm Springs Valley). For 
each priority landscape, regional findings were stepped down to 
describe local conditions by Project Planning Area (PPA) and associated 
treatment needs and management priorities. Each PPA contained emphasis 
areas, i.e., portions of a PAC with important habitat characteristics 
and sage-grouse populations that are impacted by wildfire, invasives, 
and conifer encroachment. The assessments were included in the Federal 
Plans. The FIAT Assessments are described in more detail in the 
Wildfire and Invasive Plants section, below.

Federal Plans Summary

    The Federal Plans provide major new regulatory mechanisms to 
protect sage-grouse from land use activities on more than half of the 
occupied range. In 2010, the Federal land management plans did not 
contain, for the most part, sage-grouse specific measures, and areas 
important to the species were open to land uses that could disturb 
habitat (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13982). Since then, the BLM 
and USFS have amended or revised 98 plans to address threats to the 
species (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). The Federal Plans exclude or 
reduce habitat-disturbing activities in PHMAs that contain the most 
important habitats for conservation. General Habitat Management Areas 
are still being managed for the benefit of sage-grouse, but BLM and 
USFS have flexibility to site development or leasing in GHMAs to keep 
priority areas intact. While some disturbance can occur in the GHMAs, 
as they contain fewer sage-grouse when compared to PHMAs, protective 
measures for activities in those areas minimize impacts and require 
mitigation. The combination of restrictive PHMAs and less restrictive 
GHMAs provide conservation for sage-grouse on approximately 27 million 
ha (67 million ac) while still enabling the multiple uses that are part 
of the BLM and USFS missions. While there are impacts associated with 
on-going activities, the Federal Plans provide adequate mechanisms to 
reduce and minimize new disturbance in the most important areas for the 
species. By following COT Report and NTT guidance and restricting 
impacts in the most important habitat, the Federal Plans ensure that 
high-quality sage-grouse lands with substantial populations are 
minimally disturbed and sage-grouse within this habitat remain 
protected.

Wyoming State and Federal Plans

    Approximately 37 percent of estimated sage-grouse abundance occurs 
in Wyoming (Doherty et al. 2010a, p. 21). The Wyoming Basin, the 
majority of which occurs within the State of Wyoming, has been 
identified as one of two areas with the highest population connectivity 
(Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 391). Therefore, conservation of this area 
is essential to the persistence of sage-grouse into the future. We have 
also identified this area as a stronghold for the species (USFWS 
2014a).
    The Wyoming Plan relies on the protection of important sage-grouse 
habitats in the State using a suite of avoidance and minimization 
measures. Important habitats (Core Areas) were identified by the 
highest densities of males attending leks, and added associated 
habitats through a scientific process engaging State wildlife experts 
and local working groups. Core Areas encompass approximately 83 percent 
of the breeding population of sage-grouse in Wyoming on approximately 
24 percent of the total land surface of the State (Budd, Wyoming 
Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust, pers. comm. 2015). Additional 
connectivity areas were identified for protection to ensure population 
movements. Protective measures associated with the Wyoming Plan 
(described below) do not extend to lands located outside the identified 
Core Areas but that are still within occupied sage-grouse habitat. In 
non-Core Areas, the minimization measures are implemented to maintain 
habitat conditions such that there is a 50 percent likelihood that leks 
will persist over time (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2009, pp. 30-
35). While impacts to sage-grouse are possible in non-core habitats, 
the majority of primary habitats necessary for long-term conservation 
of sage-grouse in Wyoming are included in the identified Core Areas. 
Core Area maps are reviewed and adjusted every 5 years to allow for the 
incorporation of new data that ensures the most important areas for 
sage-grouse receive protections. For example, the State of Wyoming 
reviewed the Plan in 2015 and added 58,191 ha (143,794 ac) to the Core 
Areas.
    The key component of the Wyoming Plan is the application of State 
regulatory measures associated with the Wyoming Plan on all lands in 
Wyoming (6 million ha (15 million ac)) as any project requiring a State 
permit must meet the conditions of the strategy regardless of land 
ownership. Specifically, the Wyoming Plan applies to all activities 
that require permits from Wyoming's Industrial Siting Council (ISC) 
(Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, entire). The Federal Plans in the State 
incorporate the Wyoming strategy, thereby ensuring implementation of 
the strategy on Federal land surfaces and subsurface regardless of the 
need for a State permit (see further discussion below). The completion 
of the Federal plans also facilitates greater coordination between the 
State and Federal agencies in implementing and monitoring the Wyoming 
Plan. This addition to the Wyoming Plan further increases the value of 
this effort in conserving sage-grouse by covering all lands in the 
State with a single regulatory framework to reduce affects to sage-
grouse in the most important habitats in the State. Therefore, the 
strategy conserves sage-grouse through an effective regulatory 
mechanism for conservation.
    The Wyoming Plan first encourages projects to be re-located outside 
of Core Areas by reducing restrictions in non-Core Areas for 
development activities. Where projects cannot be relocated, the Plan 
requires a combination of restricted development densities, development 
disturbance caps, seasonal restrictions, and lek buffers to minimize 
habitat disturbance within Core Areas. Surface disturbance is limited 
to 5 percent within Core Areas reducing fragmentation and degradation 
of habitat (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, Attachment A, p. 6; Wyoming E.O. 2015-
4, Attachment B, p. 5). While 5 percent is greater than the 3 percent 
used in other States, habitat disturbance monitoring in Wyoming is 
conducted at a much finer scale and is, therefore, more inclusive in 
the number and extent of disturbances measured. Additionally, Wyoming 
includes natural disturbances, such as wildfire, in the

[[Page 59883]]

disturbance measure, which is not included in any other State. 
Therefore, the higher disturbance cap permitted in Wyoming is not more 
permissive as a simple comparison of the numbers suggests. Limiting 
development to one site per 259 ha (640 ac) on average reduces the 
disturbance footprint to a level where impacts to sage-grouse are 
minimal, if nonexistent (Holloran 2005, p. 58; Taylor et al. 2012a, p. 
31; Holloran et al. 2010, p. 71). Development is not permitted if 
either of these criteria (development density or disturbance caps) is 
exceeded. Incentives to consolidate disturbance further reduce 
development impacts by minimizing habitat loss and degradation within 
large landscapes. Where development cannot be moved away from breeding 
habitats, an NSO buffer of 1 km (0.6 mi) of a lek is required, as well 
as a seasonal restriction on project development. Activity within 6.4 
km (4 mi) of a lek is also restricted from March 15 through June 30. 
These restrictions reduce impacts to the sage-grouse by avoiding 
disturbance during breeding season (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, Attachment B 
pp. 2-6; Fedy et al. 2012, p. 1063; Doherty et al. 2010a, entire).
    Disturbance (including all anthropogenic and natural disturbances) 
is tracked via a geospatial database (measuring disturbance at 1 m (3.3 
ft). Including all disturbances with such precision ensures that all 
potential impacts to sage-grouse, regardless of source, are being 
considered prior to authorizing new development. Additional 
conservation is gained through the enforcement of noise restrictions at 
the perimeter of leks, which minimizes disturbance to birds visiting 
the leks (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, Attachment B, p. 8; Patricelli et al. 
2013, p. 241; Blickley and Patricelli 2012, p. 33; Blickley et al. 
2012, p. 470).
    Outside of core-habitat, there are NSO restrictions within 0.4 km 
(0.25 mi) of leks to minimize impacts to sage-grouse (E.O. 2015-4, 
Attachment B, p. 6), and activities within 3.2 km (2 mi) of a lek are 
restricted during the breeding season. These relaxed stipulations 
encourage development to move outside of Core Areas, while still 
providing some protections to birds in non-Core Areas. While impacts to 
birds and their habitats may occur outside of Core Areas, only about 17 
percent of the sage-grouse bird density occurs in those areas (Budd, 
Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resources Trust, pers. comm. 2015), 
minimizing impacts to sage-grouse and allowing for the continuation of 
the economies that support the State.
    In 2010, we analyzed the Wyoming Plan and noted that it included 
measures that if fully implemented could ameliorate threats to sage-
grouse (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13974-13975). We now have data 
that shows how implementation has avoided and minimized impacts in core 
habitats. Since 2012, the majority of the 600 projects proposed in Core 
Areas and reviewed by the State complied with the criteria of the 
Wyoming Plan. Projects that added additional surface disturbance within 
Core Areas were minimized or co-located with existing disturbance. Less 
than 8 ha (20 ac) of new disturbance has occurred within Core Areas 
since 2012 (USFWS 2014b). Other applications were denied that would 
negatively affect sage-grouse, including a wind lease application on 
State trust lands (USFWS 2014b). The number of oil and gas wells 
permitted in Core Areas has also declined as industry seeks to avoid 
conflict with sage-grouse. Between 2006 and 2012, vertically drilled 
single well permits declined 65 percent, while directionally and 
horizontally drilled wells, from outside the Core Areas, increased by 
66 and 1,337 percent, respectively (USFWS 2014b). This change in the 
number and nature of oil and gas well permits further demonstrates the 
efficacy of the Wyoming Plan. Other industries, such as mining, have 
initiated restoration efforts to remove existing disturbance and 
improve habitat for sage-grouse. These data demonstrate the efficacy of 
the Wyoming Plan in removing and reducing impacts to sage-grouse from 
development activities.
    The Federal Plans in Wyoming have incorporated the Wyoming Plan 
Core Area strategy. Core habitats designated by the State have been 
identified as PHMA on BLM and USFS lands, while non-core habitats are 
designated as GHMA. Both the BLM and USFS have adopted the more precise 
disturbance measurements developed by the State at 5 percent. With the 
exception of the fluid and non-energy leasable mineral programs, the 
Federal Plans in Wyoming are the same as with other States. However, 
these modifications were made to expand the protections already 
implemented by the State to Federally managed lands.
    The fluid mineral designation in the Federal Plans in Wyoming is 
different than in the other Federal Plans throughout the range, which 
was necessary to adopt the Wyoming Plan. For fluid minerals in Wyoming, 
PHMAs are designated Controlled Surface Use, which means these areas 
are open to leasing, but would require proposals for surface-disturbing 
activities only be authorized in accordance with the controls or 
constraints specified in the Wyoming Plan. For non-energy leasable 
minerals, PHMAs are open to non-energy leasable minerals, but are 
subject to measures intended to minimize impact in important (core) 
areas pursuant to the Wyoming Plan.
    A recent analysis of the Wyoming Plan predicted that 83 percent of 
the landscape within core area boundaries supports increasing or stable 
populations of sage-grouse (Burkhalter et al. 2015, p. 20) due to the 
conservation of high-quality intact sagebrush habitats. Seventeen 
percent of the landscape within Core Areas may have declining 
populations as those areas occur around the edges of Core Areas and, 
therefore, are subject to disturbances outside these protected areas 
(Burkhalter et al. 2015, p. 20). The factors identified in this report 
as essential for conservation, such as maintaining connected landscapes 
in sagebrush cover, and minimizing oil and gas development, are all key 
components of the Wyoming Plan. The recent completion of the BLM and 
USFS Federal Plans should reduce disturbance around the edge of Core 
Areas, thereby increasing the efficacy of the strategy. The Wyoming 
Plan was renewed in July 2015 ensuring that the protections will 
continue until at least 2022 (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, p. 6).
    The Wyoming Plan has been in place for 8 years, and has 
demonstrated its conservation value by protecting areas identified as 
important to sage-grouse conservation. As described above, development 
has been removed or minimized in Core Areas, protecting intact habitats 
from fragmentation and degradation. Carefully controlled development 
within Core Areas has had minimal to no impact to the sage-grouse as 
demonstrated by the increasing populations within Core Areas 
(Burkhalter et al. 2015, p. 20). Protections outside the Core Areas 
also provide additional conservation to habitats and birds by 
maintaining connectivity between Core Areas. The adoption of the 
Wyoming Plan into Federal land plans provides additional assurances 
that protections of Core Areas will be achieved on all lands, 
regardless of land ownership.

Montana and Oregon Conservation Efforts

    State and Private lands account for 42 percent of the sage-grouse 
occupied range. Plans developed by States for sage-grouse vary widely 
in the nature of the protective measures, with some measures being 
regulatory and some being voluntary. State Plans in three States--
Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon--contain regulatory measures

[[Page 59884]]

that effectively address threats on State or private lands. Wyoming is 
addressed separately above because of its integration with the Federal 
Plans in that State (See Wyoming section above).
    Since 2010, all States within the range of the species, except for 
California, have drafted, finalized, or implemented conservation plans 
for the sage-grouse. These plans take different approaches, but, in 
general, they identify important conservation objectives for sage-
grouse, and provide mechanisms to incentivize conservation. While 10 of 
the 11 States in the range of the sage-grouse updated plans to conserve 
the species by incorporating new information, which is a testimony to 
their concern and commitment to protect the grouse and its habitats, 
not all of these plans have been fully implemented or regulatory in 
scope. As discussed above, we will assess the conservation actions 
mandated by the State plans in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon because 
they provide the greatest degree of regulatory certainty in addressing 
potential threats on State and private lands not under the jurisdiction 
of Federal Plans. We appreciate the work that each State has completed, 
but we could not include all planning efforts in other States in our 
analysis because they did not meet a level of certainty for 
implementation and effectiveness. Regardless of the nature of State 
conservation efforts, we reviewed and considered the conservation 
efforts developed and implemented by the States consistent with the Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). A description of the other applicable State 
laws is included below in Regulatory Mechanisms and Other Conservation 
Plans.
    Montana--The Montana Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Program 
(Montana Plan) is similar to the Wyoming Plan in that it is a 
regulatory mechanism that applies to Core Areas across the State. In 
2014, the Governor signed an Executive Order that provides sage-grouse 
conservation directives for activities on State and private lands where 
approximately 70 percent of sage-grouse habitat in Montana occurs 
(Montana E.O. 10-2014, entire). The Governor of Montana issued a second 
Executive Order putting into effect the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat 
Conservation Program and giving it full regulatory authority (Montana 
E.O. 12-2015, entire). This second Executive Order included a full 
review of State regulatory authority over activities in sage-grouse 
habitat in Montana. The Montana Plan is regulatory on State lands and 
on any private lands where State permits or authorizations are 
required; it requires that State agencies adhere to the requirements 
and stipulations of the Program. The Montana Executive Order created 
the Montana Sage-Grouse Oversight Team (Montana Oversight Team) 
composed of State Agency Directors to oversee administration of the 
Montana Plan. Additional staffing of the Montana Plan includes a 
Program Manager, GIS Manager and technician, biologists, and support 
for seasonal work. The Montana Plan and supporting documents clearly 
identify under what regulatory authority the State and private entities 
are required to act in accordance with the Executive Order.
    In the previous section, we describe in detail how the Wyoming Plan 
addresses the issues of habitat loss and fragmentation and disturbance 
to sage-grouse. The Montana Plan closely follows the structure of the 
Wyoming Plan and, similarly, uses information and guidance from the COT 
Report to identify and reduce impacts associated with threats to sage-
grouse in Montana. The Montana Executive Order also identifies 
scientifically valid performance standards based upon number of males 
at leks to ensure that the Montana Plan actions are effective; 
monitoring protocols are also included. The Montana Plan specifies 
adaptive management strategies in response to this monitoring 
information. Implementation of the Montana Plan will occur immediately 
in response to future and additional actions that occur in sage-grouse 
habitat; full implementation of the Montana Plan is expected by January 
2016.
    The Montana Plan includes similar requirements as those identified 
in the Wyoming Plan including the following: Use of a 5 percent 
disturbance cap in Core Areas; allowance of only one disturbance (well 
pad, grouped impacts) per section (259 ha (640 ac)) for oil and gas and 
mining; prohibition of sagebrush eradication or conversion; and lek 
buffers and disturbance buffers in both Core Areas and general 
habitats. For a complete discussion of why these methods are effective 
in supporting viable sage-grouse populations, please see the previous 
discussion of the Wyoming State and Federal Plan, above.
    The Montana State Legislature recently passed, and the Governor 
signed, the Montana Sage-Grouse Protection Act during the 2015 
legislative session. This Act ensures that critical funding and support 
are available for necessary sage-grouse conservation efforts in the 
future. This Act funds staff resources to implement the conservation 
program, and includes a revolving conservation fund with an initial 
balance of 10 million dollars. This funding authorization is directly 
tied to the implementation of the E.O. and provides certainty of 
implementation. The Governor also signed the Montana Greater Sage-
Grouse Stewardship Act, which establishes the Montana Sage-Grouse 
Oversight Team and provides grant-based funding for voluntary sage-
grouse conservation efforts. Unless specifically excluded, all State 
actions (including those prescribed for sage-grouse conservation) 
require review under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which is 
analogous to the National Environmental Policy Act at the State level. 
Given this commitment from the State, there is certainty that the 
Montana Plan will be implemented and effective.
    In addition to the Montana Plan, private landowners in Montana have 
worked with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to enroll nearly 80,000 
ha (200,000 ac) in 30-year sagebrush leases. Montana Fish, Wildlife, 
and Parks provided 1.2 million dollars for these leases where 
landowners agreed not to eliminate sagebrush on the enrolled acres 
(Wightman, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 2015, pers. comm.).
    Oregon--The Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan (Oregon Plan) ensures 
regulatory protection and enhancement of sage-grouse and their habitat 
on State and private lands in Oregon. This Plan is backed by two new 
rules in the Oregon Legislature and an Executive Order. The Oregon Plan 
includes explicit habitat and population goals with incremental 
completion dates and prioritizes avoidance with standards for 
mitigation of impacts if necessary. The Oregon Plan builds on the core 
area strategies utilized by Wyoming and Montana to address all sage-
grouse habitats. The Oregon Plan applies to more than 6 million ha 
(approximately 15 million ac) of all landownership types and includes 
regulatory mechanisms, such as disturbance caps and adaptive management 
triggers, to reduce impacts to sage-grouse in the State.
    The Oregon Plan includes similar provisions to those identified in 
the Wyoming Plan and Montana Plan. Based upon the nature and extent of 
threats to sage-grouse in Oregon and information in the 2010 Finding 
and COT Report, the Oregon Plan includes limitations on disturbance in 
Core Areas through disturbance caps and an avoidance and minimization 
strategy. Actions permitted through county actions (such as a new 
subdivision or county road) as well as actions permitted through State 
agencies (such as a new large-scale energy or utility project) are both 
subject to the Plan as

[[Page 59885]]

outlined in the two Rules (Oregon OAR 635-140-0025, entire; and Oregon 
OAR 660-023-0115, entire; OR E.O. 2015). For specific discussions of 
why these stipulations are effective, please see the Wyoming State and 
Federal Plan discussion. The Oregon Plan identifies fire management 
measures, such as funding and logistical support for Rural Fire 
Protection Areas. Wildfire and the fire/invasives cycle can impact 
large areas of sage-grouse habitat in very short periods of time, 
making prevention of wildfire important for minimizing effects. This 
commitment improves the likelihood that wildfires will be effectively 
controlled to reduce the potential negative effects to sage-grouse 
habitat. Further, the Oregon Plan includes a State-administered 
compensatory mitigation program designed to synchronize with BLM 
mitigation processes. The Oregon Plan has identified an overall 
population goal of 30,000 birds with interim performance measures and 
corresponding monitoring protocol to ensure progress towards the larger 
goal. The Oregon Plan commits to adaptively manage for sage-grouse in 
response to this monitoring data.
    Many of the Oregon Plan measures are similar or complementary to 
those included in the Federal Plans. This aligned framework of tools, 
rules, and protocols across local, State, and Federal processes will 
ensure that coordinated mitigation and voluntary actions conserve the 
species across all land ownerships in Oregon. It also creates the 
transparency and credibility necessary for public support of the 
State's strategy.
    The Oregon Plan identifies several State agencies as well as 
specific staffing and funding requirements necessary for full 
implementation of the Oregon Plan. In addition to gaining public 
support and identifying necessary staffing, financial support has been 
secured through the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, which has 
committed 10 million dollars over the next 10 years. These funds are 
used to implement aspects of the Oregon Plan that manage impacts from 
fire and invasive species. In addition, 3.34 million dollars of new 
funding for sage-grouse conservation was appropriated by the Oregon 
Legislature for the 2015 through 2017 funding cycle. These commitments 
ensure that the Oregon Plan will be successfully implemented for the 
conservation of the species.

Sage Grouse Initiative

    The Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) works with landowners and other 
partners to design and deliver voluntary conservation practices, 
including grazing systems and conservation easements, on private lands 
to ameliorate impacts to sage-grouse while improving the sustainability 
of working ranches. Private lands account for 39 percent of sage-grouse 
occupied range. Habitat under private ownership may be at greater risk 
of conversion through development than neighboring Federal land. The 
Sage Grouse Initiative's past, present, and future contributions are 
considerable because, while private lands are less than half of the 
sage-grouse occupied range, the potential biological value of those 
lands for various phases of the species' life history is high, as is 
their potential conservation value. The NRCS carries out conservation 
through a variety of authorities and tools. We have identified specific 
activities that are directly benefiting sage-grouse under SGI (Table 
4).

                                                 Table 4--Conservation Completed by SGI for 2010 to 2014
                                                                [From NRCS 2015a, p. 38]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Grazing systems          Easements          Conifer removal           Seeding         Fence modification
                    MZ                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                ha         ac         ha         ac         ha         ac         ha         ac         km         mi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.........................................    554,529  1,370,269     26,661     65,881         73        181      3,074      7,597        182        113
II........................................    216,285    534,450     95,186    235,210      1,437      3,551      1,023      2,527         37         23
III.......................................     15,199     37,557      4,529     11,191      7,630     18,855      2,240      5,534         16         10
IV........................................    127,448    314,930     39,727     98,167     83,405    206,099     12,035     29,740        153         95
V.........................................     35,736     88,306     11,684     28,871     71,061    175,595        439      1,085        129         80
VI........................................     33,619     83,073      1,768      4,369          0          0        274        677         47         29
VII.......................................      3,667      9,061      3,316      8,193        389        962        388        960          2          1
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................    986,482  2,437,646    182,870    451,882    163,996    405,243     19,474     48,120        565        351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Grazing Management--The objective of SGI's Prescribed Grazing 
protocol is to ensure that rangelands are managed sustainably and 
support functional sagebrush ecosystems (NRCS 2015a, p. 23). Since 
2010, SGI has improved rangeland health through rotational grazing 
systems, re-vegetating with sagebrush and perennial grasses, and 
controlling invasive species (NRCS 2015a, p. 23). The techniques 
employed by SGI to improve and/or maintain habitat suitability for 
sage-grouse are consistent with the recommendations provided in the COT 
Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 45-46).
    Easements--The SGI has enrolled 182,109 ha (450,000 ac) in 
conservation easements; 80 percent of these occur inside occupied sage-
grouse habitat, and 94 percent provide permanent protection (NRCS 
2015a, p. 1). Under these easements, habitat cannot be subdivided or 
converted to agriculture, thus protecting sage-grouse habitat from 
development. By maintaining these lands in sagebrush habitat, these 
easements support existing sage-grouse populations and decrease 
likelihood of fragmentation.
    Restoration--The SGI ameliorates impacts through restoration of 
disturbed and degraded habitat. The SGI has reclaimed 163,995 ha 
(405,241 ac) of otherwise suitable habitat by direct removal of 
conifers encroaching on sagebrush habitat. Removal of early-stage 
conifers should improve and expand sage-grouse habitats by precluding 
ecological type conversion to an otherwise unsuitable habitat (Johnson 
and Miller 2006, p. 8; Casazza et al. 2011, p. 163; Knick et al. 2013, 
p. 1544). Through monitoring data, SGI is working to assess how birds 
use areas with recent conifer removal. Anecdotal reports suggest that 
sage-grouse have responded positively to these efforts. Moreover, SGI 
and others are developing conifer maps in MZs III, VI, V, and VII (NRCS 
2015a, p. 19). The SGI will use this new information to target efforts 
where removal will have the greatest value for sage-grouse (NRCS 2015a, 
p. 19 and NRCS 2015b, p. 10).
    Fence modification is another aspect of SGI restoration. Marking 
and

[[Page 59886]]

removing fences can reduce direct mortality to sage-grouse by reducing 
fence strikes. NRCS estimates that SGI fence marking prevents 2,600 
collisions annually (NRCS 2015a, p. 22).
    The SGI uses direct seeding to restore habitat through the addition 
of native species. Through grazing systems, re-vegetating former 
rangeland with sagebrush and perennial grasses and controlling invasive 
weeds, SGI has enhanced rangeland health inside PACs (NRCS 2015a, p. 
2).
    Monitoring and Adaptive Management--The NRCS has continued to 
improve conservation of sagebrush habitat through new information and 
new scientific methods (NRCS 2015a, entire; NRCS 2015b, entire). They 
employ habitat suitability models to target conservation easements and 
address conifer encroachment in the early stages of development to 
improve the benefit of their treatments. By monitoring and tracking the 
effectiveness of their efforts and their willingness to incorporate 
this information into their management, SGI has ensured the long-term 
implementation of their program will achieve conservation for sage-
grouse on private lands.
    Since 2010, the NRCS, through the SGI, has invested approximately 
425.5 million dollars, with 76 percent of investments occurring within 
PACs (Table 4). To date, 1,129 ranches have participated in the SGI, 
across all 11 States in the species' range (NRCS 2015a, p. 1). Through 
the 2014 Farm Bill, NRCS will continue and accelerate its efforts, 
ensuring a durable and increasingly targeted conservation effort on 
private lands in sage-grouse country (NRCS 2015a, p. 29; NRCS 2015b, p. 
6). Starting in 2015, NRCS will add 198 million dollars to continue 
sage-grouse conservation on private lands in the future (NRCS 2015a, p. 
29; NRCS 2015b, p. 6).
    Where they have been implemented, these conservation efforts have 
addressed certain potential threats to sage-grouse, such as urban and 
exurban development, infrastructure, and improper grazing (defined for 
the purposes of this analysis as grazing at an intensity or in ways 
that impair ecosystem functions of the sagebrush ecosystem) [See 
Grazing and Rangeland Management, below]. The nature of those potential 
threats and the impact of SGI's conservation in ameliorating some 
potential threats are discussed in further detail below (see Summary of 
Information Pertaining to the Five Factors). Given the history of 
success of this program, the level of local and national support, NRCS' 
application of adaptive management, demonstrated partnerships, and the 
recent reauthorization and dedicated resources through the 2014 Farm 
Bill, we expect that SGI will continue to provide valuable on-the-
ground conservation to sage-grouse and its habitat into the future.

Candidate Conservation Agreements

    Over the past 2 years, we have prioritized Candidate Conservation 
Agreements with Assurances (CCAAs) to focus conservation on non-Federal 
lands for the benefit of sage-grouse. Candidate Conservation Agreements 
with Assurances provide assurances to both landowners and the Service 
that conservation will continue into the future without resulting in a 
regulatory burden on the landowners involved. Through these agreements, 
landowners agree to avoid certain activities that may be harmful to 
sage-grouse, or to undertake activities on their property that benefit 
sage-grouse (e.g., restore degraded habitat, create new habitat, 
augment existing populations, and restore historical populations). In 
Oregon, more than 575,000 ha (1.4 million ac) of rangeland have been 
effectively conserved for sage-grouse through enrollment in a CCAA. In 
Wyoming, 36 CCAAs have been completed, with more than 180,000 ha 
(445,000 ac) enrolled. In addition to CCAAs, we also employ Candidate 
Conservation Agreements; these agreements can exist between the Service 
and private landowners, local governments, States, and Federal 
agencies.
    Candidate Conservation Agreements operate through tailored 
conservation strategies that specify required activities that will 
benefit sage-grouse. Although individual agreements vary, the focus is 
always on improving sage-grouse habitat or populations. Through CCAAs, 
landowners may restore existing degraded sagebrush to provide habitat 
for sage-grouse. They may also create new habitat or simply, as with 
conservation easements, protect existing habitat for the benefit of the 
species. As an example, landowners enrolled in the Oregon CCAA have 
agreed to maintain contiguous habitat by avoiding further 
fragmentation. The objective for this required conservation measure is 
for no net loss in: (1) Habitat quantity (as measured in acres) and (2) 
habitat quality (as determined by the ecological state). Additionally, 
every enrolled landowner must have at least one conservation measure in 
place to address each threat identified during the baseline assessment 
of individual properties.
    Candidate Conservation Agreements are voluntary agreements. As 
such, it is possible for landowners to terminate these agreements. 
However, based on previous experiences with existing CCAAs for a 
variety of other species (Anderson and Moore, USFWS, 2015, pers. 
comm.), we have found that landowners generally do not withdraw from 
these agreements. Of the 34 CCAAs the Service has finalized nationwide 
for a variety of species, 32 are still in effect and 2 expired based on 
the term of the agreement, indicating that landowners continue to 
implement CCAAs following finalization of the agreements (Anderson and 
Moore, USFWS, 2015, pers. comm.). Landowners commit to beneficial 
actions that they are willing to implement to receive the assurances of 
no further regulatory requirements if the species would become listed. 
In addition to CCAAs, we work with private landowners through the 
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program through Private Landowner 
Agreements to benefit species and their habitats. A past study on the 
retention of restored wetlands found that the vast majority of 
landowners continued to implement the practices from their agreements 
well after the agreement ended (Fairchild 2004, entire). Further, over 
the last decade, in an 8-State area roughly equivalent to the Rocky 
Mountain sage-grouse range, the majority of landowners completed their 
agreements and continued practices after the agreements were completed 
(Johnson, USFWS, 2015, pers. comm.). Habitat loss and degradation were 
identified as threats to the species in 2010; through efforts such as 
these, sage-grouse habitat remains available to the species. Given the 
ongoing fidelity these efforts to conserve sage-grouse and its habitat, 
along with our previous experiences with other species, we conclude 
that there is sufficient certainty that existing CCAAs will continue to 
be implemented into the future.

Secretarial Order 3336

    On January 5, 2015, the Secretary of the Interior signed 
Secretarial Order 3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, Management, and 
Restoration (Secretarial Order), that provides guidance on wildfire 
management in the sagebrush ecosystem (Department of the Interior (DOI) 
2015b, entire). The Secretarial Order places a priority on 
``protecting, conserving, and restoring the health of the sagebrush 
ecosystem and, in particular, sage-grouse habitat, while maintaining 
safe and efficient operations,'' and allocates fire resources and 
assets associated with wildfire to reflect that priority. The 
Secretarial

[[Page 59887]]

Order established a Rangeland Fire Task Force (Task Force) to prepare 
and oversee an Implementation Plan for accomplishing the objectives of 
the Secretarial Order. The Task Force completed an ``Initial Report'' 
outlining actions that can be undertaken during the 2015 western 
wildfire season and that plan is being implemented (DOI 2015c, entire). 
The Task Force also prepared a ``Final Report'' that identifies long-
term activities, beyond the 2015 fire season, that can be implemented 
to further address the effects of wildfire in the Great Basin (DOI 
2015d, entire). A full discussion of the Secretarial Order, the Initial 
and Final Reports, and how they address the effects from wildfire and 
invasive species is provided below (see Wildfire and Invasive Plants).

Summary of New Information Since 2010

    Since 2010, there have been several major changes in the regulatory 
mechanisms that minimize impacts to sage-grouse and their habitats. 
Foremost among these are the adoption of new Federal Plans specifically 
tailored to conserving sage-grouse over more than half of its occupied 
range. These Federal Plans now include substantial provisions for 
addressing activities that occur in sage-grouse habitats and affect the 
species, including those threats identified in 2010 as having 
inadequate regulatory measures. Aside from addressing specific 
activities, the Federal Plans include provisions for monitoring, 
adaptive management, mitigation, and limitations on anthropogenic 
disturbance to reduce impacts authorized in sage-grouse habitats. The 
Federal Plans are the foundation of land-use management on BLM and USFS 
managed lands. We are confident that these Federal Plans will be 
implemented and that the new changes, which are based on the scientific 
literature, will effectively reduce and minimize impacts to the species 
and its habitat.
    In addition to the Federal Plans, the BLM and USFS have provided 
new policy guidance and management direction for the management of 
wildfire and invasive plant in the sagebrush ecosystems. The 
Secretarial Order establishes new, overarching policy direction for DOI 
and its wildfire prevention and suppression efforts by prioritizing 
``protecting, conserving, and restoring the health of the sagebrush 
ecosystem and, in particular, sage-grouse habitat, while maintaining 
safe and efficient operations.'' The Secretarial Order also requires 
that DOI allocate its wildfire resources and assets in ways that 
fulfill the priority of protecting, conserving, and restoring the 
health of the sagebrush ecosystem. The Secretarial Order aims to reduce 
the size, severity, and cost of suppressing wildfire in sage-grouse 
habitats by reducing the spread of invasive plants and prioritizing 
resources to ensure that suppression efforts are effective.
    Further, 10 of the 11 States within the occupied range of the sage-
grouse have revised and adopted sage-grouse conservation plans. State 
sage-grouse conservation plans in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon contain 
regulatory mechanisms that minimize impacts to the species and its 
habitat. Most notably, the Wyoming Plan has been in place since 2008 
and has effectively minimized impacts within core habitats, protecting 
the highest density areas for the species within the State. The Montana 
and Oregon State Plans use proven conservation measures including 
disturbance caps, density restrictions, and lek buffers to minimize 
disturbance to important habitats. In combination, the Federal and 
three State plans cover 90 percent of the sage-grouse breeding habitat 
where they provide regulatory mechanisms that reduce potential adverse 
effects to sage-grouse. These State and Federal Plans, together with 
the private lands conservation provided by SGI and CCAAs, represent a 
substantial increase in sage-grouse conservation since 2010. These 
Plans and private land efforts provide conservation for sage-grouse now 
and into the future and ensure that the most important habitats will 
remain distributed across the landscape to support the populations 
identified as critical to the long-term conservation of the species.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines 
an ``endangered'' species as ``any species which is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,'' and 
a ``threatened'' species as one ``which is likely to become an 
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(6), (20)). Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may determine a species warrants listing 
as endangered or threatened based on any of the following 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.

    In making this finding, we discuss below information regarding the 
status and potential threats to the sage-grouse in relation to the five 
statutory factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Our 
evaluation of potential threats is based on information provided in the 
relevant petitions, information available in our files, and other 
sources considered to be the best scientific and commercial information 
available, including published and unpublished studies and reports. In 
considering what factors might constitute threats to the species, we 
must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to 
determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that 
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor, 
but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a 
threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the 
factor may be a threat to the species and we then attempt to determine 
if that factor rises to the level of a threat, meaning that it may 
drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that 
the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as 
those terms are defined by the Act. This does not necessarily require 
empirical proof of a threat. The combination of exposure and some 
corroborating evidence of how the species is likely impacted could 
suffice. The mere identification of factors that could impact a species 
negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that listing is 
warranted; we require evidence that the threats, either alone or when 
combined, are significant, in that they act on the species to the point 
that the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or 
``threatened species'' under the Act.

Habitat Fragmentation

    In the 2010 finding, we determined that the greatest threat to the 
species was habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A) due to a variety 
of causes, including but not limited to, energy development, 
infrastructure, invasive species, and wildfire (75 FR 13910, March 23, 
2010, p. 13986). Sagebrush habitats were becoming increasingly degraded 
and fragmented due to the impacts of multiple threats, including direct 
conversion, urbanization, infrastructure such as roads and power

[[Page 59888]]

lines built in support of several activities, wildfire and the change 
in wildfire frequency, incursion of invasive plants, improper grazing, 
and nonrenewable and renewable energy development. Many of these 
threats were found to be exacerbated by the effects of climate change, 
which could influence long-term habitat trends.
    As noted in 2010, fundamental characteristics of sagebrush 
landscapes have changed since Euro-American settlement (Knick and 
Connelly 2011, p. 7). Very little of the extant sagebrush is 
undisturbed, with up to 50 to 60 percent having altered understories or 
having been lost to direct conversion (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612). 
Conversion to cropland and other land uses has reduced the quantity of 
area that is dominated by sagebrush land cover. The composition of 
sagebrush communities has changed with the expansion of junipers and 
Pinus spp. (pinyon) woodlands (Miller and Rose 1999, p. 556) and the 
invasion of nonnative species such cheatgrass (West and Young 2000, p. 
262). Habitat suitability has also been affected by the presence of 
anthropogenic structures such as communication towers and power lines 
(Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Beck et al. 2006, p. 1070). Lastly, the 
configuration of sagebrush mosaics across the species' range has 
changed, resulting in the risk of increased population isolation, 
exposure to predators in areas of edge habitat, and invasive plants 
(Saunders et al. 1991, pp. 22-24; Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 424; 
Knick and Connelly 2011, pp. 7-14).
    The biology of sagebrush and the ecology of the sagebrush ecosystem 
makes restoration of disturbed areas very difficult and processes to 
restore sagebrush habitat are relatively unproven (Knick et al. 2003, 
p. 620). Active restoration activities are often limited by financial 
and logistical resources (Knick et al. 2003, p. 620; Miller et al. 
2011, p. 147; Pyke 2011, p. 544) and may require decades or centuries 
to be effective (Knick et al. 2003, p. 620). Meaningful restoration for 
sage-grouse requires action on a landscape, watershed, or eco-regional 
scale rather than individual, unconnected efforts (Knick et al. 2003, 
p. 623; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 469). Recently, investigations have 
focused on ascertaining where and how sagebrush habitat restoration is 
likely to be more effective (Pyke 2011, pp. 531-548; Miller et al. 
2014, pp. 468-481; Chambers et al. 2014b, pp. 440-454). Because loss 
and fragmentation of habitats due to invasives and wildfire is one of 
the biggest impacts to sage-grouse, particularly in the Great Basin, it 
is important that these investigations continue and that management 
actions continue to focus on effective wildfire suppression and habitat 
restoration.
    Because of the challenges with sagebrush restoration, management 
efforts in sagebrush ecosystems are usually focused on habitat 
maintenance (Miller et al. 2011, p. 183; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 470, 
472). This goal has primarily been achieved through the management of 
activities that can result in habitat loss and fragmentations such as 
non-renewable energy development, agricultural conversion, wildfire, 
and invasive plants, consistent with the recommendations in the COT 
Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 40-52). Each of the activities that can cause 
habitat fragmentation will be discussed further below, as well as any 
conservation efforts that have been implemented to address those 
impacts.

Nonrenewable Energy Development

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of nonrenewable energy development 
on sage-grouse and concluded that the development and related 
infrastructure were substantial contributors to habitat loss and 
fragmentation in the past, and that it would continue into the future, 
particularly in the Rocky Mountain portion of the species' range. We 
also found that regulations addressing nonrenewable energy development 
were inadequate at that time to address this threat. It was the lack of 
regulatory mechanisms that led us to conclude this nonrenewable energy 
development would continue at rates similar to or greater than 
historical rates of development. The 2010 finding concluded that 
habitat fragmentation, caused in part by nonrenewable energy 
development, and inadequate regulatory mechanisms were significant 
threats to the species, then and into the foreseeable future, such that 
listing was warranted under the Act (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 
13986-13988).
    Nonrenewable energy development includes the exploration, 
construction, and drilling of wells and installation of supporting 
infrastructure needed to extract and transport oil, natural gas, coal, 
coal-bed natural gas, coal-bed methane, and other types of gas. 
Nonrenewable energy development begins with exploratory surveys and the 
construction of access roads and well pads, followed by drilling, 
extracting, and transporting the energy reserves along roads and 
pipelines. Additional infrastructure needed for nonrenewable energy 
development often includes compressor stations, pumping stations, 
electrical generators, and power lines (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39; 
BLM 2007, pp. 2-110).
    Nonrenewable energy development has occurred in sage-grouse 
habitats since the late 1800s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-28), with 
wells historically concentrated in MZs I, II, VII, and the eastern 
portion of MZ III (IHS Incorporated 2014, entire). Specifically, 
nonrenewable energy development is concentrated above four geologic 
basins across the sage-grouse range: The Powder River Basin (MZ I); the 
Williston Basin (MZ I); the Southwestern Wyoming Basin (MZ II); and the 
Uinta-Piceance Basin (MZs II, III, and VII). These four basins overlap 
with the highest density of sage-grouse, and the largest number of leks 
in the Rocky Mountain portion of the occupied range (Doherty et al. 
2015, entire). Approximately 10 percent of the species' overall 
occupied range has been directly or indirectly affected by nonrenewable 
energy development, with approximately 20 percent affected in MZ I, 20 
percent affected in MZ II, and 29 percent affected in MZ VII (Knick et 
al. 2011, p. 240). The existing development and infrastructure has 
already affected the species distribution (Naugle et al. 2011, pp. 489-
491). Nonrenewable energy development is expected to continue in the 
occupied range of the sage-grouse based on the estimates of available 
energy reserves and projected trends in development rates (Copeland et 
al. 2009, p. 5; Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 394; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 
467).
    Nonrenewable energy development can remove and fragment sagebrush 
habitats (Factor A). Well pads vary in size from 0.10 ha (0.25 ac) for 
coal-bed natural gas wells to greater than 7 ha (17.3 ac) for deep gas 
wells and multi-well pads (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39; BLM 2007, pp. 
2-123). Pads for compressor stations typically occupy 5 to 7 ha (12.4 
to 17.3 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-39). However, where geology 
permits the use of new horizontal and directional drilling 
technologies, multiple wells can be placed on one pad, thereby reducing 
the amount of surface disturbance associated with wells, roads, power 
lines, and pipelines (Applegate and Owens 2014, p. 288).
    The reduction and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats can decrease 
sage-grouse abundance and reduce the distribution of sage-grouse across 
the landscape (Knick et al., 2011, pp. 247-250; Leu and Hanser 2011, p. 
270). Male sage-grouse may avoid leks if there are five or more wells 
within 3.0 km (1.9 mi), and sage-grouse are less likely to occupy 
habitats with wells spaced at 32 ha (80 ac) (Doherty et al. 2008, p. 
193).

[[Page 59889]]

Well densities on Federal lands have typically ranged from 1 well per 
16 ha to 32 ha (40 ac to 80 ac), although densities as high as 1 well 
per 4 ha (10 ac) do occur (BLM 2006, pp. 2-5; Naugle et al. 2011, p. 
497). Impacts from nonrenewable energy extend beyond the physical 
footprints of wells and may include indirect effects such as the 
physical and behavioral changes, increased mortality, and reduced 
reproductive success (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 459; Walker et al. 
2007a, p. 2651; Holloran et al. 2010, p. 70; Knick et al. 2011, p. 
240).
    Sage-grouse avoid habitats near non-renewable energy developments, 
including important wintering habitats and leks (Dzialak et al. 2013, 
p. 16; Smith et al. 2014, p. 15). Sage-grouse have lower nest 
initiation and nest success rates near nonrenewable energy development 
(Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 517; Webb et al. 2012, p. 9), and reduced 
survival rates (Holloran et al. 2010, p. 70; Kirol 2012, p. 15). Due to 
the strong habitat fidelity exhibited by adult sage-grouse, declining 
population trends may take up to 10 years to detect following the onset 
of nonrenewable energy development. (Doherty et al. 2010a, p. 5; Harju 
et al. 2010, pp. 441-445; Taylor et al. 2012a, p. 8; Gregory and Beck 
2014, p. e97132). This delay poses challenges to detecting population-
level impacts resulting from development, and may prevent timely 
implementation of measures to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate those 
impacts. As a single conservation tool, mitigation measures (such as 
habitat restoration and seasonal or timing restrictions) to reduce 
impacts may not be sufficient to prevent sage-grouse declines due to 
nonrenewable energy development (Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2651; Doherty 
et al. 2008, p. 192; Harju et al. 2010, p. 445), as the associated 
infrastructure persists on the landscape for several generations of 
sage-grouse. However, as part of a larger tool set that includes 
avoidance and minimization, mitigation can serve as a helpful 
conservation measure (USFWS 2014c).
    Nonrenewable energy resources are the largest source of energy 
worldwide, and demand for these resources could increase by up to 1.3 
percent annually in the United States and 50 percent worldwide by the 
year 2030 (National Petroleum Council 2007, p. 46; Naugle et al. 2011, 
p. 490). Nonrenewable energy resources will likely be in demand and 
used in the United States through the year 2030, although energy forms 
and extraction techniques may change in the future (EIA 2009, entire). 
Market conditions and extraction technologies influence the rates of 
nonrenewable energy development in North America (Applegate and Owens 
2014, p. 287); the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 109-58) 
and its amendments mandate that the United States increase its domestic 
energy development. Therefore, nonrenewable energy development is 
likely to continue throughout the sage-grouse range into the future, 
although its form and extent across the landscape may change.
    In 2010, we assessed impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat based 
on the portion of occupied range where a nonrenewable energy project 
was occurring and where there was increased potential for future 
development (75 FR March 1310, March 23, 2010, pp. 13942-13948). This 
approach was based on the best available GIS data at that time but may 
have overestimated some effects, because we had less precise 
information regarding areas of high oil and gas development potential 
and we measured impacts against all lands within the occupied range.
    For this status review, we used peer-reviewed and published 
methodologies (Copeland et al. 2009, entire) to model the probability 
of future oil and gas development impacting sage-grouse. The model 
focused on assessing the risk of nonrenewable energy in MZs I and II, 
the two areas with the highest potential for future nonrenewable energy 
development (Figure 2) (Juliusson and Doherty 2015). Although 
nonrenewable energy development potential exists and will continue in 
the Uinta-Piceance Basin (MZ VII), we did not apply the model to MZ VII 
because the relative proportion of potential development was low, even 
under the highest development scenario. The model used geological 
information about potentially available oil and gas resources to map 
areas of likely future development (Juliusson and Doherty 2015). We 
also used Oil & Gas Resource Assessments developed by the USGS to 
incorporate future maximum potential development scenarios into the 
analysis (Juliusson and Doherty 2015). The analysis quantified 
potential effects to sage-grouse by calculating the percent of the 
Population Index and breeding habitat distribution potentially exposed 
to future nonrenewable energy development based on the availability of 
oil and gas resources. The potential effects from nonrenewable energy 
development were assessed with and without regulatory mechanisms 
contained in the Federal Plans, the Wyoming Plan, and the Montana Plan 
(see Conservation Efforts, below). The estimate of potential non-
renewable energy effects without conservation planning efforts is 
roughly equivalent to what was evaluated in 2010.
    Our analysis indicates that the Federal Plans, the Wyoming Plan, 
and the Montana Plan are reducing the exposure of the sage-grouse to 
nonrenewable energy, as measured by the portions of the Population 
Index and breeding habitat, in MZs I and II, the two MZs at greatest 
risk of future nonrenewable energy development (Table 5). Without the 
regulatory mechanisms in MZ I, 28 percent of the Population Index and 
21 percent of the breeding habitat could be affected by nonrenewable 
energy development. Without regulatory mechanisms in MZ II, 27 percent 
of the Population Index and 25 percent of the breeding habitat could be 
affected (Table 5). However, with the regulatory mechanisms provided by 
the State and Federal plans, the risk of nonrenewable energy 
development decreases. With regulatory mechanisms, 17 percent of the 
Population Index and 14 percent of the breeding habitat could be 
exposed to nonrenewable energy development in MZ I, and 8 percent of 
the Population Index and 9 percent of the breeding habitat could be 
exposed to nonrenewable energy development in MZ II. Our analysis shows 
that the State and Federal regulatory mechanisms reduce the risk of 
nonrenewable energy exposure to the Population Index and breeding 
habitat by more than 35 percent in MZ I and more than 60 percent in MZ 
II.

[[Page 59890]]



Table 5--Potential Exposure to Sage-Grouse Populations and Breeding Habitat From Nonrenewable Energy Development
        in MZs I and II, With and Without the Regulatory Mechanisms, at the Highest Development Scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Without regulatory mechanisms            With regulatory mechanisms
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Management zone               % of the                                % of the
                                   population index    % of the breeding   population index    % of the breeding
                                        exposed         habitat exposed         exposed         habitat exposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...............................                  28                  21                  17                  14
II..............................                  27                  25                   8                   9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To summarize, our analysis quantifies that without regulation a 
high proportion of the Population Index and breeding habitat in MZs I 
and II could be exposed to and potentially negatively affected by 
nonrenewable energy development. However, with the regulatory 
mechanisms enacted since 2010, the potential risk from nonrenewable 
energy development is substantially reduced in MZs I and II (Table 5). 
Future impacts to sage-grouse from new development could vary based on 
other factors, such as economic markets, technologies, densities, 
proximity to existing development, and the location of new development; 
however, our results show that the Federal and State regulatory 
mechanisms in MZs I and II reduce habitat loss and fragmentation due to 
nonrenewable energy development. The next section will discuss these 
conservation efforts, including those regulatory mechanisms designed to 
address the effects of nonrenewable energy development and how they 
ameliorate this potential threat.

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, State and Federal agencies have worked collaboratively 
to develop regulatory mechanisms, that is, legally binding and 
enforceable sage-grouse conservation measures, as well as other 
nonregulatory conservation efforts, to reduce or eliminate the 
potential threat of new nonrenewable energy development to sage-grouse 
and its habitat. Those efforts are discussed in detail below.
    State Plans--Three States where nonrenewable energy development has 
historically been concentrated have implemented regulatory mechanisms 
to address this potential threat. As described below, Wyoming and 
Montana Plans provide regulatory mechanisms to address habitat loss, 
habitat fragmentation, and disturbance associated with nonrenewable-
energy development on applicable lands in their States. In addition, 
the Utah Executive Order contains a regulatory mechanism for potential 
nonrenewable energy development that is discussed below.
    The Wyoming Plan provides regulatory mechanisms to reduce impacts 
associated with energy development on all lands within Core Areas. The 
Wyoming Plan features development stipulations to guide and regulate 
development within the Core Population Areas to avoid as much as 
possible, but, if avoidance is not possible, to minimize and mitigate, 
impacts to sage-grouse and its habitat (See Regulatory Mechanisms 
section below; Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, entire). Specific measures include 
controlled surface use, density of development restrictions, seasonal 
and noise restrictions, and lek buffers. Since implementation of the 
plan began in 2008, the number of new nonrenewable energy wells in 
sage-grouse habitats declined by 80 percent and permits for potential 
new development of single wells has declined by 65 percent (USFWS 
2014b). At the same time, applications for directional and horizontal 
drilling permits, which congregate disturbance from multiple wells into 
one area, increased by 66 and 65 percent respectively, representing a 
decrease in sage-grouse habitat lost to nonrenewable energy development 
(USFWS 2014b). The BLM analyzed existing lease information and found 
that only 14 percent of PHMA in Wyoming is already leased (Carmen, BLM, 
2015, pers. com.). The Wyoming Plan recognizes valid existing rights. 
``Activities existing or permitted in Core Populations Areas prior to 
August 1, 2008, will not be required to be managed under Core 
Population Area Stipulations'' (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, p. 4). Our risk 
analysis described above confirms that the Wyoming Plan, together with 
the Federal Plans, reduces the potential exposure of nonrenewable 
energy development to the Population Index by more than 35 percent in 
MZ I and 60 percent in MZ II (Table 5) where nonrenewable energy 
development has historically been concentrated. Results were similar 
for breeding habitat. Risk of exposure, however, is a measure of areas 
where regulatory mechanisms would allow development and does not equate 
to a forecast of where actual impacts will occur; actual energy 
development and potential impacts are likely to be much lower than the 
risk analysis. While some development will occur in the future, the 
Wyoming Plan directs projects to areas that will avoid impacts, 
includes stipulations to minimize indirect effects, and if necessary, 
requires mitigation to benefit the species.
    The Montana Plan also provides regulatory mechanisms very similar 
to those described above for Wyoming that reduce impacts from 
nonrenewable-energy development. Montana's State plan includes 
controlled surface use, restrictions on density of development, 
seasonal and noise restrictions, and lek buffers. Similar to the 
Wyoming Plan, it is designed to reduce impacts associated with energy 
development in Core Areas on State lands and private lands where a 
State authorization is required (Montana E.O. 10-2014, entire; see 
Conservation Efforts section above). The Montana Plan includes a 
controlled surface use, density of development restrictions, seasonal 
and noise restrictions, and lek buffers.
    The Utah Executive Order requires that the Utah Division of Oil Gas 
and Mining coordinate with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 
prior to issuing energy development permits. Further, the Plan directs 
the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining to implement recommendations 
provided during that coordination that require avoidance and 
minimization measures on State and private lands consistent with the 
conservation plan. These measures are subject to the statutory 
requirements to protect rights on private property and avoid waste of 
the mineral resource.
    To summarize, since the 2010 finding, States have undertaken 
considerable effort to reduce the impact of nonrenewable energy 
development on sage-grouse and efforts are consistent with the 
recommendations in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 43-44). State Plans 
in Wyoming and Montana provide regulatory mechanisms that direct

[[Page 59891]]

development out of Core Areas and minimize indirect effects, 
effectively reducing the risk of habitat loss and fragmentation in MZs 
I and II. In addition, the Utah Executive Order contains a regulatory 
mechanism that requires consultation with the State Division of 
Wildlife Resources and implementation of its recommendations to avoid 
and minimize sage-grouse impacts. The State Plans work together with 
the Federal Plans, as discussed below, to reduce nonrenewable energy 
effects to sage-grouse habitat across the range, and particularly in 
MZs I and II, where the potential for development is the greatest.
    Federal Plans--Since 2010, BLM and USFS have completed plan 
amendments or revisions conserving sage-grouse on more than half its 
occupied range. Approximately 80 percent of the BLM and USFS lands with 
high to medium potential for nonrenewable energy development are 
located outside federally managed PHMAs (Quamen, BLM, 2015, pers. 
comm.). The Federal Plans in Wyoming adopt the Wyoming Plan, which, as 
described in the Regulatory Mechanisms section above, reduces impacts 
to sage-grouse from nonrenewable energy development. The Federal Plans 
include NSO restrictions in 14 million ha (35 million ac) of PHMA, with 
either no or very limited waivers or modifications. Exceptions to this 
restriction could occur only if it is determined that the project would 
not affect sage-grouse or would be beneficial compared to other 
options. The Federal Plans prioritize the future leasing and 
development of nonrenewable-energy resources outside of sage-grouse 
habitats. The plans require disturbance caps, surface occupancy 
restrictions, seasonal restrictions, and lek buffers to effectively 
reduce habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance to sage-
grouse from nonrenewable energy development. Calculation of the 
percentage of disturbed surface under the disturbance caps incorporates 
both existing and new authorized disturbances to limit habitat loss and 
fragmentation from new nonrenewable energy development (See Sagebrush 
Landscape Conservation Planning above).
    The Federal Plans recognize valid existing subsurface rights to 
nonrenewable energy resources, but still reduce impacts to sage-grouse 
by requiring the agencies to work with lessees, operators, and project 
proponents to follow an avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 
approach subject to applicable laws (30 U.S.C. 226(p) and 43 CFR 
3162.3). The BLM estimates that approximately 10 percent of all habitat 
is currently leased rangewide (Carmen, BLM, 2015, pers. comm.). 
According to BLM's analysis, varying proportions of PHMA are leased 
across the range of the species: 20 percent in North Dakota; 17 percent 
in Colorado; 14 percent in Wyoming; 4 percent in Utah; and 2 percent in 
Montana (Carmen, BLM, 2015, pers. comm.). The Federal Plans provide 
coordinated monitoring strategies of disturbance caps. In response to 
monitoring, development allowed under the Federal Plans may be adjusted 
based on adaptive management criteria to provide an immediate, 
corrective response to any identified triggers for population or 
habitat declines. While the development of some valid existing rights 
may continue, these provisions provide a backstop for other disturbance 
if adaptive management triggers are exceeded.
    In summary, the Federal and three State Plans include closure or 
NSO restrictions for all PHMAs (except in Wyoming), and limit 
exceptions to instances where the activity will have no direct, 
indirect, or cumulative effect on sage-grouse or sage-grouse habitats, 
or is an alternative action for activities on a nearby parcel and would 
provide a clear conservation gain to sage-grouse. In GHMAs, Federal 
Plans dictate that project proponents avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
impacts from nonrenewable energy development (see Sagebrush Landscape 
Conservation Planning above). The Federal Plans are also consistent 
with the recommendations in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 43-44). 
Together, these measures reduce effects from nonrenewable energy 
development on approximately 90 percent of the breeding habitat across 
the range.

Nonrenewable Energy Summary

    In the 2010 Finding, we determined that nonrenewable development 
was a threat to sage-grouse due to the habitat loss and fragmentation 
it caused. Current information indicates that the global demand for 
nonrenewable energy resources will continue and will likely increase in 
sage-grouse habitats through the year 2030. Nonrenewable energy 
development can negatively affect sage-grouse individuals and 
populations by reducing and fragmenting sagebrush habitats and by 
disturbing individual sage-grouse through increased noise and 
behavioral avoidance of infrastructure and human activity. Nonrenewable 
energy development could also act cumulatively with other potential 
threats to increase habitat loss and fragmentation caused by invasive 
plants, and may increase predation or disease. Our analysis indicates 
that regulatory mechanisms reduce the risk of nonrenewable energy 
exposure to the Population Index and breeding habitat by more than 35 
percent in MZ I and more than 60 percent in MZ II, the areas with the 
greatest potential for nonrenewable energy development. State and 
Federal Plans emphasize protection of the most important habitats from 
habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and disturbance, ensuring that 
large, contiguous expanses of habitat will remain to support sage-
grouse populations. Rangewide, the Federal Plans, Wyoming Plan, and 
Montana Plan reduce impacts from nonrenewable energy development on 
approximately 90 percent of the modeled breeding habitat (see Sagebrush 
Landscape Conservation Planning for a detailed discussion of 
conservation measure implementation and effectiveness).

Infrastructure

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of infrastructure (including 
roads, railroads, power lines, communication towers, and fences) on 
sage-grouse and concluded that it was a substantial contributor to 
habitat fragmentation throughout the species' range and that 
fragmentation from this source would increase in the future. We also 
found that infrastructure causes direct mortality from collisions and 
provides perches for predators. We further found that the regulations 
governing the location and installation of infrastructure were 
inadequate to address these threats. The 2010 finding concluded that 
habitat fragmentation, caused in part by infrastructure, and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms to address the negative effects of infrastructure 
were significant threats to the species and likely to continue or 
increase into the future such that listing was warranted under the Act 
(75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13986-13988).
    The increasing expansion of human settlement into the western 
United States has led to an increase in demand for natural resources 
and the necessary infrastructure to support human development. 
Development of roads, railroads, power lines, communication towers, and 
fences can result in habitat loss and fragmentation, and can cause 
sage-grouse habitat avoidance. These types of infrastructure can also 
provide sources for the introduction and propagation of invasive 
plants, increase fire risk, and increase concentrations of predators.
    The physical footprint of existing infrastructure has directly 
impacted

[[Page 59892]]

approximately 218,535 ha (540,013 ac) of breeding habitat rangewide 
(Factor A) (Table 6). In addition, infrastructure can influence a 
larger ecological footprint by negatively affecting sage-grouse use of 
otherwise suitable habitats through indirect effects from noise 
disturbance, increased perches for predators, and pathways for invasive 
species (Manier et al. 2013, p. 31; Blickley and Patricelli 2012, p. 
26). For infrastructure that has been in place for a number of years, 
these impacts have likely already been realized. The greatest impact 
from existing infrastructure has occurred in the Columbia Basin (MZ VI) 
where approximately 2.9 percent of sage-grouse breeding habitat has 
been affected. Current infrastructure associated with power lines 
accounts for the greatest direct disturbance (117,004 ha; 289,125 ac) 
across the range. Fences occur across the landscape; however, the 
amount of fencing is unknown (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13929).

                                   Table 6--Sage-Grouse Breeding Habitat Directly Impacted by Existing Infrastructure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Management zone
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               I          II          III         IV           V          VI          VII        Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roads \1\........................  ha...................      18,344      28,798      17,604      21,210       7,289       4,871         601      98,717
                                   ac...................      45,329      71,162      43,501      52,411      18,011      12,036       1,485     243,935
                                   %....................      (0.4%)      (0.6%)      (0.5%)      (0.4%)      (0.5%)      (1.1%)      (0.9%)      (0.5%)
Railroads........................  ha...................         131         278         115         149  ..........           8  ..........         681
                                   ac...................         324         686         284         369  ..........          20  ..........       1,683
                                   %....................     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)
Power lines \2\..................  ha...................      17,171      37,656      18,455      28,104       7,670       7,950  ..........     117,005
                                   ac...................      42,431      93,049      45,603      69,447      18,952      19,644  ..........     289,125
                                   %....................     (0.41%)     (0.78%)     (0.54%)     (0.60%)     (0.55%)     (1.78%)     (<0.1%)      (0.6%)
Vertical Towers \3\..............  ha...................         429         756         404         442          26          68           8       2,133
                                   ac...................       1,061       1,867         998       1,091          64         168          21       5,270
                                   %....................     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)     (<0.1%)
Rangewide Totals.................  ha...................      36,075      67,487      36,578      49,905      14,984      12,897         610     218,536
                                   ac...................      89,144     166,764      90,386     123,318      37,026      31,868       1,507     540,013
                                   %....................      (0.9%)      (1.4%)      (1.1%)      (1.1%)      (1.1%)      (2.9%)      (0.9%)      (1.2%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes interstates, State and Federal highways, and secondary roads.
\2\ Includes existing, large (>115 kV) transmission lines. Does not include distribution lines.
\3\ Includes meteorological towers, communication towers, and wind turbines.

    The primary impact of infrastructure is habitat loss and 
fragmentation (Factor A). Other impacts associated with infrastructure 
are direct mortality from strikes (Beck et al. 2006, p. 1075), spread 
of invasives (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25), wildfire ignition 
(Havlina et al. 2015, p. 2), and increased predator occurrence (Manier 
et al.2013, p. 31; Howe et al. 2014, p. 43). Additionally, sage-grouse 
may avoid infrastructure because of noise or visual disturbance 
(Blickley and Patricelli 2012, p. 26). However, fences may be 
beneficial if used to protect areas used by sage-grouse (USFWS 2013, p. 
52), such as fencing livestock and free-roaming equids out of mesic 
areas used as late brood-rearing habitat. The best available 
information does not forecast where or how much additional 
infrastructure could be installed across the species' range. However, 
as discussed in the next section, regulatory mechanisms provided by the 
Federal and State Plans will exclude or minimize new infrastructure in 
approximately 90 percent of sage-grouse breeding habitats.

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, a number of landscape-scale efforts have been 
undertaken to reduce impacts from existing and future infrastructure to 
sage-grouse across the range that are consistent with the 
recommendations in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 51-52). Those 
efforts include Federal Plan amendments, State Plans, SGI projects, and 
CCAs.
    Federal Plans--The Federal Plans limit new infrastructure primarily 
through land use allocations, lek buffers, and disturbance caps (BLM 
and USFS 2015, entire). In PHMA, these measures are designed to avoid 
or minimize infrastructure development, with limited exceptions for new 
ROWs. Any exceptions must include the explicit rationale that 
biological impacts to sage-grouse are being avoided. Existing 
designated corridors for future major transmission lines and pipelines 
remain open. Any impacts from new infrastructure require mitigation and 
are counted toward the 3 percent disturbance cap, except in Wyoming and 
Montana where a 5 percent cap exists. The Federal Plans also include 
seasonal timing restrictions, noise restrictions, buffer distances from 
leks, and required design features to minimize infrastructure impacts 
on sage-grouse. Further, in response to monitoring, development 
allowable under the Federal Plans may be adjusted based on adaptive 
management criteria to provide an immediate, corrective response to any 
triggers for population or habitat declines. These provisions provide a 
backstop to prevent additional disturbance. As a result of these 
measures, approximately 14 million ha (35 million ac) of PHMA are 
protected from ROWs. Based on past planning processes, we expect the 
measures to be implemented for at least the next 20 to 30 years. For 
additional details about the implementation and effectiveness of 
Federal Plans, see Federal Plans section, above.
    State Plans--State Plans in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon contain 
regulatory measures to minimize impacts from infrastructure on State 
lands and, in some instances, on private lands. The Wyoming Plan 
imposes the following restrictions on all lands in Wyoming: Structure-
density limits, timing stipulations, buffers, habitat-disturbance caps, 
and project-specific reviews for any project subject to State 
permitting requirements permitted after August 1, 2008, on all lands in 
Wyoming (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, entire). Oregon's Plan regulations 
require avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation actions 
for development actions in sage-grouse habitat on State and private 
land and, in conjunction with BLM's Federal Plan, cap the amount of 
disturbance on sage-grouse core habitat to 3 percent (Oregon OAR 635-
140-0025, entire; and Oregon OAR 660-023-0115, entire), while the

[[Page 59893]]

Wyoming and Montana Plans cap the amount of disturbance on sage-grouse 
core habitat to 5 percent (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, p. 6; Montana E.O. 10-
2014, p. 14). For additional details about the implementation and 
effectiveness of State plans, see the Wyoming State and Federal Plans 
and Montana and Oregon Conservation Efforts sections, above.
    Sage Grouse Initiative--Marking fences with permanent flagging 
improves their visibility and reduces fence collisions and was 
recommended by the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 52). The Sage Grouse 
Initiative has worked with ranchers to implement voluntary conservation 
projects in sage-grouse habitat, including the marking of fences. To 
date, NRCS has marked or removed 563 km (350 mi) of high-risk fence to 
reduce collisions (NRCS 2015a, p. 6). Conservative estimates indicate 
that fence-marking prevents 2,600 collisions annually (NRCS 2015a, p. 
22). Another study found that marking fences reduced collisions by 83 
percent over unmarked fences in Idaho during the breeding season 
(Stevens et al. 2012, p. 1). Fence-marking is effective at reducing 
collisions, but it is unlikely to eradicate collisions completely 
(Stevens et al. 2012, p. 1), and further information is needed to make 
population-level inferences regarding the impact of reduced collisions 
(Stevens et al. 2013, p. 413).
    Candidate Conservation Agreements--Non-Federal lands currently 
enrolled in CCAAs have restrictions on building infrastructure within 
sage-grouse habitat, require consolidation of existing infrastructure 
when feasible, and require relocating or marking existing fences. 
Rangewide, approximately 745,000 ha (1.8 million ac) of private lands 
have landowner commitments in the programmatic CCAAs in Oregon and 
Wyoming. Enrollment of these areas in the CCAAs ensures that no 
infrastructure will be constructed on those properties in a way that 
would adversely impact sage-grouse and encourages the modification or 
management of existing infrastructure to reduce potential adverse 
effects.

Infrastructure Summary

    The potential threat of new infrastructure has changed 
substantially since the last status review. In 2010, we found habitat 
fragmentation, due in part to infrastructure, to be a threat to the 
species, and regulatory mechanisms were not sufficient to address that 
threat into the future. Since then, regulatory mechanisms provided by 
Federal Plans reduce potential future infrastructure on more than half 
the species' range by eliminating or capping new development in 
important sagebrush habitat and by implementing project design features 
to minimize impacts (e.g., buffers, noise restrictions, etc.). State 
Plans in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon provide similar protections on 
State and private lands. These protections are most important in 
Wyoming, where historically infrastructure impacts have been the 
highest. Further, considerable effort has been undertaken by SGI and 
private landowners to further reduce impacts from infrastructure, and 
in particular, existing structures such as fencing. Where existing 
infrastructure occurs, some localized impacts are likely to continue; 
however, the Federal and State Plans include measures to avoid placing 
new infrastructure in the most important habitats for the species, 
thereby reducing the future risk of infrastructure development in those 
areas. Together, the Federal Plans and Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon 
State Plans reduce infrastructure impacts to the areas identified as 
PHMAs and GHMAs, which encompass approximately 90 percent of the 
modeled breeding habitat across the species' range (see Sagebrush 
Landscape Conservation Planning for a detailed discussion of 
conservation measure implementation and effectiveness).

Agricultural Conversion

    In the 2010 finding, we concluded that agricultural conversion of 
sage-grouse habitat was one of the primary causes of habitat loss and 
fragmentation (75 FR 13910, March 23, pp. 13924-13926). Agricultural 
conversion describes the removal of sagebrush rangelands to create 
tilled agricultural crops or re-seeded exotic grass pastures (Schroeder 
and Vander Haegen 2011, p. 519; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 462; USFWS 2013, 
p. 48). By converting sagebrush habitats to cultivated croplands and 
pastures, agricultural conversion can reduce and fragment sage-grouse 
habitats (Factor A) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-203; Davies et al. 
2011, p. 2575; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 462; Knick et al. 2013, p. 1547). 
Since 2010, new information about potential future risk of agricultural 
conversion has changed our conclusion about this impact, as discussed 
below.
    In the past, approximately 11 percent of the sage-grouse's 
historical range was converted to agriculture, with 32 percent of the 
entire Columbia Basin (MZ VI) and 19 percent of the entire Great Plains 
(MZ I) converted to agriculture (Knick et al. 2011, pp. 208-209). 
Sagebrush habitats with deep, fertile soils and abundant precipitation 
were more likely to be converted to agriculture (Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 1-1; Davies et al. 2011, p. 2575). The loss of these productive 
sagebrush habitats to agriculture displaced some sage-grouse into less 
productive sagebrush habitats (Manier et al. 2013, p. 1). In the rest 
of the historical range, varied topography, soil types, and drier 
climates limited the conversion of sage-grouse habitats to agriculture 
(Knick et al. 2011, p. 208). As a result, only 10 percent of the Snake 
River Plain (MZ IV) and less than 5 percent of the total area of each 
remaining MZ were converted to agriculture (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-
55; Knick et al. 2011, p. 209). Our previous 2010 Finding summarized 
specific historical losses of sage-grouse habitats from agricultural 
conversion (75 FR 13910, March 23, pp. 13924-13925).
    By reducing and fragmenting sage-grouse habitats, agricultural 
conversion may reduce sage-grouse populations (Smith et al. 2005, p. 
314; Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2650; Tack 2009, p. iii; Johnson et al. 
2011, p. 407; Knick et al. 2011, p. 208). Although sage-grouse will 
forage on some crops, such as alfalfa (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4), 
they typically will not nest or rear broods in cultivated croplands 
(Holloran et al. 2005, p. 648; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 508, 523). 
Agricultural conversion can also reduce the connectivity of habitats 
and limit the movement of sage-grouse between populations and seasonal 
habitats (Schroeder and Vander Haegen 2006, pp. 7-8; Knick et al. 2011, 
p. 211). Agricultural conversion may also expose sage-grouse to 
indirect effects, such as increased predation, exposure to pesticides, 
and the drying and loss of riparian habitats when water is diverted for 
irrigation (Knick et al. 2011, pp. 208-209). Based on the foraging 
distances of human-associated predators hunting near croplands and 
urban areas, agricultural conversion could indirectly influence 
approximately 49 percent of sagebrush habitats rangewide (Connelly et 
al. 2004, pp. 1-1 and 7-23; Manier et al. 2013, p. 30).
    Although agricultural croplands and pasturelands do not provide 
suitable habitat, sage-grouse may feed on irrigated croplands, 
particularly during the late brood-rearing period when other native 
plant foods have matured and dried (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-1 and 
4-10; Knick et al. 2011, p. 211). The type of crop and proximity to 
adjacent sagebrush habitats influences whether sage-grouse will feed on 
the irrigated croplands (Swensen et al. 1987, p. 128; Blus et al. 1989, 
p. 1141; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-18). Sage-grouse generally do

[[Page 59894]]

not feed on dry, unirrigated fields that have fewer forbs and insects 
than irrigated fields. Additionally, increased predation, exposure to 
pesticides, WNv, and collisions with fences may outweigh any benefits 
to sage-grouse provided by cultivated cropland and pastures (Blus et 
al. 1989, pp. 1141-1142; Braun 2006, p. 11; Walker 2008, p. 184, 
Holloran et al. 2005, p. 648, Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 508; Coates 
et al., in press).
    Rates of agricultural conversion likely slowed and will continue to 
slow because the most productive sagebrush habitats have already been 
converted to croplands or pasturelands (Baker et al. 1976, p. 167). 
Since 1982, acres of new cropland within occupied sage-grouse range 
have decreased in every State except South Dakota (NRCS 2013, pp. 63-
79), likely due to the decreasing suitability of the remaining habitats 
for agriculture. However, economic incentives for biofuels and 
technological advances in irrigation and cultivation could potentially 
increase conversion rates in the future (Knick et al. 2011, p. 208). In 
2010, we determined that agricultural conversion would continue to 
affect sage-grouse in the future based on historical loss and 
fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat from agricultural conversion.
    To more precisely evaluate the potential risk to sage-grouse from 
future agricultural conversion, we compared a new cropland suitability 
model (Lipsey et al. 2015, entire) with the Population Index (Doherty 
et al. 2015, entire). The cropland suitability model uses soil and 
climate data to predict the probability that an area could be converted 
to cropland (Lipsey et al. 2015, entire). The Population Index model 
identifies important sage-grouse population centers (Doherty et al. 
2015, entire). By comparing these two models, we quantified the percent 
of the sage-grouse Population Index that overlaps with sagebrush 
habitats in the MZ I that have a high potential to be converted to 
agriculture in the future. Because the cropland suitability model was 
only finalized for MZ I for reasons explained below, the results of 
this exercise specifically apply only to MZ I, but can be used to 
assess potential probabilities of conversion to agriculture rangewide.
    The cropland suitability model was developed only for the Great 
Plains (MZ I), and not for the Columbia Basin (MZ VI) or the Snake 
River Plain (MZ IV), where agricultural conversion also occurred, due 
to the limited availability of land cover data, the small size of the 
Columbia Basin (MZ VI), and differences in the way sage-grouse use 
agricultural fields between these three MZs. Additionally, more of the 
Columbia Basin (MZ VI) has already been converted to cropland (Knick et 
al. 2011, pp. 208-209) and the Great Plains (MZ I) has the highest 
percentage (69 percent) of private lands (TABLE 2, above), so the 
potential risk of agricultural conversion is greatest in the Great 
Plains (MZ I). As a result, the cropland suitability model focused only 
on the MZ with the greatest potential to be converted in the future, so 
our overlay analysis with the sage-grouse breeding distribution model 
could only be calculated in the Great Plains (MZ I). However, by 
limiting the analysis to the MZ I, the MZ with the greater potential to 
be converted, the result represents a worst-case scenario that is 
informative for the rest of the range where future conversion is less 
likely to occur. Additionally, it would be speculative to analyze 
future technological agricultural advancements or economic incentives 
that could potentially increase agricultural conversion on lower 
quality soils.
    Our comparison of the cropland risk model and the Population Index 
model showed that the majority of the sage-grouse Population Index 
overlaps with sagebrush habitats in MZ I that have a low probability of 
being converted to agriculture (Lipsey et al. 2015, entire; USFWS 
2015a). Specifically, 87 percent of the sage-grouse Population Index in 
the MZ I occur in sagebrush habitats unlikely to be converted into 
agriculture due to their soils, climate, and other factors that were 
incorporated into the cropland suitability model. This analysis 
confirms that the sage-grouse habitats in MZ I have already been 
converted to agriculture and the remaining habitats important to sage-
grouse are less suitable for agriculture and less likely to be 
converted in the future.
    Although some sage-grouse in MZ I could be exposed to agricultural 
conversion in the future, 87 percent of the Population Index are not 
likely at risk from agricultural conversion. Although this result 
contradicts other sources of information that postulated a greater risk 
to sage-grouse from future agricultural conversion (RISCT 2012, p. 7; 
USFWS 2013, pp. 16-29), this analysis quantitatively determined that 
the risk of exposure to future agricultural conversion is low in MZ I. 
Because the risk of conversion is greatest in MZ I, a portion of MZ IV 
in the Snake River Plain in Idaho and the Columbia Basin in Washington 
(MZ VI) would likely have lower percent overlap between sage-grouse 
breeding populations and areas likely to be converted to agriculture. 
With improved land cover datasets, the cropland suitability model could 
be expanded to the other MZs to test this assumption. However, the 
overlay analysis indicates that the potential for agricultural 
conversion is low in the Great Plains (MZ I), and there is no 
information to indicate that the risk to sage-grouse would be greater 
in any other MZ.

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, a number of conservation efforts have been implemented 
to reduce the risk of new habitat loss due to agricultural conversion 
or to address effects from historical agricultural conversion. These 
include the NRCS efforts with private land owners and other State and 
Federal Plans or programs. As discussed below, these conservation 
efforts are relevant to the potential threat of agricultural 
conversion.
    Sage Grouse Initiative--In 2010, NRCS launched the SGI to reduce 
potential threats facing sage-grouse on private lands (see Sage Grouse 
Initiative, above, for a detailed discussion of this program). 
Conservation measures used by the NRCS to reduce impacts to sage-grouse 
from agricultural conversion include conservation easements, the Farm 
Bill's Sodsaver provision, and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
    Conservation easements are voluntary agreements between landowners 
and land trusts, the NRCS, or other organizations and agencies that 
maintain the easement in private ownership to benefit natural 
resources, often in perpetuity. The conservation easements carry 
binding and enforceable restrictions on development and other 
activities, and landowners may be reimbursed. Conservation easements 
may permanently protect sagebrush habitat from ex-urban development or 
agricultural conversion. The NRCS estimates that, since 2010, 
approximately 183,013 ha (451,884 ac) have been protected by 
conservation easements across the overall range of the sage-grouse 
(NRCS 2015a, p. 6). Conservation easements effectively block the loss 
and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitats by prohibiting ex-urban 
development and agricultural conversion on the easement lands and were 
recommended in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 48, 50). Approximately 
79 percent of the conservation easements are located inside PACs, and 
94 percent of the easements provide permanent protection against future 
agricultural conversion and ex-urban development (NRCS 2015a, p. 8). 
Although SGI easements address a variety of potential impacts to sage-
grouse, including

[[Page 59895]]

agricultural conversion, many of the easements that are already in 
place are not currently located in sagebrush habitats that are at risk 
of agricultural conversion, according to the new cropland suitability 
and breeding distribution models (Lipsey et al. 2015, entire; USFWS 
2015a). However, Montana's recently finalized Greater Sage-Grouse 
Stewardship Act funds additional sage-grouse conservation that could be 
used to secure new conservation easements in Montana (NRCS 2015a, p. 
3), and with the new models, new easements could be better targeted to 
conserve sage-grouse habitats that may be vulnerable to future 
agricultural conversion in Montana. Expanding the cropland suitability 
model into the Snake River Plain (MZ IV) and the Columbia Basin (MZ VI) 
would also help target conservation easements to prevent future 
agricultural conversion in those MZs.
    The 2014 Farm Bill's Sodsaver provision also reduces habitat loss 
and fragmentation from agricultural conversion in Montana, North 
Dakota, and South Dakota (MZ I) (NRCS 2015a, p. 3). The Sodsaver 
provision discourages agricultural producers from converting native 
vegetation to annually tilled crops by reducing their insurance 
subsidies and disaster assistance if they convert native habitats into 
croplands (NRCS 2015a, p. 4). The NRCS reports that the Sodsaver 
policy, in conjunction with proposed policies on State lands and 
continued investments in conservation easements, reduces sage-grouse 
population declines that would have occurred without these conservation 
measures (NRCS 2015a, p. 1).
    The voluntary Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) allows private 
landowners to receive annual payments from USDA's Farm Service 
Administration in exchange for establishing permanent vegetation on 
idle or erodible lands that were previously used for growing crops. 
Enrolled lands are set aside for 10 to 15 years and cannot be grazed or 
used for other agricultural uses except under emergency drought 
conditions. The enrollment of CRP lands can be detrimental to sage-
grouse when sagebrush rangelands are converted to marginal croplands, 
and then converted into grasslands, not sagebrush habitats (USFWS 2013, 
p. 48). However, some CRP lands can provide nesting, brood-rearing, and 
wintering habitat for sage-grouse (Schroeder and Vander Haegen 2006, p. 
32; Schroeder and Vander Haegen 2011, pp. 524-528). When agricultural 
fields are returned to sage-grouse habitats, enrollment in the CRP 
generally benefits sage-grouse, especially in the Columbia Basin (MZ 
VI) and Great Plains (MZ I) where agricultural conversion historically 
occurred (Knick et al. 2011, p. 208). However, enrollment in CRP 
fluctuates with Federal funding and crop prices, and the long-term 
effectiveness of the CRP to improve sage-grouse habitats is uncertain. 
However, in Washington, lands have frequently remained enrolled long 
enough for sagebrush to reestablish and sage-grouse to return to nest 
(Schroeder and Vander Haegen 2011, p. 524).
    Candidate Conservation Agreements--The CCAAs for sage-grouse in 
Oregon and Wyoming include appropriate restrictions on agricultural 
conversion, habitat fragmentation, and removing sagebrush that benefit 
sage-grouse rangewide. Approximately 745,000 ha (1.8 million ac) of 
private lands have landowner commitments in the programmatic CCAAs in 
Oregon and Wyoming. Enrollment in these CCAAs ensures that these lands 
are managed consistent with sage-grouse habitat objectives.
    State Plans--The Wyoming and Montana Plans have regulatory 
mechanisms that reduce agricultural conversion in these States on 
applicable lands. The Wyoming Plan covers all land ownership types and 
contains a 5 percent disturbance cap in Core Areas that includes 
disturbance from agricultural conversion (Wyoming E.O. 2015-4, 
Attachment A, p. 6). The Montana Plan allows the State to prohibit 
agricultural conversion and the eradication of sagebrush on State Trust 
Lands in core habitat, general habitat, and connectivity areas (Montana 
10-2014, pp. 7-14). By regulating where and how much agricultural 
conversion can occur within sage-grouse habitats, whether by regulating 
the amount of disturbance or prohibiting habitat loss on State Trust 
Lands, both the Wyoming Plan and Montana Plan provide effective 
regulatory mechanisms to limit future agricultural conversion in their 
State (see Regulatory Mechanisms, below).
    Federal Plans--The Federal Plans were not designed to address 
agricultural conversion, because Federal lands are not used or 
converted for agricultural production (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). 
However, transfer of Federal lands to private ownership is possible 
and, once privately owned, could be converted to agriculture. The 
Federal Plans require that any PHMA and GHMA be retained in Federal 
ownership, thus preventing agricultural conversion (BLM and USFS 2015, 
entire). Exceptions to this requirement could occur if the land 
transaction would benefit sage-grouse or not cause any adverse effects. 
By prohibiting their transfer to private ownership, the Federal Plans 
reduce the risk of agricultural conversion on more than half the 
occupied range of the species.

Agricultural Conversion Summary

    In 2010, we identified agricultural conversion as one of three 
factors contributing to the loss and fragmentation of sage-grouse 
habitats, based on past rates of agricultural conversion that would 
likely continue. Historically, agricultural conversion reduced and 
fragmented sage-grouse habitats, resulting in population declines and 
the loss of connectivity in some areas (Knick et al. 2011, p. 208). 
Agricultural conversion may also expose sage-grouse to pesticides, 
increased predation, and invasive plants. However, the sage-grouse 
habitats most conducive to agriculture have already been converted to 
crop and pasturelands, and the remaining habitats are generally not 
suitable for agriculture and will likely not be converted. The new 
cropland suitability model compared with the breeding distribution 
model confirms that the sage-grouse habitats in the Great Plains (MZ I) 
most likely to be converted to agriculture have already been converted 
and that the remaining habitats have a low probability of conversion 
because of soil types and climatic limitations. Approximately 87 
percent of the important sage-grouse populations in MZ I occur in 
habitats that have low probabilities of conversion to agriculture. The 
potential for agricultural conversion is also low in the Columbia Basin 
(MZ VI) and the Snake River Plain (MZ IV), where more sagebrush 
habitats have already been converted. Additionally, acres of new 
cropland decreased in every State except South Dakota over the last 30 
years. Further, NRCS SGI conservation easements, the 2014 Farm Bill's 
Sodsaver provision, USDA's CRP, the Wyoming and Montana Plans, and BLM 
and USGS land-transfer prohibitions implemented since 2010 help reduce 
habitat loss and fragmentation from agricultural conversion, consistent 
with recommendations in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 48-49).

Wildfire and Invasive Plants

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of wildfire on sage-grouse and 
concluded that wildfire was a substantial contributor to habitat loss 
and fragmentation, particularly in the Great Basin portion of the range 
(MZs III, IV, V, and VI). The number and size of fires

[[Page 59896]]

has increased compared to historical fire regimes (Miller et al. 2011, 
pp. 169, 176). A spatial analysis of areas burned reveals that 
approximately 18 percent of sagebrush habitat across the occupied range 
of sage-grouse burned between 1980 and 2007, including 27 percent of 
the habitat in the Great Basin portion of the range. Further, increased 
fire frequency is being driven by the expansion of nonnative invasive 
annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass. In 2010, we analyzed invasive 
annual grasses separately and concluded that it was a serious rangewide 
threat (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13937). The 2010 finding 
concluded that habitat fragmentation, caused in part by fire, was a 
threat to the species such that listing was warranted under the Act (75 
FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13986-13988).
    Since 2010, the rangeland fire management community has made 
strides in addressing wildfire and its effects on habitat fragmentation 
in sage-grouse range, as well as the interactions between wildfire and 
invasive plants. Specifically, a suite of efforts such as the revised/
amended Federal Plans and the associated FIAT assessments; Secretarial 
Order 3336; and other, related efforts represent a marked shift by the 
fire management community toward a more holistic approach to 
identifying, prioritizing, and managing impacts from wildfire in sage-
grouse habitat (with fire fighter and human health and safety remaining 
as the highest priority in wildfire management). This marked shift is 
particularly important given the degree to which invasives and wildfire 
have the potential to reduce available habitat. Given the increased 
management emphasis, we still expect to lose some habitat to fire, but 
we now expect those losses to be less than would have otherwise 
occurred.
    This new approach includes numerous updates to wildfire management 
strategies and planning tools. For example, the FIAT and Secretarial 
Order established local guidance and set forth enhanced policies and 
strategies for preventing and suppressing wildfire and for restoring 
sagebrush landscapes impacted by fire across the Great Basin region. 
Fuel treatments in sage-grouse habitats are now prioritized over 
treatments in other areas (Murphy et al. 2013, p. 4). Additionally, 
managers have developed protocols to ensure that plans are current and 
include guidance for fire management in relation to sage-grouse and 
sage-grouse habitats. These changes have affected what areas are 
prioritized for firefighting resources during periods of fire activity 
(Murphy et al. 2013, p. 4). While we do not currently know the extent 
to which these regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms will alleviate 
the wildfire impact to sage-grouse, we are confident that that this 
strategic and coordinated effort by wildfire managers to protect sage-
grouse habitat will reduce the impacts from wildfire. Targeting the 
protection of important sage-grouse habitats during fire suppression 
and fuels management activities could help reduce loss of key habitat 
due to fire if directed through a long-term, regulatory mechanism.

Altered Fire Cycle

    Historically, wildfire was the principal natural disturbance in the 
sagebrush ecosystem (Factor A). Sagebrush likely consisted of extensive 
sagebrush habitat dotted by small areas of grassland. This ecosystem 
was maintained by long interludes of primarily numerous small fires, 
punctuated by large fire events that consumed larger expanses (Baker 
2011, pp. 196-197; Bukowski and Baker 2013, pp. 559-561). Historical 
mean fire-return intervals (the average number of years between two 
successive fires) have been estimated to be 100 to 350 years in low-
lying, xeric, Wyoming big sagebrush communities, and 50 to more than 
200 years in more mesic areas and mountain big sagebrush communities 
(Baker 2006, p. 181; Mensing et al. 2006, p. 75; Baker 2011, pp. 194-
195; Miller et al. 2011, p. 166; Bukowski and Baker 2013, entire). Fire 
by itself, managed within a historical range of variation, may not 
necessarily be a threat to sage-grouse. However, altered fire 
intensity, size, and frequency, due in part to the presence of invasive 
annual grasses, has resulted in fire posing an increasing threat to 
sage-grouse, especially in the Great Basin.
    Since the mid- to late 1800s, human activities have changed the 
vegetation composition and structure of the sagebrush ecosystem that 
has subsequently altered the fire regime (Chambers et al. 2014a, p. 3). 
Changes in wildfire frequency have adversely affected larger parts of 
sage-grouse range, particularly in the Great Basin (Figure 6). From 
1980 to 2007, the number of fires and the total area burned increased 
in most MZs (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 169, 176). We conducted a 
geospatial analysis of burned areas that shows that between 2000 and 
2008, within the Great Basin, more than 2.7 million ha (6.7 million ac) 
burned within the occupied range of sage-grouse, with more than 2 
million ha (5 million ac) occurring in MZ IV alone (Table 7). Between 
2009 and 2014, an additional 1.8 million ha (4.6 million ac) burned 
within the occupied range of sage-grouse, with most of the impact 
occurring in MZs IV and V in the Great Basin (Table 7). Between 2000 
and 2014, the Great Basin experienced an average burn rate of 
approximately 0.85 percent per year (Table 7).

[[Page 59897]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.005


             Table 7--Area of Sage-Grouse Occupied Range Burned From 2000 to 2014 in the Great Basin
                                         [Including the Columbia Basin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Annual burn
       Management zone                            2000-2008 area  2009-2014 area  2000-2014 area     rate \1\
                                                      burned          burned          burned         (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.........................  ha................         410,730         148,993         559,723            0.32
                              ac................       1,014,937         368,171       1,383,108
IV..........................  ha................       2,029,750       1,073,048       3,102,789            1.32
                              ac................       5,015,622       2,651,560       7,667,182
V...........................  ha................         262,033         580,745         842,788            0.72
                              ac................         647,499       1,435,053       2,082,552
VI..........................  ha................          27,649          61,963          89,612            0.54
                              ac................          68,434         153,116         221,550
    Totals..................  ha................       2,730,162       1,864,749       4,594,912            0.85
                              ac................       6,746,492       4,607,900      11,354,392
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual burn rates were calculated using average number of acres burned per year (2000-2014) divided by total
  occupied range for each area assessed.

    We anticipate that these average burn rates will continue in the 
future and could increase due to cheatgrass expansion, climate change, 
and drought (see Wildfire and Invasive Plant Impacts, below). These 
burn rates are based on wildfire-impacted acres each year and do not 
account for areas previously burned that re-burn each year; as a 
result, this rate likely overestimates the amount of habitat that could 
be impacted each year, as re-burn areas may no longer provide habitat. 
This burn rate is similar to the current and future burn rates analyzed 
in the 2010 finding.
    Fire occurring within the range of sage-grouse can cause direct 
loss of habitat, resulting in negative impacts to breeding, feeding, 
and sheltering opportunities for the species (Call and Maser 1985, p. 
17). In addition to the direct habitat loss, fire can also create a 
functional barrier to sage-grouse

[[Page 59898]]

movements and dispersal that compounds the influence wildfire can have 
on populations and population dynamics (Fischer et al. 1997, p. 89). In 
some cases, fire can isolate sage-grouse populations, thereby 
increasing their risk of extirpation (Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 395; 
Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 469).
    Wildfire is associated with sage-grouse declines across the West 
(Beck et al. 2009, p. 400; Johnson et al. 2011, p. 424; Knick and 
Hanser 2011, p. 395). The extent and abundance of sagebrush habitats, 
the proximity to burned habitat, and the degree of connectivity among 
sage-grouse populations affects persistence (Johnson et al. 2011, p. 
424; Knick and Hanser 2011, pp. 403-404; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 461). 
Fire has been found to cause negative population trends and lek 
extirpation (Knick and Hanser 2011, p. 395; Johnson et al. 2011, p. 
422).

Invasive Plants and the Wildfire Cycle

    In 2010, we analyzed the effects of wildfire and invasive plants 
separately (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13931-13937). Since that 
time, we have come to better understand the positive feedback loop 
between cheatgrass and wildfire, and believe that fire and invasive 
plants must be assessed, and managed, together to fully address 
potential impacts on sage-grouse and its habitat. Evidence of a 
significant relationship exists between an increase in wildfire 
occurrence caused by cheatgrass invasion in the Snake River Plain (MZ 
IV) and Northern Great Basin (MZ V) since the 1960s (Miller et al. 
2011, p. 167) and in northern Nevada and eastern Oregon since 1980 (MZs 
IV and V). The extensive distribution and highly invasive nature of 
these invasive annual grasses poses increased wildfire risk and 
permanent loss of sagebrush habitat, because areas disturbed by fire 
are highly susceptible to further invasion and ultimately habitat 
conversion to an altered community state (Miller et al. 2011, p. 182). 
Progressive losses of resilience and resistance can result in the 
crossing of abiotic and biotic thresholds (Beisner et al. 2003, pp. 
376-382) and may lead to a catastrophic shift in community structure 
(Scheffer et al. 2009, pp. 53-59; Reisner et al. 2013, p. 1047). 
Functional habitat loss is occurring because of long-term loss of 
sagebrush cover and conversion to nonnative annual grasses (primarily 
cheatgrass), mainly due to an increase in wildfire occurrence, 
intensity, and severity (Miller et al. 2011, p. 183). The positive 
feedback process between cheatgrass and wildfires facilitates future 
fires, sagebrush loss, and cheatgrass dominance, resulting in entire 
landscapes being converted to nonnative annual grasslands (Miller et 
al. 2011, p. 183). Invasive plants reduce and, in cases where 
monocultures occur, eliminate vegetation that sage-grouse use for food 
and cover and fragment existing sage-grouse habitat (Miller et al. 
2011, pp. 160-164). Invasives do not provide quality sage-grouse 
habitat and, where invasive plants are present, sage-grouse are 
potentially impacted both seasonally (e.g., loss of forbs and 
associated insects) and long term (e.g., functional habitat loss) 
(Manier et al. 2013, p. 88).
    Interactions among disturbances and stressors may have cumulative 
effects (Chambers et al. 2014c, pp. 365-368). Invasive annual grasses 
and noxious perennials continue to expand their range, facilitated by 
ground disturbances, caused by more frequent and more severe wildfires, 
improper grazing of native perennial plants by domestic livestock and 
free-roaming equids, infrastructure, and other anthropogenic activity 
(Rice and Mack 1991, p. 84; Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p. 420; Zouhar et 
al. 2008, p. 23), but disturbance is not required for invasives to 
spread (Young and Allen 1997, p. 531; Roundy et al. 2007, p. 614). 
Invasions also may occur sequentially, where initial invaders (e.g., 
cheatgrass) are replaced by new invasive plants (Crawford et al. 2004, 
p. 9; Miller et al. 2011, p. 160). Long-term changes in climate that 
facilitate invasion and establishment by invasive annual grasses 
further exacerbate the fire regime and accelerate the loss of sagebrush 
habitats (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 63-87). The effects of 
disturbance will likely be amplified by greater susceptibility of 
habitats to burn as well as decreased likelihood for recovery of 
sagebrush ecosystems (Miller et al. 2011, p. 183).
    The arrival of European settlers in the mid-1800s initiated a 
series of changes in vegetation composition that impacted sagebrush 
ecosystems (Chambers et al. 2014a, p. 3). For example, improper grazing 
practices decreased native perennial grasses and forbs (Chambers et al. 
2014a, p. 3; Miller and Eddleman 2001, p. 17; Miller et al. 2011, p. 
181), which facilitated the invasion of nonnative annual grasses, 
particularly cheatgrass and Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead). 
This increase in fuel load and the lower fuel moisture content of the 
invasive annual grasses has resulted in more frequent, higher intensity 
fires (Brooks et al. 2004, pp. 679-680). Moreover, invasive annual 
grasses expand rapidly after fire disturbances becoming a readily 
burnable fuel source, and ultimately lead to a recurrent fire cycle 
that prevents sagebrush reestablishment (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 41; 
Eiswerth et al. 2009, p. 1324; Miller et al. 2011, pp. 163-170).
    Currently, invasive annual grasses are known to occur across the 
sage-grouse occupied range, with the greatest infestations occurring in 
the Great Basin (Figure 7). In the Great Basin, cheatgrass dominates 
over 6.9 million ha (17 million ac) and occupies an additional 25 
million ha (62 million ac) as a component of the plant community 
(Diamond et al. 2012, p. 259). Approximately 58 percent of sagebrush 
habitat in the Great Basin is believed to be at moderate to high risk 
of cheatgrass invasion during the next 30 years (Suring et al. 2005, p. 
138). Although nonnative annual grasses are more pervasive in the Great 
Basin than the Rocky Mountain States (Figure 7) (Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 5-9; Miller et al. 2011, p. 160), in recent years, cheatgrass (and 
other nonnative annual grasses) has increased its spread across the 
eastern portion of the species' range (Mealor et al. 2012, p. 427). 
Without effective management, the invasion of cheatgrass into the 
eastern portion of the species' range is likely to continue (Mealor et 
al. 2012, p. 427), and even now, with more effective management being 
employed, we expect that sage-grouse habitat will continue to be lost 
to some degree in the future.

[[Page 59899]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.006

    Nonnative annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead, have 
substantially altered regional fire regimes (Balch et al. 2013, p. 
179). Cheatgrass-dominated rangelands affect sagebrush ecosystems by 
shortening fire-return intervals and perpetuating their own persistence 
and intensifying the role of wildfire (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Sites 
dominated by cheatgrass may be four times more likely to burn than 
native sagebrush (Balch et al. 2013, p. 178). Invasive annual grasses 
increase the amount of fine fuels, resulting in wildfires that burn 
hotter and more evenly than historical times (Miller et al. 2011, p. 
167). Hotter and more expansive wildfires frequently burn larger 
contiguous areas of sagebrush and leave fewer pockets of unburnt 
sagebrush that would be available to recolonize the burned areas. The 
positive feedback process between cheatgrass and wildfire converts 
high-diversity native communities into low-diversity communities 
dominated by invasive plants that are unsuitable for sage-grouse and at 
increased risk of wildfire reoccurrence (Chambers et al. 2014a, pp. 3-
8).

Wildfire and Invasive Plant Impacts

    While it is known that sage-grouse respond negatively to wildfire 
(Johnson et al. 2011, pp. 424-425; Knick and Hanser 2011, pp. 395-403), 
it is challenging to predict the location and extent of future 
wildfires. However, a recent study provides insight to the wildfire and 
invasive plant cycle and serves as a useful tool in predicting future 
impacts (Chambers et al. 2014a, entire). This study used soil 
temperature and moisture regimes as an indicator of landscapes' 
resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive annual grasses. 
This work classified different ecological soil and moisture regimes 
(Chambers et al. 2014a, p. 16) into three categories of resiliency and 
resistance to wildfire and invasive species disturbance (which is known 
as the R&R matrix). For example, areas with low R&R values tend to be 
prone to invasion by cheatgrass (and, therefore, are at higher risk of 
large catastrophic wildfires) because these ecosystems have relatively 
lower resilience to disturbance and higher climate suitability for 
invasive annual grasses; therefore, low R&R areas are less likely to 
provide ecological benefits within the sagebrush ecosystem in the 
future. We assessed the risk of future wildfire and invasive plant 
invasion by examining the amount of breeding habitat occurring within 
the three R&R matrix classes. Habitat identified as low resistance was 
considered most likely to be adversely affected by wildfire and 
invasives. Because nonnative annual grasses are more prevalent in the 
Great Basin than the Rocky Mountain States (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-
9; Miller et al. 2011, p. 160), we limited our analysis to the Great 
Basin MZs III, IV, and V.
    In our analysis, sage-grouse in MZ III appear to be at greatest 
risk from wildfire and nonnative annual grass invasion, with 54 percent 
of sage-grouse breeding habitat occurring in areas classified as having 
low resistance. The majority of sage-grouse breeding habitat in MZs IV 
and V occur in areas having either high or moderate resistance and 
resiliency to fire and invasives (Table 8).

Table 8--Percent of Sage-Grouse Breeding Habitat Within Each Great Basin
 Management Zone That Occurs Within the Three Classes of Resiliency and
               Resistance to Invasive Plants and Wildfire
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                MZ III   MZ IV     MZ V
                                                 (%)      (%)      (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wetland/Riparian.............................        2        2        1

[[Page 59900]]

 
High Resistance..............................       16       35        8
Moderate Resistance..........................       28       36       59
Low Resistance...............................       54       27       33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While useful for estimating future wildfire and invasive plant 
risk, sagebrush resistance and resilience does not necessarily equate 
to sage-grouse resilience and resistance. Depending on the location and 
extent of wildfires, the amount of undisturbed habitat may be 
diminished such that it cannot sustain local populations. In addition, 
depending upon where wildfires occur, impacts to sage-grouse could be 
greater due to lost connectivity between populations. However, without 
the ability to predict the location, size, and severity of a wildfire, 
it is difficult to predict with certainty the location and degree of 
habitat fragmentation that may occur in the future or the associated 
population impacts.
    A recent study examined the potential impact of wildfire and 
invasive plants on future sage-grouse population trends in the Great 
Basin (Coates et al. 2015, entire). This study examined 30 years of 
wildfire and population trend data to estimate Great Basin population 
trends over the next 30 years, with and without additional management 
to reduce wildfire impacts (Coates et al. 2015, pp. 6-18). Without 
additional management, wildfire and invasive plants are forecast to 
cause sage-grouse abundance in the Great Basin to decline by 43 percent 
by 2044 (Coates et al. 2015, pp. 18-31). Improved management of 
wildfire suppression and invasive plant infestation could reduce the 
rate of decline depending upon the success rate of the management 
approach (Coates et al. 2015, p. 34). This study did not consider the 
impact of post-wildfire restoration projects, which could further 
reduce the rate of population decline (Coates et al. 2015, p. 34). The 
projected future impact of fire on abundance trends likely also depends 
upon climatic conditions (Coates et al. 2015, p. 34), which, as 
discussed in Climate Change and Drought (see below), is difficult to 
forecast with certainty 30 years into the future.
    Without changes in wildfire and invasive plant management, we 
anticipate that wildfire would continue to affect the Great Basin at 
the current rate of about 0.85 percent per year (see Altered Fire 
Cycle, above). This rate could potentially increase due to the 
intensifying synergistic interactions among fire, human activity, 
invasive plants, and climate change (Neilson et al. 2005, p. 157; 
Miller et al. 2011, pp. 179-184). Increased human presence and 
associated infrastructure, such as roads and power lines, could 
increase the risk of human-caused wildfires. Any future decreases in 
wildfire and invasive plant risk is dependent upon the successful 
implementation of wildfire and invasive conservation efforts, as 
discussed below.

Conservation Efforts

    As mentioned above, since 2010, wildfire managers have taken 
significant steps to better understand and address the impacts of 
wildfire on sage-grouse habitat. As part of that effort, local, State, 
and Federal land managers have undertaken considerable efforts to 
address the impacts of wildfire and invasive plants. Federal, State, 
and local partners have implemented a number of projects and programs 
to prevent and suppress the spread of wildfire and invasive plants, and 
where impacts have already occurred, to restore, consistent with 
recommendations in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 40-43). As discussed 
further below, the Federal Plans, FIAT assessments, and Secretarial 
Order provide guidance, coordination, and commitments for Federal and 
State agencies and private landowners to address the wildfire and 
invasive plants cycle and reduce impacts to sage-grouse.
    The BLM has a long history of implementing vegetation management 
treatments and has made considerable investments in fuels and 
restoration treatments within the sagebrush ecosystem since 2010. 
Analyses of more than 4,000 completed BLM projects suggest these 
treatments provide direct and indirect benefits to sage-grouse 
populations and have been effective at ameliorating the impacts of 
wildfire and invasives to sage-grouse (Table 9). The strong emphasis on 
sage-grouse since 2010 is reflected through focusing additional and 
existing resources to protect, conserve, and restore sage-grouse 
habitat. This emphasis has shifted priorities in many of the BLM's 
programs that treat vegetation, including fuels management and post-
fire recovery. The BLM has incorporated emerging science, monitoring 
results, and adaptive management to influence and modify vegetation 
management work to achieve the most ecosystem and landscape benefit.

          Table 9--Bureau of Land Management Projects Implemented Since 2009 To Ameliorate the Impacts of Wildfire and Invasives to Sage-Grouse
                                                            [Adapted from DOI 2015e, pp. 3-5]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Completed                       In-progress                        Planned
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Treatment                        Number of                        Number of                        Number of
                                                        projects      ha         ac      projects      ha         ac      projects      ha         ac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat Restoration..................................      1,395    322,167    796,091        102     33,060     81,692         40      5,805     14,345
Conifer Removal......................................        693    179,756    444,186        119     48,099    118,854        134    154,661    382,175
Wildfire Pre-suppression.............................        608     34,062     84,169         45     13,357     33,005         55      8,415     20,793
Habitat Restoration Following Wildfire...............        554    620,955  1,534,412         25     40,635    100,410          7     16,442     40,628
                                                      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals...........................................      3,250  1,156,940  2,858,858        291    135,149    333,961        236    185,322    457,941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Plans require that livestock grazing and feral horses 
be managed at levels necessary to achieve Land Health Standards (LHS) 
(see Grazing and Rangeland Management and Free-roaming Equids, below). 
These standards include minimizing the presence of cheatgrass and other 
invasive annual grasses within sage-

[[Page 59901]]

grouse habitat. These Federal Plan requirements will reduce the 
infestation of cheatgrass over the long term, reducing wildfire 
intensity, size, and frequency, and restoring a more natural role of 
wildfire in the sagebrush ecosystem.
    Within the Great Basin, the efforts by BLM, USFS, and DOI to 
address the impacts of wildfire and invasive plants on a landscape 
scale are particularly noteworthy. The BLM and USFS are implementing 
FIAT as part of their Federal Plans to prioritize actions directed at 
reducing the impacts of invasive annual grasses, wildfires, and conifer 
encroachment (BLM 2014, entire). Additionally, DOI has committed to the 
implementation of Secretarial Order 3336, Rangeland Fire Prevention, 
Management, and Restoration (Secretarial Order), which will result in a 
multiagency wildfire management paradigm shift that highlights the 
protection of sagebrush habitat. The BLM and USFS continue to implement 
measures to reduce the potential threat of wildfire to sage-grouse 
habitat through greater emphasis on preventing and suppressing 
wildfire, and restoring sagebrush landscapes threatened by wildfire and 
invasive species by means of improved Federal-State-local collaboration 
and coordination. Those efforts, as well as work by local and State 
wildfire managers, are discussed in further detail below.
    Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool--The FIAT is a collaborative 
multiagency effort by Federal, State, and local wildlife, forestry, and 
firefighting organizations that identified potential project areas and 
management strategies in highly valued sage-grouse habitats. As 
committed to in the Federal Plans, implementation of the FIAT 
assessments will reduce the potential impacts to sage-grouse resulting 
from invasive annual grasses, wildfires, and conifer expansion by 
prioritizing and focusing wildfire and invasive plant management 
efforts on the most important sage-grouse habitat while still 
prioritizing fire fighter and human safety. Focal habitats were 
identified within PACs based on patterns of ecological resistance and 
resilience, landscape sagebrush cover, burn probability, and conifer 
expansion, resulting in the following priority landscapes: Central 
Oregon, Northern Great Basin, Snake/Salmon/Beaverhead, Southern Great 
Basin, and Western Great Basin/Warm Springs Valley. For each priority 
landscape, regional findings were stepped down to describe local 
conditions by Project Planning Area and associated treatment needs and 
management priorities (BLM 2014, p. 9). Assessment of treatment needs 
and priorities were based on recent scientific research on resistance 
and resilience of Great Basin ecosystems (Chambers et al. 2014a, 
entire, which was described above) and NRCS soil surveys that include 
geospatial information on soil temperature and moisture regimes (BLM 
2014, p. 3; and Campbell 2014, entire).
    Potential management actions to resolve resource issues were 
divided into proactive approaches (e.g., fuels management and habitat 
recovery/restoration) and reactive approaches (e.g., fire operations 
and post-fire rehabilitation) (BLM 2014, p. 3). Proactive management 
strategies are intended to favorably modify wildfire behavior and 
restore or improve desirable habitat to provide greater resistance to 
invasive annual grasses and/or resilience after disturbances such as 
wildfires. Reactive management strategies are intended to reduce the 
loss of sage-grouse habitat from wildfires or stabilize soils and 
reduce impacts of invasive annual grasses in sage-grouse habitat after 
wildfires. Proactive management strategies, if implemented and 
effective, will result in long-term sage-grouse habitat improvement and 
stability, while effective reactive management strategies are essential 
to reduce current impacts of wildfires on sage-grouse habitat, thus 
maintaining habitat stability, and allowing for long-term improvements 
(BLM 2014, pp. 2-3).
    Cumulatively, the FIAT assessments of the five priority areas 
identify more than 16,000 km (10,000 mi) of potential linear fuel 
treatments, approximately 2.99 million ha (7.4 million ac) of potential 
conifer treatments, more than 2 million ha (5 million ac) of potential 
invasive plant treatments, and more than 7.7 million ha (19 million ac) 
of post-fire rehabilitation (i.e., should a fire occur, the post-fire 
rehabilitation identifies which areas BLM would prioritize for 
management) within the Great Basin region (Table 10). The FIAT 
assessments also identify site-appropriate management strategies for 
fire operations and post-fire decisions. These assessments provide 
direction about the extent, location, and rationale for management 
opportunities to address potential threats to sage-grouse. This 
comprehensive and forward-looking approach to both prevention and post-
fire treatments in the Great Basin represents a distinct change in 
approach and emphasis since we made our 2010 finding.

                                Table 10--FIAT Assessment Projects for Five Priority Landscapes in the Great Basin Region
                                                            [Adapted from BLM 2015a, entire]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       FIAT Assessment area
                                                         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              MZ III                   MZ IV                           MZ V
      Potential treatment type                           --------------------------------------------------------------------------------     Totals
                                                                                                                           Western Great
                                                          Southern Great  Northern Great   Snake/Salmon/      Central       Basin/Warm
                                                               Basin           Basin        Beaverhead        Oregon      Springs Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Habitat Restoration................  ha.................       1,203,333       1,951,113         603,792         436,589         840,277       5,035,104
                                     ac.................       2,973,499       4,821,300       1,492,000       1,078,835       2,076,367      12,442,001
Fuels Treatments...................  ha.................           7,322         185,508          35,329             231             n/a         228,390
                                     ac.................          18,092         458,400          87,300             571             n/a         564,363
Linear Fuels Treatments............  km.................           2,398           8,530             644             156           5,309          17,036
                                     mi.................           1,490           5,300             400              97           3,299          10,586
Fire Operations \1\................  ha.................       3,689,627       4,829,644       2,121,162         361,645       3,268,267      13,270,346
                                     ac.................       9,117,260      11,934,300       5,241,500         893,643       5,605,006      32,791,709
Post-Fire Rehabilitation (ESR) \2\.  ha.................           7,133       3,960,905       1,502,963         203,865       2,069,505       7,744,370
                                     ac.................          17,625       9,787,600       3,713,900         503,760       5,113,853      19,136,738
Conifer Treatments.................  ha.................         954,090       1,254,729         205,621         224,530         354,151       2,993,121
                                     ac.................       2,357,606       3,100,500         508,100         554,824         875,126       7,396,156

[[Page 59902]]

 
Invasive Plant Treatment \3\.......  ha.................       1,196,979         164,748          90,407         212,909         396,197       2,061,239
                                     ac.................       2,957,796         407,100         223,400         526,109         979,024       5,093,429
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fire operations include preparedness, prevention, and suppression activities. As opposed to proactive, site-specific planned treatments, fire
  operations and post-fire rehabilitation treatments are reactive responses to random wildfires.
\2\ Post-fire rehabilitation includes the BLM's ESR Program and the USFS's BAER Program. Program policies limit available funding from 1 to 3 years.
\3\ For the purposes of FIAT, invasive species were limited to invasive annual grasses.

    The planning, implementation, and monitoring of the FIAT 
assessments are a multiyear process. Planning is completed for some 
FIAT assessment projects, and implementation has begun (Table 11). 
Others similar projects are in early planning stages, but are expected 
to be implemented in the near future. To date, the BLM has made 
substantial investments in fuels and restoration treatments to address 
the impacts of fire and invasives on sage-grouse habitats, especially 
within the FIAT assessment areas.

                                      Table 11--FIAT Projects Implemented in Fiscal Year 2015 as of August 30, 2015
                                                                [BLM 2015h, attachment 1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   FY15 FIAT and other sage-grouse fuels program work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Completed                                      In-progress
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Treatment                            Number of                                       Number of
                                                             projects           ha              ac           projects           ha              ac
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conifer Removal.........................................             324          56,052         138,508             146          22,210          54,884
Wildfire Pre-suppression................................             130          16,778          41,460              74           2,217           5,480
Habitat Restoration.....................................             248          74,111         183,134              90          25,971          64,176
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..............................................             702         146,941         363,102             310          50,398         124,540
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Secretarial Order 3336--On January 5, 2015, the Secretary signed 
Secretarial Order 3336 (Secretarial Order), which sets forth enhanced 
policies and strategies for preventing and suppressing rangeland fire 
and for restoring sagebrush landscapes impacted by fire across the 
Great Basin region (DOI 2015b, entire). The Secretarial Order 
establishes a Rangeland Fire Task Force (Task Force), which completed 
an Implementation Plan (DOI 2015d, entire) that established a roadmap 
to accomplish the objectives of the Secretarial Order. The 
Implementation Plan also provided a timeline and methodology to be used 
in developing two separate reports on short- (2015 western fire season) 
and long-term (2016 western fire season and beyond) actions and 
activities that will be implemented to further address the impacts of 
wildfire in the Great Basin. The Secretarial Order complements the FIAT 
process by providing support and resource commitments for some of the 
projects identified in the FIAT assessments. For example, the 
Secretarial Order emphasizes the research on wildfire and invasive 
plant prevention and restoration (DOI 2015b, entire) that will support 
the adaptive management of FIAT assessment projects.
    Further, the Secretarial Order provides clear direction to all 
affected Department of the Interior bureaus (DOI 2015b, entire), in 
particular BLM, for prioritizing actions to address key elements of 
wildfire management, including effective rangeland management, fire 
prevention, fire suppression, and restoration at a landscape scale. 
Building on BLM and USFS' long and successful history of managing 
wildfire in the Western United States, the Secretarial Order focuses 
the existing rangewide commitment to effective wildfire management--as 
well as invasive species control and restoration--to protect large, 
intact sagebrush landscapes against the destructive effects of wildfire 
and invasive species. For example, BLM has dedicated increased 
resources to all aspects of fire management within the species' range 
for the 2015 wildfire season. Similarly, BLM is actively pursuing the 
long-term directives in the Final Report component of the Secretarial 
Order, such as a national seed strategy, to support effective 
restoration efforts (DOI 2015a).

Initial Report

    On March 1, 2015, the Task Force completed ``SO 3336--The Initial 
Report: A Strategic Plan for Addressing Rangeland Fire Prevention, 
Management, and Restoration in 2015'' (DOI 2015c, entire), detailing 
activities that could be undertaken in advance of the 2015 western fire 
season to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of wildfire 
management efforts. The actions identified in the Initial Report 
included priorities to strengthen planning and preparedness, such as 
increasing capabilities of rangeland fire protection associations 
(RFPA) and volunteer departments, utilizing veteran crews, ensuring 
fire management organizations are prepared and functional, and 
increasing initial attack and extended attack capability. In

[[Page 59903]]

response, the BLM has allocated additional resources to reflect these 
FY15 priorities (BLM 2015h; DOI 2015a; DOI 2015e), including:
     Allocating 6 million dollars in additional base funding to 
bolster fire programs for the long term.
     Allocating approximately 10.6 million dollars to hire 
additional seasonal firefighters and to support equipment (e.g., 
dozers, water tenders, etc.). Using this funding, the BLM hired 100 
additional firefighters in 2015, and DOI gave each Great Basin State 
supplemental funding to cover staffing shortages. With supplemental 
funds from the DOI, the BLM also purchased new equipment for the 2015 
fire season. An additional 20 single-engine air tankers were pre-
positioned near critical sagebrush habitat throughout the western 
United States. Helicopters were mobilized to address sage-grouse 
priority areas, and the helitack crew size was increased in order to 
provide more efficient initial attack. An additional jet lead plane was 
available to insure support for retardant planes mobilized to protect 
these critical areas. The BLM has also purchased several dozers, dozer 
transports, water trailers, and semi-trucks to boost or maintain the 
BLM's initial attack resource capability and initial attack success 
rate in critical sagebrush areas in the Great Basin.
     Committing 500,000 dollars to train rural fire departments 
and RFPAs in important sagebrush ecosystems and sage-grouse habitat 
areas.
     Providing training for more than 200 veterans to work on 
20-person firefighting crews. California, Nevada, and Oregon BLM 
offices have hired returning veterans who bring skills such as physical 
fitness, endurance, leadership, communications, and operation of heavy 
equipment.
    In addition to these actions, the BLM dedicated fuels program 
funding for fuels treatment and fire suppression to Great Basin States 
(BLM 2015h). Fuels treatment projects are prioritized and implemented 
based on location, opportunities for success, and overall benefit to 
protecting, conserving, and restoring sagebrush ecosystems and key 
sage-grouse habitat. Fire management actions taken by the BLM during 
the 2015 wildfire season has resulted in fewer acres of sage-grouse 
habitat burned in the early fire season compared to past years with 
similar weather and fuel conditions (BLM 2015h). For example, the Fuels 
Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring (FTEM) system is a database that 
captures anecdotal information when a wildfire intersects a past fuels 
treatment (BLM 2015h). So far in 2015, two fires in sage-grouse habitat 
(i.e., the ``499'' wildfire in Prineville, Oregon and the ``Hwy 290'' 
wildfire in Winnemucca, Nevada) have been entered into the system and 
demonstrate the effectiveness of the fuels treatment. Additionally, 
fuels treatments have reduced the size of unplanned wildfires, assisted 
in providing opportunities to stop or slow the spread of the wildfire, 
provided for greater firefighter safety, and protected sage-grouse 
habitat (BLM 2015h). Currently the BLM has completed more than 80 
percent of the action items and activities outlined in the Initial 
Report (Table 12).

Table 12--Secretarial Order Initial Report Actions Implemented in Fiscal
                                Year 2015
                   [McKnight, BLM, 2015, pers. comm.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Action item and
      Status            description                 Deliverable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Section 7.b.i. Integrated Response Plans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed........  Action Item #1:        Coordinate with State, tribal,
                    Increase the           and local government partners
                    capabilities and use   to leverage training assets
                    of rural/volunteer     and capabilities.
                    fire departments and   Specifically, the DOI/BLM
                    RFPAs and enhance      will seek to deliver training
                    the development and    to approximately 2,500
                    use of veteran crews.  cooperators and increase the
                                           utilization of veteran crews.
Completed........  Action Item #2:        Report out from States. MAC
                    Ensure local, multi-   groups, working with local
                    agency coordination    Federal wildland fire
                    (MAC) groups are       suppression agencies, tribes,
                    functional and MAC     State fire suppression
                    plans are updated.     agencies, local fire
                                           departments, RFPAs, and other
                                           cooperators.
Completed........  Action Item #3:        Report out from States. All
                    Develop and            units managing priority sage-
                    implement minimum      grouse habitat will develop
                    draw-down level and    and implement a minimum draw-
                    step up plans to       down level and step up plans
                    ensure availability    to clearly identify those
                    of resources for       suppression resources
                    protection in          necessary in order to
                    priority greater       maintain an effective,
                    sage-grouse habitat.   aggressive initial attack
                                           capability.
Completed........  Action Item #4: Apply  Report out from States. Review
                    a coordinated, risk-   and update CAD systems to
                    based approach to      ensure initial attack
                    wildfire response to   response to priority sage-
                    ensure initial         grouse areas in protection of
                    attack response to     sage-grouse habitat.
                    priority areas.
Completed........  Action Item #5:        Prepare standardized briefing
                    Develop a              materials on sagebrush-steppe
                    standardized set of    and sage-grouse wildfire
                    briefing materials.    protection for incoming Type
                                           1-3 Incident Management Teams
                                           and other fire management
                                           resources.
Completed........  Action Item #6:        Report out from States. Update
                    Review and update      and approve all Fire
                    local plans and        Prevention Plans, Wildland
                    agreements for         Fire Decision Support System
                    consistency and        data, Fire Danger Operating
                    currency to ensure     Plans, Preparedness Level
                    initial attack         Plans, and Agreements and
                    response to priority   Annual Operating Plans.
                    greater sage-grouse
                    areas.
Completed........  Action Item #7:        Review severity funding policy
                    Develop supplemental   and update guidance.
                    guidance for the use
                    of ``severity
                    funding''.
Ongoing..........  Action Item #8:        Develop annual reporting
                    Evaluate the           metrics for effectiveness
                    effectiveness of       monitoring of wildland fire
                    action plans.          response, with particular
                                           emphasis on the effectiveness
                                           of measures to improve
                                           success in rangeland fire
                                           response, based upon CAD
                                           changes, and reporting of
                                           success and/or failure as it
                                           pertains to Federal Plans and
                                           FMPs, and effectiveness of
                                           enhanced training and
                                           capacity measures.
Ongoing..........  Action Item #9:        Increase access to digital
                    Increase the           maps and mapping software by
                    availability of        providing appropriate
                    technology and         technology (such as
                    technology transfer    smartphones and tablets) to
                    to fire management     fire managers and suppression
                    managers and           personnel. Remove barriers
                    suppression            for acquisition of
                    resources.             appropriate software and
                                           hardware.

[[Page 59904]]

 
Completed........  Action Item #10:       Improve the collection of
                    Improve the            information about critical
                    description and        resource values threatened,
                    awareness of           including sage-grouse habitat
                    critical resource      and populations, on the
                    values threatened in   existing Incident Status
                    various stages of      Summary (ICS 209) and ensure
                    the fire response      this information is captured
                    process including      in the Incident Management
                    large fire             Situation Report (SIT
                    management.            Report).
Completed........  Action Item #11:       During annual preparedness
                    Ensure compliance      reviews, review all CAD
                    and evaluation of      systems and MAC plans for
                    the implementation     compliance with the action
                    plan action items.     plans outlined in Action
                                           Items #1 through #4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Section 7.b.ii. Prioritization and Allocation of Resources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed........  Action Item #1:        Establish protocols for
                    Communication plan.    providing Federal agency
                                           leadership with regular
                                           briefings and information on
                                           wildfire activity, fire
                                           conditions, and significant
                                           issues in relation to
                                           rangeland fire and the
                                           implementation of the
                                           Secretarial Order throughout
                                           the 2015 wildfire season in
                                           order to provide leadership
                                           with an accurate
                                           understanding and insight to
                                           the conditions on the ground.
                                           Senior leadership will
                                           regularly communicate
                                           national strategic priorities
                                           and expectations to line
                                           officers and fire staffs
                                           during the wildfire season.
Completed........  Action Item #2:        Ensure roles and
                    Review and update      responsibilities.
                    the delegation of
                    authority for the
                    National Multi-
                    Agency Coordination
                    (NMAC) Group.
Completed........  Action Item #3: Issue  Provide expectations for 2015.
                    national level
                    ``Leader Intent''.
Completed........  Action Item #4:        Communicate Leaders Intent.
                    Engage Geographic
                    Multi-Agency
                    Coordination (GMAC)
                    groups.
Ongoing..........  Action Item #5:        Create standard language for
                    Develop ``Delegation   use in a Delegation of
                    of Authority''         Authority template that
                    template for use by    identifies the sage-steppe
                    local line officers.   ecosystem and protection of
                                           species as a priority. Line
                                           officers will use this
                                           standard template when
                                           delegating authority to an
                                           Incident Commander who has
                                           responsibility for managing a
                                           wildfire incident within a
                                           FIAT area or has nexus to
                                           one. Delivery to Districts.
Completed........  Action Item #6:        Each agency use appropriate
                    Engage line officers   internal mechanisms to
                    to communicate         communicate intent and
                    Leaders' Intent and    expectations to regional and
                    expectations.          unit-level managers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Section 7.b.v. Post Fire Restoration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing..........  Action Item #1:        Update BAR evaluation and
                    Review and update      rating criteria and review ES
                    Emergency              policy and procedures.
                    Stabilization (ES)
                    and Burn Area
                    Rehabilitation (BAR)
                    policy guidance to
                    address rating and
                    evaluation criteria,
                    project design to
                    promote the
                    likelihood of
                    treatment success,
                    cost containment,
                    monitoring, and
                    continuity and
                    transition to long-
                    term restoration
                    activities and
                    treatments.
Ongoing..........  Action Item #2:        Work with Departmental and
                    Address acquisition,   bureau acquisition and
                    financial              finance offices to provide
                    management, and        funding and project
                    other procedures       continuity at the beginning
                    that pose challenges   of, and across, fiscal years.
                    to timely project
                    implementation.
Ongoing..........  Action Item #3:        Accelerate preliminary
                    Accelerate schedule    approvals that will allow
                    approving BAR          sufficient lead time to
                    projects consistent    complete cultural and other
                    with the guidelines    clearances (e.g., NEPA and
                    established for the    National Preservation Act of
                    2015 fire season.      1966 [Section 106]6),
                                           procurement planning, and
                                           other advance work that will
                                           take place prior to the
                                           application of full funding
                                           at the beginning of the
                                           fiscal year.
Completed........  Action Item #4:        Funding of ES and BAR projects
                    Identify non-fire      will be evaluated based on
                    programs and           opportunities and commitments
                    activities that will   from non-fire program and
                    fund treatments and    activities if the work that
                    restoration            is proposed will extend
                    activities for the     beyond the ES and BAR
                    long term in           duration.
                    conjunction with BAR
                    and ES policy and
                    program review to be
                    conducted in 2015.
Ongoing..........  Action Item #5:        Implementation of new criteria
                    Identify               for project evaluation and
                    requirements for       oversight may require updates
                    National Fire Plan     and changes to NFPORS.
                    Operations and
                    Reporting System
                    (NFPORS)
                    capabilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Section 7.b.ix. Seed Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed........  Action Item #1:        Complete the National Seed
                    Develop the draft      Strategy and Implementation
                    National Seed          Plan.
                    Strategy and
                    Implementation Plan.
Completed........  Action Item #2:        Attend the Institute for
                    Identify a forum to    Applied Ecology's National
                    discuss and            Native Seed Conference.
                    highlight current
                    native seed and
                    restoration
                    techniques and
                    research.
Completed........  Action Item #3:        A series of 15 webinars on
                    Provide an             seeding and restoration
                    opportunity to         entitled, ``The Right Seed in
                    discuss current        the Right Place at the Right
                    research, case-        Time: Tools for Sustainable
                    studies, and tools     Restoration'' are offered
                    that inform applied    through May 2015.
                    restoration
                    opportunities in the
                    Great Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 59905]]

    The BLM has longstanding national and local policies that require 
monitoring vegetation treatments (both implementation and effectiveness 
monitoring) and guidance to apply monitoring data for adaptive 
management. These planning policies require the BLM to set land use 
goals and objectives, and to ensure that all vegetation treatments are 
responding to those goals and objectives. The FIAT process requires 
partnership with cooperators, agencies, and others involved in land or 
wildlife management in the FIAT assessment areas, which helps ensure 
BLM's treatments are benefitting the sagebrush ecosystem and that 
proposed treatments provide direct and indirect benefits to sage-grouse 
populations.
    The management strategies identified by the FIAT process are 
consistent with broader land use plan direction. Habitat restoration 
treatments (e.g., biological, chemical, seeding, and broadcast burning) 
are effective at reducing fine fuel loads and ultimately decrease fire 
spread and area burned. Chemical applications are effective at removing 
nonnative annual grasses and promoting growth and establishment of 
native species. Seeding treatments implemented by the BLM are effective 
at reducing undesirable species and promote the establishment of 
desirable species because they are timed to achieve a high probability 
of success. Conifer removal treatments are implemented to reduce fuel 
loading and effectively reduce fire intensity, fire spread, and area 
burned. Wildfire pre-suppression activities alter vegetation 
composition, reducing the negative impacts from wildfire and invasives. 
Projects are planned using fire behavior analysis tools that consider 
topography, weather patterns, fire history, and fuel conditions to 
ensure effectiveness. These treatments ultimately slow fire spread and 
reduce fire size and area burned (DOI 2015e, entire). Fuels treatment 
effectiveness monitoring reports of 722 wildfire/fuels treatment 
intersections since 2001 demonstrate fuels treatment effectiveness 
within the BLM (BLM 2015b, p. 1). Of the wildfire/treatment 
interactions reported, 85 percent of the treatments helped control the 
wildfire, and 90 percent changed the fire behavior (BLM 2015b, p. 2). 
The BLM found that hazardous fuels treatments reduced the size of many 
unplanned ignitions, assisted in providing opportunities to stop or 
slow the spread of wildfire, provided for greater firefighter safety, 
allowed opportunities to manage unplanned ignitions for resource 
benefits, reduced the burn area rehabilitation needs and costs, reduced 
smoke emissions, and allowed for greater resiliency of the environment 
in returning to a functional ecosystem following wildfire (BLM 2015b, 
p. 1). The BLM's post-fire emergency stabilization and burned area 
rehabilitation treatments are planned, deliberate actions that promote 
land stabilization and rehabilitation of burned landscapes. The BLM is 
aggressively treating burned areas where there is a high probability of 
cheatgrass invasion (BLM 2015h). Post-fire recovery treatments are 
designed to promote native vegetation and to inhibit the establishment 
of nonnative annual grasses. Some previous post-fire seeding 
restoration attempts were found to be ineffective, with seeded areas as 
likely to have sage-grouse occupancy compared to non-seeded areas 
(Arkle et al. 2014, p. 15). However, post-fire seeding restoration was 
more likely to be successful in higher elevation areas with particular 
climate regimes and when projects were implemented in years preceding 
cool, wet growing seasons (Arkle et al. 2014, p. 15). Therefore, the 
FIAT process prioritizes restoration activities in areas with higher 
resiliency and resistance to fire based on soil and moisture regimes 
(Chambers et al. 2014b, p. 453). These treatments are effective at 
addressing the impacts posed by invasive plants and ultimately address 
future wildfire threats.
    Once implemented, projects and treatments identified by FIAT will 
follow the same monitoring protocols as non-FIAT management actions, in 
accordance with overarching guidance in the Federal Plans. 
Specifically, monitoring that evaluates the implementation and 
effectiveness of FIAT management strategies will follow The Greater 
Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework (BLM and USFS 2014, entire). Given 
past effectiveness and ongoing monitoring efforts, the BLM expects 95 
to 99 percent of all habitat restoration, wildfire pre-suppression, and 
conifer removal projects that are completed or in progress to 
effectively ameliorate the impacts of wildfire and invasive plants to 
sage-grouse (DOI 2015e, p. 9).
    At the time of this writing, the 2015 fire season is under way, and 
we cannot currently predict the outcome of the season in terms of 
impacts to sage-grouse habitat. Similarly, it is premature to assess 
how implementation of the wildfire and invasive plant conservation 
efforts discussed above are working to address impacts during this fire 
season. At the time of publication, approximately 200,000 ha (500,000 
ac) of sage-grouse habitat has been estimated to be affected by 
wildfires this year, including approximately 12 ha (30 ac) of SFA. Much 
of the area burned is associated with a single wildfire that occurred 
along the Idaho and Oregon border--the Soda Fire. This fire does 
provide some insight into the implementation of the wildfire 
conservation measures.
    The Soda Fire started on August 10, 2015, burning approximately 
114,000 ha (283,000 ac) of Federal, State, and private lands in 
southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon (NIFC 2015). Almost all of the 
burned area is sage-grouse habitat, with more than 20,000 ha (about 
50,000 ac) designated by BLM as PHMA for the species. Despite extreme 
fire behavior, firefighters safely suppressed this wildfire with no 
loss of life and no serious injuries to firefighters or the public. An 
interagency Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation (ES&R) team of 
more than 40 natural resource specialists has completed 5 days working 
on the ground to assess damage and threats to life, property, and 
resources on BLM-managed lands in both Idaho and Oregon. The ES&R team 
is now designing treatments to mitigate threats and begin the 
rehabilitation of the burned area (BLM2015h). Rehabilitation of burned 
areas on State and private lands affected by the Soda Fire is being 
handled through similar authorities and processes by Idaho Department 
of Lands (IDL) and the NRCS. Other local, State, and Federal 
organizations are participating throughout the process. A Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) established in 2014 between BLM, Idaho Department 
of Fish and Game, and IDL plays a key part in authorizing restoration 
efforts and processes on State land, particularly in PHMAs and 
Important Habitat Management Areas (IHMAs).
    The Soda Fire is one of many examples of why the Secretary of the 
Interior issued Secretarial Order 3336 to prioritize resources to 
address the threat of wildfire in sagebrush habitats for Federal land 
managers. We expect that the actions outlined in the Secretarial Order 
and BLMs commitments to implement other new strategies and tools 
identified (BLM 2015h) above will ultimately prove valuable in reducing 
the negative effects of wildfire on sage-grouse habitat. Importantly, 
the rapid completion of many of the near-term action items outlined in 
the Initial Report--many of these measures were in place before the 
onset of the 2015 fire season--signal a strong commitment from wildland 
fire managers to implement these measures into the future.

[[Page 59906]]

Final Report

    The ``SO3336--Final Report: An Integrated Rangeland Fire and 
Management Strategy'' (DOI 2015c, entire), completed May 1, 2015, 
outlines a long-term approach to improving the efficiency and efficacy 
of actions to better prevent and suppress wildfire and to improve 
efforts to restore fire-impacted landscapes both including and beyond 
2016. This approach involves targeted investments to enhance efforts to 
manage wildfire in the Great Basin, based on relative resilience and 
resistance of habitat to fire. The Final Report also outlines longer 
term actions to implement the policy and strategy set forth in the 
Secretarial Order, including the continued implementation of approved 
actions associated with the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management 
Strategy (DOI 2014, entire) that provides guidance for the safe and 
effective suppression of wildfires. The actions outlined in the Final 
Report primarily focus on the Great Basin region, but DOI intends for 
the strategies developed under the Final Report to be applied rangewide 
where there is benefit to sagebrush ecosystem habitat and sage-grouse. 
Measures outlined in the Final Report include the following:

     Designing and implementing comprehensive, integrated 
fire response plans for the FIAT assessment areas in the Great Basin 
subject to fire and invasives;
     Providing clear direction on the prioritization and 
allocation of fire management resources and assets;
     Expanding the focus on fuels reduction opportunities 
and implementation;
     Fully integrating the emerging science of ecological 
resilience into design of habitat management, fuels management, and 
restoration projects;
     Reviewing and updating emergency stabilization and 
burned area rehabilitation policies and programs to integrate with 
long-term restoration activities;
     Committing to multiyear investments for the restoration 
of sagebrush ecosystems, including consistent long-term monitoring 
protocols and adaptive management for restored areas;
     Implementing large-scale experimental activities to 
remove cheatgrass and other invasive annual grasses through various 
tools;
     Committing to multiyear investments in science and 
research; and
     Developing a comprehensive strategy for acquisition, 
storage, and distribution of seeds and other plant materials.

    The Secretarial Order places a priority on ``protecting, 
conserving, and restoring the health of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem 
and, in particular, sage-grouse habitat, while maintaining safe and 
efficient operations,'' and looks to the allocation of fire resources 
and assets associated with wildfire to reflect that priority. In 
preparing the Final Report, the Task Force considered a wide variety of 
possible actions for conserving habitat for the sage-grouse and other 
wildlife species as well as economic activity, such as ranching and 
recreation, associated with the sagebrush ecosystem in the Great Basin. 
The strategy outlined in the Final Report builds upon the National 
Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (DOI 2014, entire) and is 
intended to ensure improved coordination with local, State, Tribal, and 
regional efforts to address the potential threat of wildfire at a 
landscape level.
    In 2015, BLM initiated implementation of the National Seed 
Strategy, a key program included in the Secretarial Order (BLM 2015c, 
entire; BLM 2015h, entire). The ``National Seed Strategy for 
Rehabilitation and Restoration 2015-2020'' (Seed Strategy) provides a 
coordinated approach for stabilization, rehabilitation, and restoration 
treatments. The Seed Strategy also provides a framework for actively 
working with the private sector in order to build a ``seed industry'' 
for rehabilitation and restoration. This program was developed 
specifically in response to concerns about the wildfire and invasive 
plant cycle in the sagebrush ecosystem, and was identified in the 
Secretarial Order. The Seed Strategy has the following four goals:

    1. Identify seed needs, and ensure the reliable availability of 
genetically appropriate seed;
    2. Identify research needs and conduct research to provide 
genetically appropriate seed and to improve technology for native seed 
production and ecosystem restoration;
    3. Develop tools that enable managers to make timely, informed 
seeding decisions for ecological restoration; and
    4. Develop strategies for internal and external communication.

    The Seed Strategy ensures that adequate supplies of native seed 
will be available for sagebrush ecosystem restoration. The use of 
locally appropriate native seed will improve restoration success, 
serving as an important tool in the suppression of invasive plant 
infestations after habitat disturbances, such as wildfire. The measures 
in the Seed Strategy are consistent with COT Report conservation 
recommendations for post-wildfire restoration (USFWS 2013, p. 40). The 
initiation of the Seed Strategy by BLM is evidence of DOI's commitments 
to fully implement the measures included in the Secretarial Order and 
serves as an important tool for the minimization of the wildfire-
invasive plant cycle across the species' range (BLM 2015h, entire).
    We analyzed the certainty of implementation and effectiveness of 
the Secretarial Order pursuant to PECE (68 FR 15100, March 28, 2003). 
As noted above, the purpose of PECE 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 majority of the actions identified in the Initial Report have 
been implemented (BLM 2015h, entire). Specifically, the following 
actions have taken place: Investments targeted to enhance efforts to 
manage wildfire in the Great Basin; a process has been established for 
allocating funds to support policies and strategies for preventing and 
suppressing wildfire and for restoring sagebrush landscapes impacted by 
fire across the Great Basin; and funds were provided this year to 
support efforts under the Secretarial Order (BLM 2015h, entire). The 
agencies have the legal authorities to carry out the responsibilities 
under the Secretarial Order and it builds on the BLM and USFS' long and 
successful history of managing wildfire in the Western United States. 
Therefore, we expect that the efforts will continue to be implemented 
to accomplish the objectives of the Secretarial Order.
    The Secretarial Order is expected to work with FIAT and other 
authorities to further help address the effects associated with 
wildfire suppression and restoration and the spread of invasive 
species. The Secretarial Order provides an implementation plan and 
specific objectives including short-term actions for the 2015 fire 
season and long-term actions needed to meet the objectives identified 
in the order. Pursuant to the Secretarial Order, protocols for 
monitoring vegetation treatments (both implementation and effectiveness 
monitoring) were established and guidance was developed to apply 
monitoring data for adaptive management (BLM 2105h, entire).
    We expect that the measures will be effective in reducing the 
impacts of wildfire and invasive plants to sage-grouse and its 
habitats. The COT Report recommends containing wildfire within the 
normal range (including size and

[[Page 59907]]

frequency), eliminating intentional fires, and restoring burned 
sagebrush habitats (USFWS 2013, p. 40). As the COT Report noted, 
reduction of the threat of wildfire is difficult (USFWS 2013, p. 40). 
However, the Secretarial Order, FIAT and other authorities and actions 
working in concert have provided the direction needed as described in 
the COT Report. Many of the actions identified in the Initial Report 
have already been implemented (BLM 2015h, entire). The actions yet to 
be fully implemented from the Initial and Final Report have a high 
level of certainty of implementation, given BLM's past track record of 
implementation and their commitments and policy direction for future 
implementation(BLM 2015h, entire). The Secretarial Order and associated 
actions, both short and long term directly address the recommendations 
found in the COT Report, are based on the best available information, 
and address the major issues related to wildfire prevention and 
suppression, as well as restoration of areas impacted by wildfire and 
invasive plants. We expect that the Secretarial Order and associated 
actions, both short- and long-term, will be implemented and will be 
effective in reducing the effects to sage-grouse and its habitat from 
wildfire and invasive species sufficient enough be considered in making 
our determination.
    Resilient Landscapes Funding and Projects--The Wildland Fire 
Resilient Landscapes (WFRL) program is a new approach to achieve fire 
resiliency goals across landscapes with the collaborative efforts 
defined in the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (DOI 
2014, entire), and in support of Secretarial Order 3336--Rangeland Fire 
Prevention, Management, and Restoration. The WFRL program provides 
opportunities for the DOI bureaus, working together with other Federal, 
tribal, State, and local governmental and nongovernmental partners, to 
identify and complete projects that are intended to contribute 
significantly to restoring fire resilience in a variety of fire-adapted 
ecosystems across the country. The Fiscal Year 2015 appropriation 
provided 10 million dollars to the Fuels Management program to fund 
resilient landscape activities, as a pilot initiative. Ten proposals 
were selected for funding in 2015; three projects, representing 68 
percent of the funding, are located within the range of sage-grouse, 
and support the goals of the Secretarial Order (Table 13). The Fiscal 
Year 2016 President's Budget proposes funding for the WFRL program at 
30 million dollars to provide multiyear support for landscape-scale 
projects and expand the program to new partnerships.

 Table 13--Fiscal Year 2015 Wildland Fire Resilient Landscapes Program Projects Funded Within the Range of Sage-
                                                     Grouse
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Project acres     Approved
           Collaborative             Location/lead agency    Project objective      (millions)        funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruneau-Owyhee....................  Located in Idaho.....  Treat conifer                      >1        $166,000
                                    Lead: BLM............   encroachment to
                                                            benefit fire
                                                            resiliency and sage-
                                                            grouse habitat.
Greater Sheldon-Hart Mountain.....  Located in parts of    Focus on restoring                 ~4       3,984,250
                                     Oregon, Nevada,        sagebrush shrub and
                                     California.            native perennial
                                    Lead: Service........   grass/forb
                                                            communities by
                                                            controlling juniper
                                                            expansion.
Southern Utah.....................  Located in Utah......  Remove encroaching                7.4       2,605,000
                                    Lead: BLM............   pinyon pine and
                                                            juniper, diversify
                                                            age class of
                                                            sagebrush
                                                            communities,
                                                            establish desired
                                                            understory to
                                                            restore resilience,
                                                            benefitting
                                                            sagebrush-dependent
                                                            wildlife.
                                                                                 -------------------------------
    Totals........................  .....................  .....................             >12       6,755,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    State Fire Management Programs--Federal, State, and local land and 
wildlife management agencies collaborate and work under national fire 
guidance strategies to achieve common goals and objectives. Within the 
Great Basin region, State Forest Action Plans address the coordinated 
management of wildfire. State and local fire management agencies view 
all wildfires as ``full suppression'' incidents, and make every effort 
to suppress fires safely and quickly with a strong initial attack. Many 
States have agreements with their neighboring States to ensure that a 
rapid initial attack is possible, even if it is from a neighboring 
State or jurisdiction. Additionally, they may utilize a ``unified 
command'' concept to assist in coordination and cooperation (Havlina et 
al. 2015, p. 26). Specific projects are detailed in the State Forest 
Action Plans to reduce fuels, improve preparedness and initial attack 
response, identify equipment and training needs, and ensure safe, 
rapid, and aggressive response to wildfire ignitions, and address 
rehabilitation of wildfire-damaged lands to mitigate the spread of 
invasive plants (Havlina et al. 2015, pp. 25-27). For example, Utah's 
Forest Action Plan (UDFFSL 2015; pp. 33-35) was updated in 2015 to 
include five Sage-grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) (Box Elder, Bald 
Hills, Sheep Rock Mountains, Hamlin Valley, and Ibapah) as high 
priorities in the wildfire risk assessment and as part of the 
Governor's Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy. Collectively, 
these five SGMAs hold 26 percent of the sage-grouse in the State of 
Utah (UDFFSL 2015, p. 35).
    The Oregon State Plan recognizes wildfire as one of the most 
significant impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat in Oregon and the 
Great Basin. The Plan also recognizes the interrelated nature of the 
threat from wildfire with the threats from nonnative annual grasses and 
juniper encroachment. The Plan outlines more than 40 conservation 
actions to address the impacts from wildfire, which are defined as any 
activity or action which, when implemented or continued to be 
implemented, will reduce potential threats to sage-grouse and will 
improve or maintain healthy sagebrush-steppe habitat. These 
conservation actions are categorized into four areas: Reducing wildfire 
risk, wildfire suppression, building capacity and supporting local 
efforts, and post-fire rehabilitation. All of the conservation actions 
for wildfire are predicated on the FIAT as well as the Secretarial 
Order, use data specific to Oregon, and are coordinated with the goals 
and objectives of the BLM's Federal Plans as well as local 
jurisdictions.
    Local Fire Management Programs--Many communities throughout sage-
grouse habitat in the Great Basin have rangeland fire protection 
associations

[[Page 59908]]

(RFPAs). The RFPAs are remotely located firefighting units staffed by 
public volunteers. The RFPA volunteers are trained and equipped to 
respond to wildland fires with the intent to control wildfires at the 
smallest size that can be safely accomplished. Their location in remote 
areas allows firefighters to access fires quickly, which increases 
success of controlling fires before they grow in size, become more 
challenging to suppress, and cause greater effects to sage-grouse. In 
Oregon, 18 RFPAs have been created and currently field more than 600 
volunteer fire fighters and more than 200 pieces of water-handling fire 
equipment to protect more than 2 million ha (5 million ac) from 
wildfire. In southern Idaho, there are currently seven RFPAs with 230 
trained members who support wildland firefighters to protect more than 
1.4 million ha (3.5 million ac) of the sagebrush ecosystem from 
catastrophic wildfire. On June 23, 2015, Governor Brian Sandoval signed 
emergency regulations related to the formation of RFPAs within the 
State of Nevada (NRS 472 per AB 163, sec. 3.5(1) of the 78th Session of 
the Nevada legislature).

Wildfire and Invasive Plants Summary

    In 2010, we concluded that wildfire was one of the primary factors 
linked to declines of sage-grouse due to long-term loss of sagebrush 
and conversion of sagebrush habitats to invasive annual grasses. Loss 
of sagebrush habitat to wildfire had been increasing in the western 
portion of the sage-grouse range mainly due to an increase in wildfire 
occurrence, intensity, and severity (Miller et al. 2011, p. 183). We 
found this change to be the result of incursion of nonnative annual 
grasses, primarily cheatgrass. The positive feedback loop between 
cheatgrass and wildfire facilitates future fires and precludes the 
opportunity for sagebrush, which is killed by fire, to become 
reestablished. Cheatgrass and other invasive plants also alter habitat 
suitability for sage-grouse by reducing or eliminating native forbs and 
grasses essential for food and cover.
    While the manner in which wildfire and invasive plants affect sage-
grouse has not changed since the 2010 finding, there has been a 
significant change in the approach to rangeland firefighting and fuels 
management to address these potential threats. Through development of 
the FIAT, as well as the Secretarial Order, the BLM and USFS have 
developed and implemented wildfire management strategies and actions 
intended to reduce the impact of wildfire and invasive plants (BLM 
2015h, entire). Similarly, a paradigm shift is occurring in the way 
land managers and the larger conservation community approach invasive 
plant control and in particular the relationship between invasive 
plants and wildfire.
    Without management, current burn rates would likely continue, 
potentially impacting another 17 to 25 percent of the species' range 
within the Great Basin over the next 20 to 30 years. If this level of 
wildfire did occur, sage-grouse populations in the Great Basin could 
decline 43 percent over the next 30 years (Coates et al. 2015, p. 32), 
and some small populations could be extirpated. However, we expect that 
the rates of wildfire and invasive plant habitat loss seen over the 
past decades will be reduced by conservation efforts. The FIAT 
assessments that are included in the Federal Plans and the actions 
implemented under the Secretarial Order provide enhanced policies, 
strategies, and tools for preventing and suppressing wildfire and for 
restoring landscapes affected by fire across the Great Basin region. 
Many of those measures are in place for the current fire season (DOI 
2015a). As a result, sagebrush habitats will now be given priority 
consideration in the treatment of fuels, the deployment of firefighting 
resources, and the rehabilitation of burned areas. Much of that effort 
will be focused in those areas most resistant to wildfire and invasive 
plants, where more than half the breeding habitat in the Great Basin 
occurs and where prevention and restoration projects are most likely to 
be successful; this strategy is consistent with recommendations 
provided in the COT report (USFWS 2013, pp. 40-42) and a recent study 
of wildfire impacts over the next 30 years (Coates et al. 2015, p. 34). 
Further, if wildfires do occur, monitoring of sage-grouse habitat and 
population responses to that impact will occur so that other land use 
activities can be adjusted, if necessary. In response to monitoring, 
development allowable under the Federal Plans may be adjusted based on 
adaptive management criteria to provide an immediate, corrective 
response to any identified triggers for population or habitat declines. 
While not directly related to habitat losses due to fire, these 
provisions provide a backstop for other disturbance if adaptive 
management triggers are exceeded. The continued long-term 
implementation of these wildfire management strategies, in coordination 
with the Federal Plans and Oregon State Plan (see Sagebrush Landscape 
Conservation Planning for additional details) reduce the risk, or the 
degree to which, fire and invasive plants are likely to impact sage-
grouse. We expect that the current management emphasis will reduce 
future losses.

Grazing and Rangeland Management

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of grazing on sage-grouse 
(including domestic livestock, free-roaming equids, and wild ungulates) 
and concluded that improper grazing was likely having negative impacts 
to sagebrush and sage-grouse at local scales, but that population-level 
impacts were unknown. However, given the widespread nature of grazing, 
the potential for population-level impacts could not be ignored (75 FR 
13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13942). In this section we evaluate the best 
available information on the impacts of livestock grazing on sage-
grouse and on conservation actions since 2010 intended to ameliorate 
those impacts. We have no new information regarding impacts of native 
ungulates on sage-grouse populations, which were not considered a 
substantive threat in 2010; therefore, our analysis focuses exclusively 
on domestic livestock grazing. The impacts on the species and its 
habitat of free-roaming equid grazing are addressed in a separate 
section of this document (see Free-Roaming Equids).
    Improper grazing by domestic livestock during the late 1800s and 
early 1900s, along with severe drought, affected sagebrush ecosystems 
across the range of sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616). Improper 
grazing, for the purposes of this assessment, is defined as grazing 
practices that are inconsistent with local ecological conditions and 
result in degradation of habitat for local wildlife species. This 
historical improper grazing caused long-term changes in plant 
communities and soils (Knick et al. 2003, p. 611). In low-elevation 
Wyoming big sagebrush and low sagebrush habitat, improper grazing 
reduced perennial herbaceous vegetation and caused high levels of 
ground disturbance, which promoted the establishment of exotic annual 
grass species such as cheatgrass (Mack 1981, pp. 148-152). In higher 
elevation mountain big sagebrush habitat, improper grazing likely 
reduced fine fuels and decreased fire frequency, resulting in the 
expansion of fire-sensitive native conifers (Miller and Tausch 2001, 
pp. 19-26). In both instances, these shifts in the vegetative community 
have facilitated changes in the wildfire cycle, leading to loss of 
sage-grouse habitat (see Wildfire and Invasive Plants, above).

[[Page 59909]]

    Livestock grazing is currently the most widespread land use in the 
sagebrush ecosystem and occurs in all MZs (Knick et al. 2011, p. 219; 
Boyd et al. 2014, p. 62). Livestock grazing may positively or 
negatively affect the structure and composition of sage-grouse habitat 
(Factor A), depending on the intensity and timing of grazing and local 
climatic and ecological conditions (Crawford et al. 2004, pp. 10-12; 
Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990; Boyd et al. 2014, p. 63). As a result, 
drawing broad inferences regarding the current impact of grazing on 
sagebrush habitats across the range of sage-grouse is difficult.
    The total number of livestock that currently graze within sage-
grouse habitats is unknown. No rangewide data set is available 
describing the level of livestock grazing that occurs on private lands 
across the occupied range. Most grazing on Federal lands is managed by 
BLM and USFS (GAO 2005, p. 5). The BLM and USFS index the number of 
livestock grazed by Animal Unit Months (AUMs), which takes into account 
both the number of livestock and the amount of time they spend on 
public lands. An AUM is defined by BLM as the amount of forage needed 
to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for 
1 month. The number of AUMs allowed depends upon land health 
assessments that evaluate the ecological condition of an area and its 
ability to support grazing (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). The number of 
AUMs permitted on Federal lands has gradually declined since the 1960s 
(Mitchell 2000, pp. 64-68). This decline was concurrent with a decline 
in productivity of western shrublands due to previous grazing history, 
changes in soils and vegetation, or drought (Knick et al. 2011, p. 
232). The reduction in AUMs permitted on public lands over time may not 
translate to a reduction in the effects of grazing in sagebrush systems 
(Knick et al. 2011, p. 232).
    Properly managed grazing may benefit sage-grouse. Light to moderate 
livestock grazing can help maintain perennial vegetation that provides 
important food and cover for sage-grouse (Crawford et al. 2004, pp. 2-
12; Boyd et al. 2014, p. 63). It can also help control invasives and 
woody plant encroachment, which may improve habitats and may reduce 
wildfire risk (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-49; Boyd et al. 2014, p. 68). 
The net impact of different use levels will vary in accordance with 
climatic variability, local environment, and season of use (Crawford et 
al. 2004, pp. 10-12). Implementing proper grazing practices that 
maintain adequate residual grass height and cover under shrubs provides 
for suitable cover and minimizes the negative effects of grazing on 
sage-grouse productivity (Boyd et al. 2014, p. 64).
    Alternatively, improperly managed grazing can have adverse impacts 
to sage-grouse habitat. Improper grazing directly influences the 
composition, productivity, and structure of herbaceous plants in 
sagebrush plant communities (Boyd et al. 2014, p. 64), which in turn 
influences the quality and quantity of food and cover for sage-grouse 
(Fleischner 1994, pp. 633-635). By reducing protective vegetative 
cover, improper grazing may make nesting and brood-rearing habitats 
less suitable for sage-grouse. Sage-grouse rely on the cover of tall 
grasses and shrubs to hide from predators, especially during the 
nesting season, and females will preferentially choose nesting sites 
based on the height of grasses and shrubs (Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). 
Grass height is a strong predictor of nest survival and hiding cover 
can increase nest success, a key vital rate for sage-grouse (Doherty et 
al. 2014, pp. 322-323). Loss of this hiding cover may increase 
predation during nesting and brood-rearing, subsequently reducing 
reproductive success rates (Gregg et al. 1994, p. 165). Maintaining 
adequate residual grass height and cover under shrubs minimized the 
negative effect of grazing on sage-grouse productivity (Boyd et al. 
2014, p. 64).
    Improper livestock grazing can reduce food available to sage-
grouse, which can impact reproductive success and chick survival 
(Coggins 1998, p. 30; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30; Pederson et al. 
2003, p. 43). Improper livestock grazing in mesic, brood-rearing 
habitat may further reduce food resources by altering soils and 
hydrology and reducing herbaceous plants (Braun 1998, p. 147; Dobkin et 
al. 1998, p. 213). Improper livestock grazing may also reduce the cover 
and height of sagebrush in key wintering habitats (Rasmussen and Griner 
1938, p. 852), potentially affecting the condition and survival of 
sage-grouse during the winter when resources are scarce. However, 
implementing appropriate grazing practices can maintain habitat and 
food resources for sage-grouse or, under very specific conditions, 
improve conditions by stimulating succulent forb growth (Evans 1986, p. 
67; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 12; Beck and Mitchell 2000, p. 997).
    Beyond habitat impacts, improper grazing can also directly affect 
sage-grouse (Factor E). Nearby livestock can cause females to flush 
from their nests (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426), inadvertently revealing 
the nest and its eggs to predators, such as ravens (Corvus corax) 
(Coates 2007, p. 33) and the abundance of raven predators in sage-
grouse habitats may increase near livestock grazing (Coates et al., in 
press). Livestock can trample or disturb nests (Crawford et al. 2004, 
p. 12). However, no information is available about the extent these 
potential impacts may be occurring across the occupied range. When they 
do occur, adverse impacts are likely limited to the local population.
    Construction and development associated with grazing, such as 
watering developments and fences, can have a variety of impacts such as 
habitat fragmentation and the facilitation of predators and disease. 
There have been documented incidences of sage-grouse drowning in stock 
tanks, which can have localized population-level effects (Boyd et al. 
2014, p. 65), but the rangewide impact is unknown. Grazing management 
that strategically considers placement and design of fences and 
livestock water developments could protect other habitats by localizing 
and minimizing the area of impact. In addition, the timing of water 
diversions can minimize these impacts and provide mesic vegetation and 
wet meadow habitats during critical brood-rearing periods when the 
availability of succulent plants may be limited (Boyd et al. 2014, pp. 
65-66).

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, State and Federal agencies have worked collaboratively 
to develop regulatory mechanisms to reduce or eliminate the impact of 
improper livestock grazing on sage-grouse habitats. The BLM and USFS 
amended or revised Federal Plans to set appropriate rangeland health 
standards in sage-grouse habitats that are required to maintain a 
Federal grazing permit. States developed and implemented State plans 
that govern issuance of grazing permits on some State lands. Other 
conservation efforts designed to improve grazing, including voluntary 
efforts, are discussed below.
    Federal Plans--The BLM and USFS are currently the principle land 
managers within the range of the sage-grouse, and collectively manage 
more than 98 percent of the livestock grazing on Federal lands (GAO 
2005, p. 5). Nearly all federally owned sage-grouse habitat is managed 
for livestock grazing (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). Grazing permits and 
leases generally cover a 10-year period and are renewable if the BLM or 
USFS determine that the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or 
lease are being met (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). Permits include 
standards and guidelines that describe specific conditions required to 
achieve land

[[Page 59910]]

health and the recommended techniques to achieve these standards on 
each allotment (Knick et al. 2011, p. 222; BLM and USFS 2015, entire), 
as well as mandatory terms and conditions to ensure that land health 
standards (LHS) are being met (43 CFR 4130). If LHS are not being met 
or terms and conditions are not being followed, the BLM and USFS have 
the authority to modify the terms and conditions of grazing permits to 
correct any deficiencies, suspend the permit, or to revoke the grazing 
permit entirely (33 CFR 222.4; 43 CFR 4180.2).
    In our 2010 finding, we identified concerns with BLM and USFS 
management of rangelands, contributing to our finding that regulatory 
mechanisms were not sufficient (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13975-
13980). Historically, not all allotments have been monitored to ensure 
compliance with LHS and permit terms and conditions, and there was no 
mandated prioritization of field checks to ensure compliance within 
sage-grouse habitats. Between 1997 and 2007 the percent of allotments 
monitored for LHS ranged from 22 percent to 95 percent across surveyed 
States, with an overall average of 57 percent (Veblen et al. 2014, p. 
72). Of the allotments monitored, 15 percent failed to meet LHS due to 
improper livestock grazing (Veblen et al. 2014, p. 72).
    The Federal Plans represent a major shift in grazing management and 
monitoring since 2010, with respect to meeting LHS and sage-grouse 
conservation objectives (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). The Federal Plans 
manage grazing specifically for sage-grouse habitat objectives by 
evaluating the numbers and distribution of livestock, evaluating 
environmental conditions such as drought, closing or changing 
allotments, managing riparian habitat for sage-grouse, and authorizing 
water developments only if they would not adversely impact sage-grouse. 
Specific grazing guidelines have been developed based on the best 
available science and are applied in upland and riparian/wet meadow 
habitats to maintain or achieve desired conditions of sagebrush, forbs, 
and perennial grasses. Upland vegetation guidelines will be applied 
seasonally and within 4 to 6.2 miles from leks, depending on site-
specific information. Riparian and wetland protective measures will be 
applied in all sage-grouse habitat areas. Further, BLM directed 
resources in 2015 to fund monitoring crews, and funded activities, like 
data management, to ensure successful implementation of the monitoring 
commitments (Lueders, BLM, 2015, pers. comm.). The President's Budget 
request for BLM included 8 million dollars to directly support 
monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the land use plans 
(BLM 2015d, p. II-5-6).
    Given the large number of allotments across the occupied range, the 
Federal Plans ensure that the most important habitats are prioritized 
for protection. Permit review, renewal, and/or modifications occur 
first in SFAs, followed by PHMA and allotments containing riparian 
areas. The same prioritization is used for field checks to ensure 
compliance with permit terms and conditions. In addition, the USFS 
commits to modify grazing permit conditions and existing livestock 
improvements within 2 years and mitigate any adverse effects from 
grazing improvements within 5 years (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). 
Progress at achieving rangeland health objectives at multiple spatial 
scales is monitored by BLM and USFS using a habitat assessment 
framework that provides a consistent approach and similar data set (BLM 
and USFS 2015, entire).
    The Federal Plans' vegetation standards and grazing management 
measures are consistent with the best available science on sage-grouse 
habitat needs and the COT report recommendations to minimize grazing 
impacts (USFWS 2013). The Federal Plans also include monitoring 
requirements and adaptive management that will ensure that the measures 
will be effective for the long term and that grazing occurs at proper 
levels for sage-grouse conservation. With changes in management 
direction and immediate allocation of resources, full implementation of 
the Federal Plans will, over time, address effects due to improver 
grazing. As a result of the Federal Plans, and associated monitoring 
commitments and adaptive management approach, the risk of improper 
grazing occurring on Federal lands across the occupied range is greatly 
reduced from 2010 levels.
    State Plans--State plans in Montana and Wyoming include measures to 
reduce the impact of improper grazing to sage-grouse on State-owned or 
managed lands. Montana's State plan requires that State Trust grazing 
lands maintain and improve sage-grouse habitat in core and connectivity 
areas on State Trust lands in Montana (Montana EO 10-2014, pp. 7-17). 
In addition, Montana's plan includes voluntary incentives to conserve 
sagebrush habitats on private and State-owned lands in core and general 
habitat areas (Montana EO 10-2014, pp. 7-27). Under the Wyoming Plan, 
in order to receive a permit, new grazing operations on State Trust 
Lands must demonstrate that they will not cause declines in sage-grouse 
populations. While the amount of grazing on lands subject to these 
State requirements and incentives is minimal compared to that on 
Federal lands, these measures will reduce the potential for improper 
grazing that could negatively affect sage-grouse.
    Sage Grouse Initiative--Rangeland health inside PACs has been 
improved through SGI practices by applying grazing systems, re-
vegetating former rangeland with sagebrush and perennial grasses, and 
controlling invasives. To date, grazing systems have been implemented 
on more than 985,000 ha (2.4 million ac); seeding projects have 
occurred on more than 19,000 ha (over 48,000 ac); and weed management 
projects were implemented on more than 6,000 ha (over 15,509 ac), and 
restoring more than 70 ha (179 ac) of wet meadow (NRCS 2015a, p. 6). To 
maximize conservation gain, SGI targets their efforts within PACs. Of 
the more than 985,000 hectares (2.4 million acres) enrolled in grazing 
systems, 76 percent are clustered within the following five 
populations: Powder River Basin, Yellowstone Watershed, and the Dakotas 
in MZ I; Wyoming Basin in MZ II; and Snake/Salmon/Beaverhead in MZ IV 
(NRCS 2015a, p. 7). In addition more than 74 percent of the newly 
seeded acres are concentrated in the following five populations: 
Dakotas, and Yellowstone Watershed in MZ I; Northwest Colorado in MZ 
II; and Northern Great Basin and Box Elder in MZ IV (NRCS 2015a, p. 7). 
Although participation in SGI programs is voluntary, participants that 
receive financial assistance enter into binding contracts or easements 
to ensure that conservation practices are applied according to schedule 
and in compliance with NRCS standards and specifications. As part of 
implementation, the SGI includes a monitoring and evaluation component 
that measures the response of sage-grouse populations and associated 
vital rates in order to gauge effectiveness and provide an adaptive 
management framework to SGI programs. For the private lands involved 
with this program, SGI has removed the risk of habitat degradation due 
to improper grazing through the implementation of accepted habitat 
management tools, and restored previously affected habitat to benefit 
sage-grouse.
    Candidate Conservation Agreements--Lands currently enrolled in 
CCAAs reduce the potential threat of improper grazing on private lands 
through implementation of grazing management plans that we have

[[Page 59911]]

determined maintain or enhance habitat for sage-grouse. Approved 
grazing management plans include measures concerning the types of 
livestock and the appropriate timing, location, duration, and frequency 
for grazing. All private lands within the species' range in Oregon and 
Wyoming are eligible for enrollment in CCAAs. Rangewide, approximately 
745,000 ha (1.8 million ac) of private lands have landowner commitments 
in the programmatic CCAAs in Oregon and Wyoming. In addition, 
approximately 1.4 million ha (about 3.5 million ac) are covered by CCAs 
covering range management on BLM-administered lands in Oregon and 
Wyoming, and covering maintenance operations on DOE lands in Idaho (BLM 
2013a). The CCAs require the same conservation measures as the CCAAs, 
including grazing management plans and habitat enhancement. These CCAAs 
and CCAs are consistent with the recommendations of the COT Report 
(USFWS 2013, p. 45) for conservation measures that will effectively 
reduce impacts to sage-grouse.

Grazing and Rangeland Management Summary

    Livestock grazing is the most widespread land use in the sagebrush 
ecosystem, and impacts can be positive, negative, or neutral depending 
on management practices and site-specific characteristics. Improper 
grazing practices can have adverse effects to sage-grouse and its 
habitat, and may work synergistically with other potential threats, 
such as invasive plants and wildfire, to increase impacts. However, 
well-managed grazing practices can be compatible with sagebrush 
ecosystems and sage-grouse persistence. In 2010, we concluded that 
grazing was likely having localized negative effects, but due to the 
widespread extent of the activity, greater impacts were possible. Since 
our 2010 finding, updated Federal Plans have been amended or revised in 
the species' range to ensure that appropriate grazing prescriptions are 
applied on Federal lands, covering more than half of the range of sage-
grouse. As discussed in the Federal Plans section above, monitoring and 
adaptive management provisions within the Plans contribute to the 
certainty that livestock grazing will be permitted at levels compatible 
with sage-grouse persistence. Further, prioritization of field checks 
and permit reviews provides additional assurances that these regulatory 
mechanisms will be effective in those areas with the highest breeding 
bird densities. Rangewide, the Federal Plans, along with the Wyoming, 
Montana, and Oregon State Plans, reduce impacts from grazing to 
approximately 90 percent of the modeled breeding habitat across the 
species' range (see Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning for a 
detailed discussion of conservation measure implementation and 
effectiveness). In addition to these regulatory mechanisms on Federal 
lands, SGI and State CCAAs provide well-coordinated programs to 
encourage private landowners to address the impact of improper grazing 
on non-Federal lands. Taken together, these conservation efforts reduce 
the potential threat of improper livestock grazing from the levels 
assessed in 2010. Therefore, we conclude that, although livestock 
grazing is widespread in the sagebrush ecosystem, and we expect some 
continued impacts from improper grazing at local scales, existing 
Federal regulations with full implementation, in combination with 
voluntary efforts on non-Federal rangelands are reducing the prevalence 
of improper grazing and its impacts to sage-grouse.

Free-Roaming Equids

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of free-roaming equids (also known 
as free-roaming horses and burros) on sage-grouse and concluded that 
grazing (including grazing by free-roaming equids, native ungulates, 
and livestock) can have negative impacts to sagebrush (Factor A) and 
consequently to sage-grouse at local scales. Further, we concluded that 
the impacts of grazing at large spatial scales, and thus on population-
levels, was unknown, but given the widespread nature of grazing, the 
potential for population-level impacts could not be ignored (75 FR 
13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13942).
    Free-roaming horses (Eques cabalas) and burros (E. sinus) were 
first brought to western North America in the late 16th century. A 
number of equids subsequently escaped captivity or were released 
forming free-roaming populations (Beever 2003, p. 888; Garrott and Oli 
2013, p. 847). When the BLM began monitoring free-roaming equid 
populations in the 1970s, they reported the total number of free-
roaming horses to be approximately 17,000 individuals, although some 
believe this was an underestimate (BLM 2005a, p. 3). With protection 
afforded by the Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (Pub. L. 
92-195) (Horse and Burro Act), the number of horses on public lands 
rose sharply, and by 1980 the number of free-roaming equids had 
increased to 65,000-80,000 animals (Beever 2003, p. 888, BLM 2005a, p. 
3). Active management, starting in the 1980s, reduced free-roaming 
equid numbers to more than 40,000 by 1999 and to about 37,186 in 2003 
(BLM 2005a, p. 3).
    The BLM and USFS manage free-roaming equids on Federal lands 
according to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971. The 
BLM's implementing regulations designated Herd Areas as places used as 
habitat by a herd of free-roaming equids at the time the law was passed 
(43 CFR part 4700). The BLM evaluated each Herd Area to determine if it 
had adequate food, water, cover, and space to sustain healthy and 
diverse free-roaming equid populations over the long term. The areas 
that met those criteria were designated as Herd Management Areas 
(HMAs). The BLM manages HMAs to maintain the appropriate management 
level (AML) of free-roaming equids to be in balance with other public 
rangeland species, resources, and uses in a given area. The USFS has 
designated Territories for the management of free-roaming equids and 
manages them in a similar way. The HMA/Territories currently overlap 
with about 12 percent of the sage-grouse occupied range, primarily in 
Oregon, Nevada, and Wyoming (Figure 8).

[[Page 59912]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.007

    In 2010, the BLM estimated that 31,000 free-roaming equids were 
found on BLM-administered lands (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 
13941). Currently, the BLM estimates 58,150 free-roaming equids (about 
47,329 horses and 10,821 burros) exist on BLM-administered rangelands 
in 10 western States, including two States outside the range of the 
sage-grouse (BLM 2015e). In 2014, USFS estimated that, on lands it 
manages, there are an additional 7,447 free-roaming equids (Shepherd & 
Frolli 2015, BLM and USFS, pers. comm.). The number of free-roaming 
equids on public lands has been over AML for more than 15 years (BLM 
2014c, p. 1). The extent to which free-roaming equids occur on land 
outside of designated Federal management areas is unknown.
    The current population of free-roaming equids is estimated to be 
nearly double the amount that the BLM and USFS have determined can 
exist in balance with other public land resources and uses (BLM 2015e, 
p. 1). Free-roaming equids reproduce rapidly and can have rates of 
increase averaging 15 to 20 percent annually (BLM 2015e, p. 1). 
Assuming a population of 45,000 animals and a 20 percent annual growth 
rate, Garrott et al. (1991, p. 647) estimated that 9,000 horses must be 
removed annually to maintain a stable population. The number of horse 
and burro removals by BLM have not kept this pace in recent years, with 
removals declining from 8,255 in 2012, to 4,176 in 2013, to 1,863 in 
2014 (BLM 2015e, entire). At the same time, numbers of horses and 
burros in BLM corrals and pastures is close to capacity (BLM 2015e, 
entire).
    Free-roaming equids' use of sagebrush landscapes have different 
ecological consequences than livestock grazing at both local and 
landscape scales due to biological and behavioral differences (Beever 
2003, pp. 888-890; Beever and Aldridge 2011, p. 273). Equids are 
generalists, but grasses comprise the majority of their diet throughout 
the year (McInnis and Vavra 1987, p. 61). Because of physiological 
differences, a horse forages longer and consumes 20 to 65 percent more 
forage than a cow of equivalent body mass (Wagner 1983, p. 121; Menard 
et al. 2002, p. 127). Unlike domestic cattle and other wild ungulates, 
equids can crop vegetation closer to the ground, potentially limiting 
or delaying recovery of plants (Menard et al. 2002, p. 127). Equids 
tend to move to higher elevations in late spring until early fall, 
which may increase the interactions with sage-grouse, as sage-grouse 
often move to higher elevation communities to more mesic habitats with 
forbs throughout the summer (Beever and Aldridge 2011, pp. 285-286). 
Conversely, equids tend to spend less time at water, and range farther 
from water sources than cattle (Beever and Aldridge 2011, p. 286). 
Because of these differences, greater habitat impacts occur when both 
horses and cattle are present, compared to when only cattle are present 
(Beever and Aldridge 2011, p. 286).
    As with all herbivores, equid effects on ecosystems vary markedly 
with elevation, density, season, and duration of use (Beever and 
Aldridge 2011, p. 273). In some contexts, equid grazing can reduce 
shrub cover as equids trample, rub against, and consume shrubs (Plumb 
et al. 1984, p. 132; Beever et al. 2003, pp. 119-120; Beever et al. 
2008, p. 180). Equid grazing has also been associated with reduced 
plant diversity, altered soil characteristics, lower grass cover, lower 
grass density, and 1.6 to 2.6 times greater abundance of cheatgrass 
(Beever et al. 2008, pp. 180-181). Sage-grouse need grass- and shrub-
cover for protection from predators, particularly during nesting season 
(Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 970-971). Reduction in shrub and grass 
cover can result in increased predation pressure on both nests and 
birds. The greatest risk of adverse effects to habitat occurs in the 
areas with large numbers of horses over AML; the area of greatest 
concern is Nevada (MZs III, IV, and V)

[[Page 59913]]

where free-roaming equid populations are estimated to be more than 
twice AML.
    In addition to adverse effects in sagebrush habitats, free-roaming 
equids can also negatively affect important meadow and brood-rearing 
habitats that provide forbs and insects for chick survival (Beever and 
Aldridge 2011, p. 277; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 11; Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 7-37), as streams and springs within sagebrush ecosystems 
receive heavy use by horses (Crane et al. 1997, p. 380; Beever and 
Brussard 2000, pp. 243, 246-247). Brood-rearing habitat is often 
limited in availability compared to other sage-grouse habitats; 
therefore, any impacts to these areas can adversely affect local 
populations (NRCS 2015a, p. 44).

Conservation Efforts

    Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971--The Wild Free-
Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, as amended, charges the BLM and 
USFS with managing wild [free-roaming] equids to achieve a thriving 
ecological balance with the land (Pub. L. 92-195). The BLM and USFS 
manage free-roaming equids by conducting surveys, administering 
fertility control drugs, gathering excess horses, and facilitating 
adoptions (National Academy of Sciences 2013, pp. 55-73). The BLM plans 
gathers based on population estimates and vegetation monitoring, but 
takes into account issues such as areas where equids have moved onto 
private property or severe local conditions are affecting the health of 
the herd. The scheduled gathers may be influenced by court orders or 
emergency situations. Planned gather numbers are based on the available 
space in holding facilities, anticipated adoptions, and budgets (BLM 
2015e, p. 1).
    Management of herd size by Federal agencies is an ongoing 
challenge. Free-roaming equid populations grow rapidly, and in most 
areas, they have no natural predators (National Academy of Sciences 
2013, p. 1). The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (Pub. L. 92-
195) requires that free-roaming equid populations be managed at 
appropriate management levels, and allows for the removal of excess 
animals for adoption, sale, or destruction. Free-roaming equid 
management is expensive and often controversial, sometimes limiting 
options to manage free-roaming equids at appropriate levels (National 
Academy of Sciences 2013, pp. 1-2).
    Federal Plans--The Federal Plans address the impacts of free-
roaming equids by prioritizing management in areas most important for 
sage-grouse conservation (BLM and USFS 2015 entire). Management actions 
are prioritized for SFAs and PHMAs, and are managed for AML. Rangeland 
health assessments will be conducted in PHMAs and SFAs, and herd 
management area plans (HMAPs) will be amended to incorporate sage-
grouse habitat objectives. The plans provide that, if needed to achieve 
AML and sage-grouse habitat objectives, gathers and population growth 
suppression techniques would be utilized in prioritized areas. 
Additionally, if needed, free-roaming equids would be removed or 
excluded from areas following emergencies, such as wildfire or drought. 
Further, monitoring and adaptive management criteria provide an 
additional layer of management to address species or habitat declines 
regardless of the sources of the impact. The BLM has committed to 
completing the actions within SFAs in the next 5 years; free-roaming 
equid management in PHMAs will be the next priority after SFAs (BLM 
2015h, entire; DOI 2015a, p. 3).
    The Federal Plans' direction to manage free-roaming equid 
populations at appropriate levels reduces impacts from free-roaming 
equids into the future. The inclusion of sage-grouse objectives in 
HMAPs ensures that future decision making is done with consideration of 
sage-grouse ecological needs. Managing SFAs and PHMAs at AML 
substantially reduces the potential for habitat degradation in those 
areas. Based on past BLM and USFS plans and planning efforts, we expect 
the Federal Plans, including these free-roaming equid measures to be 
implemented for the next 20 to 30 years.
    Sheldon-Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex--The Hart 
Mountain National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) removed free-roaming equids and 
cattle in the 1990s. Cattle were also removed from the Sheldon NWR in 
the 1990s. The last gather to remove all equids from Sheldon NWR 
occurred in the fall of 2014 (Collins, USFWS, pers. comm. 2015). 
Recovery of plant communities in sagebrush ecosystems, aspen woodlands, 
and riparian habitats have been documented since these removals (Earnst 
et al. 2012, entire; Davies et al. 2014, entire; Batchelor et al. 2015, 
entire). Together, free-roaming equid and livestock removals from 
Sheldon-Hart Mountain NWR have improved conditions for 9.1 percent of 
the sage-grouse modeled breeding habitat in MZ V. This area has been 
identified as important to long-term sage-grouse viability due to the 
high density of breeding birds and the connectivity to adjacent 
populations (USFWS 2014a, entire).
    Candidate Conservation Agreements--CCAAs and CCAs, which together 
can cover up to about 1.4 million ha (3.5 million ac) in Oregon, 
include conservation measures for free-roaming equids. To date, 
approximately 745,000 ha (1.8 million ac) are currently enrolled in 
CCAAs rangewide. Measures include monitoring of free-roaming equid 
impacts in sage-grouse habitat and reporting to BLM for consideration 
of horse and burrow relocation (USFWS 2014d, p. 52; USFWS 2015b, p. 55; 
USFWS 2015c, p. 53; USFWS 2015d, p. 54; USFWS 2015e, p. 53; USFWS 
2015f, p. 54). Although not regulatory in nature, these measures will 
assist BLM in their management of free-roaming equids.

Free-Roaming Equid Summary

    In our 2010 finding, we reported that approximately 36,000 free-
roaming equids occurred in 10 western States (including 2 States 
outside the range of sage-grouse) and HMAs/Territories occupied 
approximately 12 percent of the range of sage-grouse. The number of 
free-roaming equids has increased since 2010, with about half occurring 
in Nevada where estimated free-roaming equid population levels are 
twice AML. Since our 2010 finding, the Federal Plans provide a suite of 
actions that, with full implementation, will manage free-roaming equids 
to substantially reduce potential impacts to sage-grouse, as 
recommended by the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 46-47). Some localized 
degradation of habitat will likely continue, particularly in Nevada, as 
implementation of these actions will take time. However, full 
implementation of the measures outlined in the Federal Plans will 
reduce impacts in the most important areas for sage-grouse (see 
Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning for a detailed discussion of 
conservation measure implementation and effectiveness). Important 
habitats that are designated as SFAs will receive priority management 
to reduce wild-equid population levels that can exist in the sagebrush 
ecosystem without adverse effects to sage-grouse habitats (BLM 2015h, 
entire). In addition, conservation efforts directed at these issues 
have been implemented on other lands since 2010, most notably the 
removal of horses from Sheldon NWR in 2014, which provides habitat for 
an important breeding bird stronghold. As a result, while some 
localized impacts to habitat are likely to continue in the near future, 
management measures by the BLM and USFS substantially reduce

[[Page 59914]]

the impact of free-roaming horses and burros across the range of the 
species.

Conifer Encroachment

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of pinyon juniper encroachment and 
concluded that it contributed to habitat fragmentation, particularly in 
the Great Basin portion of the range. Pinyon and juniper and some other 
native conifers were expanding due to decreased fire-return intervals, 
livestock grazing, and increases in global carbon dioxide 
concentrations associated with climate change, among other factors. The 
2010 finding recognized the potential value of conifer removal 
treatments, particularly when done in the early stages of encroachment 
when sagebrush and forb understory is still intact (75 FR 13910, March 
23, 2010).
    Prior to 1860, two-thirds of the Great Basin was treeless and 
occupied by sagebrush ecosystems (Miller et al. 2008, p. 13), but since 
that time the extent of pinyon-juniper has increased ten-fold (Miller 
and Tausch 2001, pp. 15-16). Based on 1999-2012 imagery (LANDFIRE 
1.3.0), approximately 4.7 million ha (more than 11.5 million ac) of 
conifer woodlands occur within the current range of sage-grouse, 
comprising more than 6 percent of the current occupied range. Conifer 
encroachment is of greatest concern in MZs III, IV, and V, but is 
present at least locally in all MZs (USFWS 2013, pp. 23-36).
    Conifer expansion presents a stressor to sage-grouse because sites 
invaded by conifers do not provide suitable sage-grouse habitat (Factor 
A). For example, when juniper increases in mountain big sagebrush 
communities, shrub cover declines and the season of available succulent 
forbs is shortened due to soil moisture depletion (Crawford et al. 
2004, p. 8). Sage-grouse have been found to avoid areas where conifers 
have encroached (Doherty et al. 2010b p. 1547; Casazza et al. 2011, p. 
163; Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013, p. 239). Trees may also offer perch 
sites for avian predators, potentially increasing the predation risk 
(see Predation, below).
    The extent of conifers within the species' range is anticipated to 
expand in the future unless effectively treated. Rangewide, 6 to 13 
percent of sage-grouse habitat may be at risk of conifer encroachment 
(Manier et al. 2013, p. 92). The most pronounced risks are across the 
Great Basin (Manier et al. 2013, p. 92) where approximately 35 percent 
of sagebrush habitat is estimated to be at high risk of alteration by 
pinyon-juniper in 30 years, 6 percent at moderate risk, and 60 percent 
at low risk (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-8 to 7-14). While pinyon-
juniper expansion appears less problematic in the eastern portion of 
the range (MZs I, II and VII) and silver sagebrush communities 
(primarily MZ I), conifer encroachment is an impact mentioned in 
Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado State sage-grouse conservation plans, 
indicating that this is of some concern in these States as well (Stiver 
et al. 2006, pp. 2-23). Based upon current habitat information, 
approximately 10 percent of the occupied range in the Great Basin and 2 
percent of the occupied range in the Rocky Mountains are impacted by 
conifer encroachment (USFWS 2015a). Efforts are under way to more 
precisely identify areas at risk of conifer encroachment; that 
information is currently unavailable, but will help target removal 
efforts in the future. Conifer encroachment rates have been estimated 
between 0.4 and 4.5 percent annually (Sankey and Germino 2008, p. 413). 
Encroachment rates are predicted to increase with long-term changes in 
climate (see Climate Change and Drought, below; Neilson et al. 2005 
cited in Miller et al. 2011, p. 145).
    Miller et al. (2005, p. 24) characterized three stages of woodland 
succession: Phase I, where conifer are present but shrubs and 
herbaceous species remain the dominant vegetation that influence 
ecological processes (e.g., hydrologic, nutrient and energy cycles); 
Phase II, where conifer are co-dominant with shrubs and herbaceous 
species, resulting in modifications of ecological processes; and Phase 
III, where conifer becomes the dominant species, with reduced shrub 
canopy cover and herbaceous species diversity. Approximately 80 percent 
of sites invaded by conifers are still in Phase I and Phase II, where 
some native shrubs and bunchgrasses are present (Miller et al. 2008, p. 
9). Transition of sagebrush habitats from Phase II to Phase III is of 
particular concern because treatment options become more limited in 
Phase III (Johnson and Miller 2006, p. 8). Without intervention, 75 
percent of conifer encroachment in the western portion of the sage-
grouse range may transition into Phase III within the next 30-50 years 
(Miller et al. 2008, p. 12).

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, considerable effort has been undertaken to remove 
conifers, thus reducing the impacts of conifer encroachment to sage-
grouse habitat. Federal Plans and State Plans provide commitments to 
reduce conifer encroachment. The SGI has been actively treating conifer 
encroachment on private lands across the species' range. Lastly, 
private land owners have pursued conifer removal projects, including 
commitments associated with enrollment in CCAAs.
    The effectiveness of these current and planned treatments varies 
with the technique used and proximity of the site to invasive plant 
infestations, among other factors (Knick et al. 2014, p. 553). The 
plant-community response to these treatments is not always consistent 
or predictable, and succession may not move in a desirable direction 
following treatment (Miller et al. 2014, entire). Areas treated for 
conifers have the greatest likelihood of sage-grouse using them after 
treatment when implemented in areas still containing some sagebrush, 
near mesic habitats, and near sage-grouse populations (Cook 2015, p. 
96). Sage-grouse appear to be more likely to use treated areas when 
suitable habitat is limited in an area (Frey et al. 2013, pp. 269-270). 
We are not aware of any study documenting a direct correlation between 
conifer treatments and sage-grouse population response. Successful 
treatment of conifers in the future requires targeted management of 
conifers in the most important habitats for sage-grouse.
    Sage Grouse Initiative--Most of the conifer treatments completed to 
date have been accomplished on private lands by the SGI. Since 2010, 
SGI has removed conifers from 163,995 ha (405,241 ac) primarily in 
Phase I and II encroachment areas in the Great Basin (MZs III, IV, V) 
(NRCS 2015a, p. 7). Eighty-four percent of these treatments occurred in 
PACs in the Great Basin. Nearly half of these acres are in Oregon (MZ 
V), where conifer encroachment was reduced by 68 percent on private 
lands (NRCS 2015a, p. 2). The SGI in Oregon targeted conifer removal in 
PACs near active leks and other occupied seasonal habitats (NRCS 2015a, 
p. 18). SGI will invest an additional 80 million dollars over the next 
3 years to implement restoration and enhancement projects on 
approximately 1.4 million ha (3.4 million ac), including conifer 
treatment projects (NRCS 2015a, p. 29; NRCS 2015b, p. 6). Given the 
past accomplishments and the continued dedication of NRCS to sage-
grouse conservation, we are confident that these investments in conifer 
treatments will continue.
    Candidate Conservation Agreements--Approximately 745,000 ha (1.8 
million ac) are currently enrolled in CCAAs rangewide. Lands enrolled 
in CCAAs require removing undesirable conifers/junipers encroaching 
into sage-grouse habitats (USFWS 2014d, p. 47; USFWS 2015b, p. 50; 
USFWS 2015c, p. 48; USFWS 2015d, p. 49; USFWS 2015e, p. 48; USFWS 
2015f, p. 49).

[[Page 59915]]

    Federal Plans--The Federal Plans completed in 2015 include 
commitments to remove conifers through implementation of the FIAT. The 
FIAT assessments include treatment schedules for mechanical and 
prescribed fire removal. Conifer removal is prioritized in areas 
closest to occupied sage-grouse habitat and where juniper encroachment 
is in Phase I or Phase II. Cumulatively, the FIAT step-down assessments 
identify approximately 3 million ha (7.4 million ac) of conifer 
treatments for five priority landscapes (i.e., Central Oregon, Northern 
Great Basin, Snake/Salmon/Beaverhead, Southern Great Basin, and Western 
Great Basin/Warm Springs Valley) in the Great Basin region (MZs III, 
IV, and V).

Conifer Encroachment Summary

    The potential threat of conifer encroachment has changed since the 
last status review. In 2010, we found habitat fragmentation, due in 
part to conifer encroachment, to be a threat to the species; regulatory 
mechanisms and conservation efforts were insufficient to address this 
threat. Based on past trends and the current distribution of pinyon-
juniper relative to sagebrush habitat, we anticipate that expansion 
will continue at varying rates across the landscape and cause further 
loss of sagebrush habitat. However, projects to remove conifers near 
sage-grouse habitat have been implemented for PACs, and regulatory 
measures included in Federal and State plans have resulted in a 
paradigm shift in land management objectives and practices that will 
further reduce conifer impacts on sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. 
The Federal agencies have committed to continue conifer removal 
projects in the most important habitats identified in the COT Report 
(USFWS 2013, pp. 16-29) and the FIAT Assessments (BLM 2015a, entire). 
For a detailed discussion of conservation measure implementation and 
effectiveness, see Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning.

Mining

    In 2010, we evaluated mining as part of the energy development 
assessment and concluded that energy projects contributed to habitat 
loss and fragmentation. Mining was identified as occurring across the 
species' range, but was most prevalent in Nevada (MZs III, IV, and V) 
and Wyoming (MZs I and II). At that time, regulations addressing 
effects from mining were determined to be inadequate. As a result, the 
2010 finding concluded that habitat loss and fragmentation, caused in 
part by mining and inadequate regulatory mechanisms, were significant 
threats to the species such that listing was warranted under the Act 
(75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010).
    Mining has occurred throughout the range of sage-grouse since the 
mid-1800s (Nevada Mining Association 2015), and mining in sagebrush 
habitats continues today (American Mining Association 2014). Mining is 
generally divided into three categories, based on the type of mineral 
extracted: Locatable, leasable, and salable minerals (BLM 2015f, p. 1). 
Additionally, each of these mining categories has its own specific 
regulations. Locatable minerals are hard rock minerals whose extraction 
is subject to the General Mining Law of 1872, such as gold, silver, and 
copper. Leasable minerals include resources such as coal, oil, and gas. 
Saleable minerals are more common, lower value resources, such as sand 
and gravel (BLM 2015f, p. 1). The extent of mining for any individual 
mineral varies widely, as does the size and activity of individual 
mines, making generalizations of impacts difficult.
    Consistent with our 2010 finding (70 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 
13948-13949), we do not have a comprehensive dataset about existing and 
proposed mining activity to do a quantitative analysis of potential 
impacts to sage-grouse. In 2010, we were aware of approximately 25,500 
ha (63,000 ac) of existing mining-related disturbance within the range 
of sage-grouse; those mining projects and associated impacts are likely 
continuing today. These projects likely removed sagebrush habitat when 
first implemented (70 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13948-13949) and 
continue to have indirect effects to sage-grouse populations near the 
project sites through disturbance from noise, human presence, 
equipment, and explosives (Moore and Mills 1977, entire). Overall, the 
extent of these projects directly affects less than 0.1 percent of the 
sage-grouse occupied range. Although direct and indirect effects may 
disturb local populations, ongoing mining operations do not affect the 
sage-grouse rangewide.
    Currently, surface and subsurface mining activities are conducted 
in all 11 States within the sage-grouse range (Minerals Education 
Coalition 2015; National Mining Association 2014a BLM 2011, entire). 
Minerals are not distributed evenly across the sage-grouse landscape, 
and as a result, mining activities tend to be localized or regional. 
Coal is primarily found in the Rocky Mountain States, while lithium has 
been mined exclusively in Nevada (although a more recent discovery has 
been made in southwestern Wyoming) (Mining.com 2014). Precious metals, 
while being mined to some degree in all 11 States across the sage-
grouse range, primarily occur in Nevada and Colorado (USGS 2013).
    By reducing and fragmenting habitats and disturbing individual 
sage-grouse, mining can directly or indirectly affect sage-grouse. 
Surface and subsurface mining can reduce sagebrush habitat, ranging 
from potential losses of many thousands of hectares at large industrial 
mines to 4 ha (10 ac) or less at smaller mining operations (Factor A). 
Habitat loss and fragmentation could preclude movements of sage-grouse 
between seasonal habitats (Connelly et al. 2011a, pp. 82-83; Knick and 
Hanser 2011, entire). In addition, indirect effects associated with 
mining include disturbance from increased human presence, traffic, 
blasting, reduced air quality, noise, increased dust, and an increased 
abundance of human-associated predators (Factor E) (Moore and Mills 
1977, entire; Brown and Clayton 2004, p. 2). Mining operations can also 
contaminate water sources in sage-grouse habitats (Moore and Mills 
1977, pp. 115, 133; Adams and Picket 1998, p. 486; Ramirez and Rogers 
2002, pp. 434-435). Settling ponds near mines could also provide 
breeding areas for mosquitos and increase the risk of WNv (Walker and 
Naugle 2011, p. 132).
    Projections of future mining activities are difficult, as market 
prices for any specific mineral commodity vary greatly. The overall 
extent of mining activities in the United States has remained fairly 
consistent over the past 5 years (National Mining Association 2014b, p. 
1), although coal production, including the number of coal mines, 
within the range of sage-grouse has generally declined since 2008 (EIA 
2015, p. 93). We anticipate that some amount of mining will occur 
within the range of the sage-grouse indefinitely, depending on the 
extent of the desired mineral resource, development of new mining 
techniques, and market conditions. Conservation efforts are discussed 
below.

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, a number of landscape-scale efforts have been 
undertaken to reduce impacts to sage-grouse across the range, including 
habitat loss and fragmentation from mining. The Federal Plans are the 
primary tools for managing mining impacts to sage-grouse. State plans 
in Wyoming and Montana include regulatory mechanisms to address impacts 
from mining. These conservation efforts are consistent with the 
recommendations in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 49). The Federal and 
State plans, as well as individual efforts

[[Page 59916]]

reported to the CED, are discussed in detail below.
    Federal Plans--In the United States, mining activity is authorized 
under an array of statutes affecting resources administered or leased 
by the BLM, both on federally administered lands as well as other lands 
where mineral rights have been reserved to the United States (i.e., 
split-estate lands). The BLM's statutory and regulatory authority 
depends upon the nature of the mineral deposit (i.e., leasable, 
salable, or locatable). The General Mining Law of 1872 called for all 
locatable mineral deposits on Federal lands to be free and open to 
exploration and purchase (BLM 2011c, p. 3), limiting the ability to 
manage these activities for sage-grouse conservation. Only areas that 
have been withdrawn to mineral entry by a special act of Congress, 
regulation, or Secretary of the Interior public land order are truly 
closed to locatable mineral entry. Coal is administered by the Office 
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, which in turn may 
delegate their authority to the States.
    The majority of mining activity within the sage-grouse range occurs 
on Federal lands where the Federal Plans direct the management of 
mineral development (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). Except in Wyoming, all 
PHMA is closed to new mineral material sales and leasable mineral 
operations, with exceptions for Free Use Permits and the expansion of 
existing operations. Free Use Permits allow governmental agencies and 
nonprofit organizations to extract and use mineral materials for up to 
10 years (BLM 2013b, p. 1). Any proposed expansion of existing mining 
operations in PHMA would require design features to minimize impacts 
and would require mitigation of any impacts. Wyoming remains open to 
new mining activities within PACs, but those activities are restricted 
by a disturbance and density cap as per the Wyoming Plan (see Wyoming 
State and Federal Plans, above).
    The Federal Plans designate the most important sagebrush habitat as 
SFAs where locatable mineral withdrawal is recommended, except in 
Wyoming where only a portion is recommended for withdrawal. For 
proposed coal projects, the BLM will determine at the time of a new 
lease if an area is suitable for development. During that evaluation, 
PHMA will be considered essential for sage-grouse conservation, 
ensuring that decisions are made with consideration of sage-grouse 
conservation needs. General sage-grouse habitats (GHMA) are open to 
mineral development, but are subject to stipulations designed to 
protect sage-grouse. In addition to these mining-specific measures, no 
discretionary anthropogenic activities in PHMA would be allowed to 
impact more than 3 percent (or 5 percent in Wyoming and Montana) of the 
total sage-grouse habitat within a Biologically Significant Unit (BSU). 
Any authorized activities that result in loss of sage-grouse habitat 
would require mitigation in an amount or manner that results in a net 
conservation benefit to the species. Further, in response to 
monitoring, activities allowable under the Federal Plans may be 
adjusted based on adaptive management criteria to provide an immediate, 
corrective response to identified triggers for population or habitat 
declines. Due to limitations explained above, the disturbance caps may 
have limited applicability to some types of mining activities, but do 
place limits on other disturbance if adaptive management triggers are 
exceeded.
    These measures reduce potential mining impacts to sage-grouse on 
approximately 14 million ha (35 million ac) of PHMA. The restrictions 
on leasable and salable mining in PHMA eliminate nearly all potential 
habitat loss associated with those activities. To the limited extent 
those activities could occur in PHMA, design features would be required 
to minimize disturbance, and mitigation would be required for any 
impacts. The laws governing locatable mineral development and coal 
mining limit the ability to completely remove this threat from PHMA. 
Locatable mineral development is likely to continue in the future, but 
it is difficult to know the location or extent of future mining 
activity within the range of sage-grouse. The SFAs contain the habitats 
and populations most important to the long-term conservation of the 
species and needing protection from future mining impacts, and at this 
time we are currently unaware of planned mining activity in these areas 
that rise to the level of causing population-level impacts to sage-
grouse.
    Within the areas of greatest conservation importance (SFAs), DOI 
will recommend withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. We support the 
recommendations for mineral withdrawal in SFAs that would remove 
potential impacts on approximately 4 million ha (10 million ac) of 
sage-grouse habitat. In Wyoming, the BLM adopted the State strategy, 
which has proven to be effective in directing activities outside of 
habitat and limiting impacts when they do occur (see State Plans, 
below). These measures minimize mining impacts in priority habitats for 
the life of the management plans, estimated to be the next 20 to 30 
years. Based on what we know today, no mining activities are likely to 
result in loss of these important areas for conservation, but we 
recognize that economic changes or technological advances may increase 
the risk of development in the future. Therefore, the long-term 
protection of the sage-grouse habitat in the SFAs from locatable 
mineral development will ensure that these important populations are 
conserved into the future.
    State Plans--State plans in Wyoming and Montana include regulatory 
mechanisms that reduce impacts to sage-grouse from mining on applicable 
lands. The Wyoming and Montana Plans include controlled surface use, 
lek buffers, and seasonal and noise restrictions to reduce impacts in 
Core Areas (Montana EO 10-2014, pp. 14-19; Wyoming EO 2015-4, entire).
    The States also implement Federal regulations for coal mining. Coal 
mining is regulated by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 
of 1977 (SMCRA), which is implemented by the Office of Surface Mining 
and Reclamation. This Federal law requires consideration of fish and 
wildlife resource information for the permit and adjacent area, along 
with a detailed analysis by the permittee on how impacts will be 
minimized or avoided. Permittees must also include a plan for 
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources on the permit area. The OSM 
has delegated the regulatory authority for implementing the SMCRA to 
five States within the range of sage-grouse: Wyoming, Montana, Utah, 
Colorado, and North Dakota. Sage-grouse, therefore, must be considered 
in the implementation of the SMCRA, and coal mining, in those States. 
The implementation agency must consider impacts on fish and wildlife, 
including sage-grouse. Sage-grouse are also typically addressed in all 
States within its range during the development of coal resources simply 
due to its status as a State trust resource.

Mining Summary

    The impacts of mining have been reduced since the last status 
review. In 2010, we concluded that habitat fragmentation, due in part 
to mining, was a significant threat to the species, and regulatory 
mechanisms were not sufficient to address the threat. The scattered 
nature and intensity of mining, coupled with market uncertainty, makes 
it difficult to accurately predict impacts to sage-grouse on a 
rangewide basis. If future locatable mineral development occurred, it 
could have local impacts to leks and populations. This type of mining 
impact is most likely to occur in

[[Page 59917]]

Nevada where locatable mineral development has occurred the most 
historically; however, predictions of future mining activities would be 
speculative. The regulatory mechanisms in the Federal and State Plans 
will be effective in reducing potential mining impacts on State owned-
lands, and in the case of Wyoming and Montana, in Core Areas. 
Controlled surface use directs activities outside of sage-grouse 
habitat to minimize the potential for habitat loss and fragmentation. 
Indirect impacts from human activity, noise, and traffic are reduced by 
lek buffers and seasonal and noise restrictions. When mining does 
occur, disturbance caps ensure that no more than 3 percent of the 
habitat in an area is impacted in most areas, and no more than 5 
percent in Wyoming and Montana. Collectively, the Federal and State 
plans reduce impacts related to various types of mining on 90 percent 
of sage-grouse breeding habitat (see Sagebrush Landscape Conservation 
Planning for a detailed discussion of conservation measure 
implementation and effectiveness).

Renewable Energy

    In 2010, we evaluated the impacts of renewable energy development 
(wind, solar, and geothermal) on sage-grouse, and concluded that it was 
a threat to the species (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13949-13954). 
At that time, renewable energy development was increasing across the 
species' range, and regulatory mechanisms were inadequate to address 
impacts to the species.
    Development of commercially viable renewable energy continues to 
increase across the sage-grouse range (EIA 2015, entire; DOE 2014, 
entire). Studies examining the impacts of renewable energy development 
on sage-grouse populations are limited. Renewable energy facilities 
typically require many of the same features for construction and 
operation as do nonrenewable energy resources, and, therefore, we 
anticipate their impacts will be similar. These include direct habitat 
loss and habitat fragmentation (Factor A) through construction and 
operation of an energy facility, and indirect effects resulting from 
the presence of power lines, human activity, introduction of invasive 
plants and novel predators, and noise (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-40 
to 7-41; Holloran 2005, p. 1; Pruett et al. 2009, p. 1258; Patricelli 
et al. 2013, p. 231; Howe et al. 2014, p. 46; see Nonrenewable Energy, 
Mining, and Infrastructure).
    Given the incentives provided by the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, and State mandates, we anticipate the development of commercially 
viable renewable energy will continue into the future. However, since 
2010, conservation efforts have been implemented to direct the location 
of development to reduce renewable energy impacts across the occupied 
range of the species. The potential future extent and impacts of the 
three primary kinds of renewable energy within the occupied range of 
sage-grouse (wind, solar, and geothermal) are discussed further below, 
as well as the conservation efforts that ameliorate the effects.

Wind

    Wind energy development is facilitated by Federal and State energy 
laws and policies that encourage its development. In 2008, the DOE 
issued an initiative to increase wind energy production by 20 percent 
by 2030 (DOE 2014, entire). Idaho and California provide tax incentives 
and loan programs for renewable energy development (State of Idaho 
2015; California Energy Commission 2015), and Colorado and Nevada have 
laws requiring increased renewable energy production (AFWA and USFWS 
2007, p. 8; Nevada Public Utilities Commission 2015). With the advent 
of Federal tax credits for wind energy facilities, wind development 
increased 20 percent in 2013 (Esterly and Gelman 2013, p. 3).
    The current amount of implemented wind development within the 
species' occupied range is low. A geospatial assessment of currently 
implemented projects reveals that, within the species' occupied range, 
about 1,400 ha (3,500 ac) have been impacted by wind energy 
development; these projects occur in MZs I, II, III, and IV and impact 
less than approximately 0.002 percent of the occupied range (USFWS 
2015a). The BLM has issued several ROWs in support of continued and 
future wind development that may influence sage-grouse habitats, but 
actual development of these ROWs into commercial facilities is not 
certain (Manier et al. 2013, p. 61).
    Wind energy has the potential for development throughout the sage-
grouse's occupied range. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has 
modeled and mapped the wind resources in each of the States and 
classified the potential for wind power generation. All MZs contain 
areas where wind resources have been identified as economically 
developable over the next 20 years. More than 14 percent of the sage-
grouse occupied range has high potential for commercial wind power, 
with MZs I and II having the greatest potential (BLM 2005b, p. 5-103; 
NREL 2014, p. 2). In a separate assessment, the BLM estimated that 600 
km\2\ (232 mi\2\) of BLM-administered lands could be developed within 
the sage-grouse's range before 2025 (BLM 2005b, pp. ES-8, 5-2). We are 
aware of four preliminary, planning-stage wind project proposals in 
Montana (MZ I) that may encroach into sage-grouse habitat (USFWS 
2015a). Adverse impacts to sage-grouse could occur if these projects 
were implemented, but whether or not these proposals may be further 
refined, or even constructed, is unknown.
    Wind development projects can have a variety of direct and indirect 
impacts to sage-grouse (LeBeau et al. 2014, entire). Habitat loss and 
fragmentation can occur from the construction of wind farms and 
associated facilities such as power lines, roads, power substations, 
meteorological towers, and work facilities (BLM 2005b, pp. 3.1-3.4). 
Sage-grouse, similar to other lekking birds, have been found to avoid 
human-made structures such as power lines and roads (e.g., Holloran 
2005, p. 1; Pruett et al. 2009, p. 1258). Wind power facilities may 
provide perches and subsidized food that attracts predators and 
increases predation on sage-grouse (LeBeau et al. 2014, p. 528). Noise 
from turbines or associated human activities may interfere with normal 
foraging, resting, and breeding behaviors and contribute to higher 
stress levels and reduced fitness (Patricelli et al. 2013, p. 231). 
Sage-grouse could be killed by flying into turbine rotors or towers 
(Erickson et al. 2001, entire), although reports of this happening are 
limited.

Solar

    Like other forms of renewable energy, solar energy development has 
increased in recent years, but minimal activities have occurred within 
the range of sage-grouse. Currently, only two solar projects have been 
constructed within the range of sage-grouse, in Nevada and Oregon 
(USFWS 2015a). The primary impact from solar facilities is habitat loss 
due to the installation of solar panels and diversion of water to 
support the facilities (Manier et al. 2013, p. 66). However, at this 
time large-scale solar-generating systems have not contributed to any 
calculable direct habitat loss for sage-grouse.
    Future impacts from solar energy development are forecast to be 
extremely limited. In 2012, the BLM assessed potential solar 
development on their lands within six western States (BLM 2012). That 
assessment provided direction to exclude solar development from 
identified sage-grouse habitat on BLM public lands in Nevada and Utah.

[[Page 59918]]

Future development on private lands is possible, but the best available 
information does not indicate that any large-scale solar projects are 
planned on private lands within the range of sage-grouse at this time.

Geothermal

    Geothermal exploration and development activity on Federal lands 
has been sporadic, but activity has increased in recent years. 
Currently, four geothermal facilities have been constructed within the 
range of sage-grouse in MZs III and IV, totaling 57,384 ha (141,800 ac; 
Manier et al. 2013, p. 70). The BLM has approved several geothermal 
leases throughout MZs III, IV, and V and covering approximately 0.29 
percent of the occupied range, but the potential of these leases being 
developed is unknown. Many of these leases have existing stipulations 
protecting sage-grouse seasonal habitats (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). 
No geothermal development has occurred in MZs I and II, although 
geothermal potential exists throughout these MZs (Manier et al. 2013, 
p. 70).
    The greatest potential for future commercial geothermal energy 
development is within MZs III, IV, and V (EIA 2009, entire). Currently, 
approximately 1,800 km\2\ (694 mi\2\) of active geothermal leases exist 
on public lands primarily in the Southern (MZ IV) and Northern Great 
Basin (MZ III) (Knick et al. 2011, p. 245). However, it is unknown what 
portion of these leases will ever realize an operational geothermal 
project. Nevada is predicted to experience the greatest increase in 
geothermal growth across the United States (BLM and USFS 2008, pp. 2-
35).
    Impacts from geothermal energy development have not been studied, 
but are expected to be similar to oil and gas development (Manier et 
al. 2013, p. 70). Direct habitat loss could occur from development of 
well pads, structures, roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. Sage-
grouse could be disturbed by human activity during installation and 
operation of geothermal projects (EIA 2009, entire). Water needed for 
installation and operation of geothermal facilities could deplete local 
water sources and potentially impact brood-rearing habitat.

Conservation Efforts

    Since 2010, State and Federal agencies have worked collaboratively 
to develop regulatory mechanisms to reduce or eliminate the potential 
threat of new renewable energy development. The BLM and USFS amended or 
revised Federal Plans to restrict development in priority habitats. 
States developed and implemented State plans that govern development on 
State and private lands. These efforts are in addition to direction to 
conserve sage-grouse that was provided by wind, solar, and geothermal 
assessments conducted by the BLM.
    Federal Plans--The Federal Plans substantially reduce potential 
impacts to sage-grouse from renewable energy development on more than 
half the species' occupied range. The Federal Plans generally exclude 
new utility-scale and commercial solar and wind developments on 14 
million ha (35 million ac) of PHMA (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). Within 
the 13 million ha (32 million ac) of GHMA, renewable energy project 
locations are to be prioritized for development outside sage-grouse 
habitat. In addition, in Nevada, California, Utah, and Colorado, the 
Solar Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS) (BLM 2012, entire) excludes solar development in sage-grouse 
habitat, protecting a majority of the habitat areas on BLM lands with 
solar potential. Based on a geospatial assessment of these measures, 
the Federal Plans reduce the percentage of modeled breeding habitat 
potentially impacted by solar development from 15 percent to less than 
1 percent and by wind development from 42 percent to 6 percent.
    For geothermal projects, NSO is required in the 14 million ha (35 
million ac) of PHMA for all States except Nevada and Wyoming. In 
Nevada, limited geothermal development could occur on Federal lands if 
it is determined that sage-grouse will not be impacted (BLM and USFS 
2015, entire). In Wyoming, geothermal projects are subject to use 
restrictions including disturbance caps. Geothermal projects are 
allowed in GHMA, with measures such as timing limitations to minimize 
impacts. Priority will be given first to leasing and authorizing 
developing geothermal projects outside of PHMA and GHMA, then to non-
habitat areas within PHMA and GHMA, and lastly to the least suitable 
sage-grouse habitat. Based upon a geospatial assessment of the land 
uses, the Plans reduce the percentage of breeding habitat potentially 
impacted by geothermal development from 33 percent to 4 percent (USFWS 
2015a).
    State Plans--Three State Plans provide regulatory mechanisms that 
effectively reduce impacts from renewable energy development in that 
State. In Wyoming, the Wyoming Plan does not allow wind energy 
development, the primary type of renewable energy pursued in Wyoming, 
in Core Areas, effectively removing this potential threat on 
approximately 6 million ha (15 million acres) of important sage-grouse 
habitat. Since 2007, Wyoming has denied 27 lease applications for wind 
development on State trust lands due to this restriction in Core Areas. 
On State lands or where State authorizations are required, Montana's 
Plan requires avoidance of wind development in Core Areas and 
recommends no such development within 4 miles of active leks in general 
habitat (unless best available science demonstrates there will be no 
decline in sage-grouse populations) (Montana EO 10-2014, pp. 18, 19, 
21). Oregon's Plan requires avoidance, minimization, and compensatory 
mitigation actions for development in sage-grouse habitat on State and 
private land and, in conjunction with BLM's Federal Plan, caps the 
amount of disturbance on sage-grouse core habitat to 3 percent per PAC 
(Oregon OAR 635-140-0025, entire; and Oregon OAR 660-023-0115, entire).

Renewable Energy Summary

    In 2010, renewable energy was identified as a potential contributor 
to habitat fragmentation, and we concluded that regulatory mechanisms 
were not sufficient to address the threat in the future. Since 2010, 
regulatory mechanisms provided by Federal Plans and Wyoming, Montana, 
and Oregon Plans that eliminate or restrict most new renewable energy 
development in important sagebrush habitats substantially reduce this 
potential impact on approximately 90 percent of the sage-grouse 
breeding habitat. Some renewable energy development will occur in the 
future, primarily on private land or in GHMA, but it is impossible at 
this time to predict if, where, or how much development could occur. 
Avoidance and minimization measures included in the Wyoming, Montana, 
and Oregon Plans and the Federal Plans would reduce potential impacts 
if those projects did occur (see Sagebrush Landscape Conservation 
Planning for a detailed discussion of conservation measure 
implementation and effectiveness), consistent with recommendations in 
the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 43-44). Based on previous land use 
planning efforts, we expect these regulatory measures to be in place 
for the next 20 to 30 years.

Urban and Exurban Development

    In 2010, we evaluated the impact of urban and exurban development 
together with agricultural conversion and infrastructure, and 
determined that collectively those land uses were contributing to 
habitat fragmentation (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13931).

[[Page 59919]]

Furthermore, the 2010 finding concluded that habitat fragmentation and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms were threats to the species such that 
listing was warranted under the Act (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010).
    Impacts from European settlement began in the southwestern portion 
of the sage-grouse range (MZ III) as early as the 1600s and were 
widespread in the northern portion of the range by the mid-1800s 
(Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 371-372). Today, urban and exurban 
development are part of the human footprint on the landscape along with 
other anthropogenic features, such as roads and power lines (Leu et al. 
2008, p. 1119; Bar-Massada et al. 2014, p. 429). We consider urban 
areas to be those areas that are densely developed residential, 
commercial, and industrial built-up areas (U.S. Census Bureau 2012, p. 
1) and typically have a housing density of more than one unit per 0.4 
ha (more than one unit per ac) (Brown et al. 2005, p. 1853). Exurban 
development includes both development at the fringe of urban areas and 
rural residential development, typically with a housing density of one 
unit per 0.4 to 16 ha (1 to 40 ac) (Brown et al. 2005, p. 1853). 
Exurban development has been one of the fastest growing land uses in 
the United States in recent years (Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1893-1894; 
Theobald 2005, p. 1).
    Most urban development is at the edge of the sage-grouse range 
while exurban development is scattered throughout the range, though 
limited to private lands (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25; Knick et al. 
2011, p. 212). Major urban areas include the Columbia River Valley in 
Washington (MZ VI), the Snake River Valley in Idaho (MZ IV), and the 
Bear River Valley in Utah (MZ II) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). 
Using the information in Theobald 2014 (entire), we completed a 
geospatial assessment of 2010 Census data and estimated that urban and 
exurban development directly affects less than 1 percent of the sage-
grouse occupied range. Indirect areas of influence related to increased 
predator impacts may extend up to 3.0 km (1.86 mi) from these direct 
footprints (Bui et al. 2010, p. 65). Factoring in these indirect 
effects, urban and exurban development could influence approximately 
12.4 percent of the sage-grouse's occupied range. Since human 
population data only considers primary residences, the impact of 
exurban development in rural areas, especially areas affected by 
seasonal and recreational use, is likely underestimated (Brown et al. 
2005, p. 1852).
    Urban development affects sage-grouse habitat through the removal 
of vegetation and subsequent construction of buildings and associated 
infrastructure (Factor A; Knick et al. 2011, p. 217). In contrast to 
urban areas, exurban areas may continue to provide some sagebrush 
habitat, but it is typically less suitable due to associated 
anthropogenic disturbances (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-26). Both urban 
and exurban development can result in an increase in predation from 
pets and novel predators typically associated with humans (e.g., 
ravens, skunks [Mephitis mephitis], fox), invasive plants, and 
recreation impacts. Noise associated with urban and exurban development 
may also affect breeding activity and other sage-grouse behavior 
(Factor E); however, little information is available that assesses this 
impact relative to urban activities (Blickley et al. 2012, p. 470). 
Sage-grouse avoid human development for nesting and brood-rearing 
(Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 508). Approximately 99 percent of active 
leks are in landscapes with less than 3 percent developed lands; 
whereas inactive leks have more than 25 times the development and human 
density of active leks (Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 462; Knick et al. 2013, 
p. 1547). Sage-grouse extirpation was determined to be most likely in 
areas that had a human population density of at least four persons per 
100 ha (four persons per 0.01 km\2\ or 247 ac) (Aldridge et al. 2008, 
pp. 983 and 991).
    Human populations have increased in size and spatial extent over 
the past century, particularly in the western portion of the sagebrush 
biome (Stiver et al. 2006, Appendix C-2; Torregrosa and Devoe 2008, p. 
10). Between 2000 and 2039, the U.S. population is projected to 
increase by 29 percent, with much of that increase likely to happen in 
western States (Torregrosa and Devoe 2008, p. 10). The areas of the 
species' occupied range at highest risk of development are private 
lands along the southeastern, southwestern, and southern portions of 
the species' range, and south of the Snake River, and in the Columbia 
Basin (USFWS 2013, pp. 16-29). If these projected population increases 
occur, the human footprint from development and resultant impacts will 
also increase, leading to additional habitat loss and fragmentation in 
those areas. Over half of the sage-grouse's occupied range is on 
federally owned lands that are not at risk of urban and exurban 
development. Nonetheless, development on adjacent private lands could 
have indirect impacts, as discussed above.

Conservation Efforts

    Avoiding or minimizing additional urban and exurban development in 
sage-grouse habitats requires identifying habitats most at risk to 
development, developing and implementing land policies to acquire, 
maintain, or enhance habitat, and promoting ecologically sustainable 
private lands and ranches in sage-grouse habitat (Stiver et al. 2006, 
p. 33). Because urban and exurban development occurs primarily on 
private lands, conservation efforts focused on private land management, 
such as CCAAs and SGI, are most effective in ameliorating this impact.
    Candidate Conservation Agreements--CCAAs are an effective tool for 
eliminating future development on private lands within the occupied 
range of sage-grouse. This outcome is because landowners enrolled in 
sage-grouse CCAAs have agreed not to pursue subdivision of rangeland, 
new building construction, or other new associated infrastructure. To 
date, all private lands within the species' range in Oregon and Wyoming 
are potentially covered by CCAAs; approximately 745,000 ha (1.8 million 
ac) have landowner commitments, effectively removing the risk of urban 
and exurban development in these areas.
    Sage Grouse Initiative--Conservation easements are voluntary 
agreements between a landowner and with a land trust, the NRCS, or 
other organizations or agencies that maintain the land in private 
ownership with development restrictions that are typically permanent. 
Conservation easements can permanently protect sagebrush habitat from 
subdivision while providing compensation to landowners. The NRCS, 
through implementation of the SGI, has entered approximately 182,870 ha 
(451,884 ac) into conservation easements through fiscal year 2013 (NRCS 
2015a, p. 38). Most easements for sage-grouse are located inside PACs 
(79 percent), and 94 percent of them provide permanent protection from 
future development.
    State Plans--The Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon Plans include 
measures to address urban and exurban development. The Montana Plan 
regulates habitat loss due to urbanization on State lands and on 
private lands if a project needs an authorization from the State. The 
Montana Plan includes seasonal, timing, and noise restrictions; 
disturbance caps; lek buffers; and other conservation measures to 
reduce the potential threat of urbanization (Montana EO 10-2014, pp. 
13-21). The Wyoming Plan includes

[[Page 59920]]

disturbances from exurban and urban development in calculations of 
their disturbance caps, which are used to limit overall disturbance in 
Core Areas. Oregon's State regulations require cities and counties to 
avoid sage-grouse habitat when amending land use planning designations 
that could increase opportunities for urban and exurban development or 
when making changes to their codes that may affect sage-grouse habitat. 
To the extent that urban and exurban development were to occur, it also 
would be subject to regulations (requiring avoidance, minimization, and 
compensatory mitigation) and a cap on the amount of disturbance on 
sage-grouse core habitat to 3 percent per PAC (Oregon OAR 635-140-0025, 
entire; and Oregon OAR 660-023-0115, entire).
    Federal Plans--Lands administered by the BLM and USFS are not 
directly affected by urban and exurban development, as those agencies 
are not authorized to permit those land uses. The Federal Plans require 
that any PHMAs and GHMAs be retained in Federal management, thus 
preventing transfer to private landownership that could result in urban 
or exurban development. Limited exceptions to this provision could be 
allowed if transfer of land ownership would benefit sage-grouse or not 
cause any adverse effects. As a result of the Federal land ownership 
and limitations on transference provided by the Federal Plans, the risk 
of urban and exurban development is reduced on approximately 90 percent 
of the breeding habitat across the species' range.

Summary of Urban and Exurban Development

    The 2010 finding concluded that growing human populations and 
associated urban and exurban development were adversely affecting sage-
grouse. Urban and exurban development is expected to continue to affect 
sagebrush habitat throughout the sage-grouse range, causing localized 
impacts to individuals and populations. The impacts are not anticipated 
to occur evenly across the range; they are expected to occur primarily 
upon private lands and likely near existing developed areas as 
populations expand. Fifty-three percent of the occupied range is on 
federally owned lands where urban and exurban development is unlikely 
to occur, although associated infrastructure and indirect effects are 
possible. Existing urban and exurban development will continue to 
affect sagebrush habitat at many locations scattered throughout the 
sage-grouse's range, causing impacts to individuals or populations. 
Substantial private land conservation efforts that are consistent with 
the recommendations of the COT Report (USFWS 2013, pp. 50-51), 
including SGI's completion of more than 182,870 ha (451,884 ac) of 
conservation easements, have minimized potential impacts of new 
development throughout the range.

Recreation

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of recreation on sage-grouse and 
concluded that it was not a threat to the species (75 FR 13910, March 
23, 2010, pp. 13984-13985). We have no new information at this time to 
change the conclusion that recreation is not a threat to the species. 
Recreational hunting of sage-grouse is discussed in another section 
(see, Hunting) and is not discussed in this section.
    Recreational activities occur across the range of the species (42 
of the 48 sage-grouse populations; USFWS 2013, pp. 16-29), but are of 
limited severity and typically concentrated in specific, designated 
areas, such as trails and campgrounds. Recreational activities include 
hiking, camping, fishing, horseback riding, mountain biking, off-
highway vehicle use, and wildlife viewing (Ouren et al. 2007, p. 2; 
Ibrahim and Cordes 2008, p. 14; Knight 2009, p. 167; NDOW 2014, p. 1). 
The majority (72 percent) of recreational visits to BLM-administered 
lands occurred in areas not containing sagebrush (ECONorthwest 2014, p. 
13), indicating that sage-grouse habitat may be affected less 
frequently by recreation than other areas. Little information exists 
about the level of impacts that may be occurring from recreational 
activities (ECONorthwest 2014, p. 13); however, off-highway vehicle 
impacts to sage-grouse habitat have been reported in a few areas in 
Oregon (Hagen 2011, pp. 197-198). Impacts have also been reported at 
leks in Oregon and Nevada, where regular lek viewing has caused 
disturbance (Budeau, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014a, 
pers. comm.; Espinosa, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2014a, pers. 
comm).
    Though limited in extent and frequency, recreational activities can 
have a variety of direct and indirect effects to sage-grouse. Although 
rare, people can crush eggs or strike birds with vehicles (Factor E) 
(Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228; Wiechman 2013, p. 12). Activities could 
degrade habitat, introduce invasive plants, or increase wildfire risk 
(Factor A) (NWCG 1999, pp. 6-7, Ouren et al. 2007, p. 16; Knick et al. 
2011, p. 219). Noise and movement associated with recreational activity 
may disrupt sage-grouse behavior or movement patterns (Factor E) 
(Blickley et al. 2012, pp. 467-470, Patricelli et al. 2013, p. 242). 
Predation (Factor C) may increase due to increases in trash associated 
with recreational activities or due to the presence of pets 
accompanying humans (Knick et al. 2011 p. 219; Young et al. 2011, pp. 
126-127).
    Given the limited data about recreational activities occurring in 
sage-grouse habitat, it is difficult to accurately predict future 
impacts on sage-grouse throughout the range. However, based on 
historical and current trends, recreational activities are likely to 
continue on the landscape indefinitely. Recreational activities may 
increase over time in correlation to predicted increases in human 
populations.

Conservation Efforts

    Federal Plans--The Federal Plans include conservation measures 
consistent with the COT Report recommendations (USFWS 2013, p. 50) to 
reduce recreation impacts (BLM and USFS 2015, entire). The Federal 
Plans exclude new recreational facilities in PHMA, with limited 
exceptions when needed for safety or when beneficial to sage-grouse. 
Off-highway vehicle travel will be limited to existing routes and 
trails and that have neutral or net positive impacts on sage-grouse in 
PHMA and GHMA. Additional measures to minimize potential impacts that 
might result from development of recreational facilities and 
infrastructure include seasonal and timing restrictions, lek buffers, 
disturbance caps, and mitigation.
    State Plans--The Montana State Plan includes conservation measures, 
such as seasonal and noise restrictions and lek buffers, to reduce 
impacts from new recreation facilities on State lands and private lands 
where State authorization is required (Montana E.O. 10-2014, pp. 4, 13-
21). In addition, most States discourage recreational viewing of sage-
grouse during the breeding season and do not provide lek locations to 
the general public (Budeau, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
2014a, pers. comm.; Robinson, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 
2014a, pers. comm.; Schroeder, Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife 2014, pers. comm.; Wightman, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 
2014a, pers. comm.). In addition, Wyoming and Washington have measures 
to minimize impacts from recreational lek viewing, including wildlife 
harassment laws (Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,

[[Page 59921]]

2014a, pers. comm.; Schroeder, Washington Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, 2014, pers. comm).

Summary of Recreation

    In the 2010 finding, we concluded that recreation was not a threat 
to the species. No additional evidence has been discovered or presented 
suggesting that recreational activities or the associated impacts have 
changed since the 2010 finding. Recreation continues to be an activity 
that occurs sporadically across the range of the species, with some 
localized impacts, but no population-level effects to the species. 
Together, the Federal Plans and Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon State 
Plans reduce impacts from recreation to the areas identified as PHMA 
and GHMA, which encompass approximately 90 percent of the modeled 
breeding habitat across the species' range (see Sagebrush Landscape 
Conservation Planning for a detailed discussion of conservation measure 
implementation and effectiveness). Therefore, we conclude that 
recreation is not a threat to the species, now or in the future.

Climate Change and Drought

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of climate change and drought on 
sage-grouse (75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010; pp. 13954-13957). While the 
direct impact of climate change on sage-grouse was unknown, we found 
climate change to be intensifying other threats such as fire and 
invasive species. We found drought not to be a substantial threat to 
the species across its range.

Climate Change

    Our analysis of impacts to sage-grouse attributable to climate 
change includes the consideration of ongoing and projected changes in 
climate across the sage-grouse's range. The terms ``climate'' and 
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability 
of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being 
a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or longer 
periods also may be used (IPCC 2007, p. 78). The term ``climate 
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or 
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that 
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether 
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (IPCC 
2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or 
indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, neutral, or 
negative, and they may change over time, depending on the species and 
other relevant considerations, such as the effects of interactions of 
climate with other variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, 
pp. 8-19). In seeking to evaluate the potential impacts of climate 
change on sage-grouse, we have weighed relevant information, including 
areas of uncertainty, together with our understanding of sage-grouse 
biology and ecology.
    Increases in global and regional ambient temperature and variable 
changes in precipitation are projected out to the end of the 21st 
century (IPCC 2013, p. 19). Some degree of uncertainty is inherent in 
these and other projections of future change; however, climate change 
will likely affect to some degree the entire range of sage-grouse, with 
the greatest potential adverse impacts occurring in the southern Great 
Basin (Schlaepfer et al. 2011, p. 380).
    Direct impacts of climate on individual birds are unknown for most 
species, including sage-grouse (Factor E), but climate is likely to 
influence the distribution and quality of sage-grouse habitat (Factor 
A) (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 174-179, Gardali et al. 2012, p. 3). The 
natural distribution of sagebrush is driven by soil-water availability 
(Schlaepfer et al. 2014, p. 349; Schlaepfer et al. 2015, pp. 7-8), 
which is influenced by the amount and seasonality of precipitation and 
by temperature (Bradford et al. 2014, p. 595). Changes in precipitation 
timing and increases in ambient temperature are projected to lead to 
increased evaporation and transpiration in sagebrush habitat and a 
lengthening summer period of dry soil conditions (Bradford et al. 2014, 
p. 599). These conditions are projected to be most pronounced along the 
southern edge of the current distribution of sagebrush (MZs III and 
VII), and particularly at low elevations (Schlaepfer et al. 2015, p. 
13; Still and Richardson 2015, p. 33). In these areas, climate change 
may result in northward and upslope shifts in frost-sensitive woodland 
vegetation into areas currently suitable for sagebrush (Neilson et al. 
2005, pp. 153-155; Comer et al. 2012, p. 142; reviewed in Friggens et 
al. 2012, pp. 8-11; Rehfeldt et al. 2012, p. 126), potentially 
altering, or displacing sagebrush habitat. It is unknown to what extent 
these changes could result in habitat loss and fragmentation, but 
adverse effects to populations could occur if habitat loss exacerbates 
impacts from other stressors (Johnson et al. 2011, pp. 447-450; Miller 
et al. 2011, pp. 183-184; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 465-468).
    Beyond affecting sagebrush directly, the effects of climate change 
can interact with and increase effects from other stressors (Chambers 
et al. 2014c, p. 368), such as invasive plants, drought, and wildfire. 
For example, cheatgrass grows best with wet and warm conditions, so 
increasing temperature coupled with increased winter and spring 
precipitation is likely to facilitate its spread (Balch et al. 2013, p. 
174). Combined, these stressors could have additive impacts to 
sagebrush habitat (Bradford et al. 2014, p. 599; Chambers et al. 2014c, 
entire) as discussed further in Cumulative Effects. Climate change is 
likely to shift the distribution of sagebrush at the southernmost 
extent of the species' range, including areas in MZ III (Schlaepfer et 
al. 2011, p. 380). Any other effects of climate change are unknown at 
this time, and the extent of potential cumulative effects is also 
unknown.

Drought

    Drought is a natural, periodic occurrence throughout the range of 
the sage-grouse. Large-scale drought lasting a decade, similar to the 
1930s Dust Bowl drought, has occurred once or twice per century on 
average (Woodhouse and Overpeck 1998, p. 2706; Ault et al. 2014, p. 
7529), and periodic drought regularly influences sagebrush ecosystems 
(Bar-Massa et al. 2006, p. 1; Miller et al. 2011, p. 145; Miller et al. 
2011, p. 145). In the future, certain portions of the range (MZs I and 
VI and portions of MZs II and IV) are forecast to have increased risk 
and higher severity of drought, though the entire range will likely be 
affected (Cook 2015, p. 6).
    Drought impacts to sage-grouse habitat may affect adult survival, 
nesting success, and chick survival (Factor A). Structural composition 
of plants vital for sustaining sage-grouse nesting success, including 
plant height and percent plant cover, may be affected during drought 
(Hanf et al. 1994, p. 41). Decreases in insects and forbs important for 
sage-grouse chick survival during drought may negatively affect sage-
grouse populations (Johnson and Boyce 1990, p. 91; Crawford et al. 
2004, p. 6; Aldridge and Bridgham 2003, p. 31; Fischer et al. 1996, p. 
197). Drought has been correlated with declines in populations 
(Patterson 1952, p. 33; Braun 1998, p. 139) and has coincided with 
periods of low population levels (Connelly and Braun 1997, pp. 231-
232). In the period 1950-2003, drought had a weak negative effect on 
sage-grouse persistence, with extirpation most likely in areas having 
three or

[[Page 59922]]

more severe droughts per decade (Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 983, 992).
    Based on precipitation and temperature projections, drought 
frequencies are expected to increase across the country, especially in 
the Rocky Mountain and southwestern States, including all sage-grouse 
MZs (Strzepek et al. 2010, p. 1).
    The risk of decade-scale drought occurring within the southern MZs 
within the sage-grouse range (MZs III, V, and VII and portions of MZs 
II and IV) this century is estimated between 20 and 70 percent (Ault et 
al. 2014, pp. 7541-7542). The probability of decade-scale drought in 
the northern MZs (MZs I and VI and portions of MZs II and IV) is 
between 10 and 50 percent (Ault et al. 2014, pp. 7541-7542).

Conservation Efforts

    Ameliorating the impacts of climate change and drought to sage-
grouse involves addressing other impacts to the species to improve the 
resilience of the species and its sagebrush habitat under changing 
environmental conditions. Maintaining large expanses of undisturbed 
habitat is the best way to address potential impacts that could lead to 
habitat fragmentation; as discussed in other impacts sections and 
Sagebrush Landscape Conservation Planning, new regulatory mechanisms 
and conservation efforts are in place to address those potential 
impacts. In addition, many conservation actions have been implemented 
to address those other impacts that are most influenced by climate 
change and drought, such as wildfire, invasive plants, improper 
grazing, and conifer encroachment. Full discussions of the best 
management practices, conservation efforts, and regulatory mechanisms 
associated with these compounding impacts are included under each 
impact section in Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five 
Factors.

Climate Change and Drought Summary

    The understanding of impacts from climate change and drought has 
not changed substantially from the 2010 finding. Climate change effects 
on the timing and amount of precipitation could adversely affect 
sagebrush habitat and food availability, with potential negative 
consequences for sage-grouse survival and recruitment; however, the 
extent and nature of this potential impact is not understood. Drought 
is a natural part of the sagebrush ecosystem, and sage-grouse abundance 
has been shown to fluctuate in correlation to drought conditions. 
Climate change and drought are most likely to affect individuals and 
populations at the southern extent of the species' range; however, the 
extent or nature of those effects to sage-grouse are unknown at this 
time. The greatest concern from climate change and drought is their 
potential to increase wildfire and invasive plant impacts in the Great 
Basin. If hotter and drier conditions lead to increased burn rates, 
then increased habitat loss due to wildfire could be predicted (see 
Wildfire and Invasive Plants, above); however, the extent to which 
climate change and drought may change burn rates is unknown. Therefore, 
based on the best available information, climate change and drought are 
not threats to sage-grouse, now or in the future.

Predation

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of predation on sage-grouse and 
concluded that predation was not a threat to the species (75 FR 13910, 
March 23, 2010, p. 13973). We concluded that landscape fragmentation is 
likely contributing to increased predation on sage-grouse. However, 
except in localized areas where habitat is compromised, we found no 
evidence to suggest that predation is limiting sage-grouse populations 
rangewide. New information developed since that time does not alter our 
conclusion.
    Predation (Factor C) is the most commonly identified cause of 
direct mortality for sage-grouse during all life stages (Blomberg et 
al. 2013b, p. 347; Caudill et al. 2014, p. 808). Rangewide, sage-grouse 
are exposed to a number of different predators, including raptors, 
small mammals, and snakes (Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 10-11; Coates et 
al. 2008 pp. 424-425; Lockyer et al. 2013, p. 248). However, sage-
grouse have co-evolved with their predators, resulting in the 
development of cryptic plumage and behavioral adaptations that have 
allowed them to persist despite this mortality factor (Coates and 
Delehanty 2008, p. 635; Hagen 2011, p. 96). Sage-grouse mortality rates 
due to predation vary widely by location and time of year, and short-
term studies are often not representative of population dynamics for 
the species across the range (Taylor et al. 2012b, p. 337).
    The habitat fragmentation and development that began across the 
sagebrush ecosystem in the late 19th century (see Habitat 
Fragmentation, above) has caused predator dynamics to change (Fichter 
and Williams 1967, p. 225; Baxter et al. 2007, p. 266; Coates and 
Delehanty 2010, p. 240). Decreased habitat quality and quantity has 
created a situation in which the sage-grouse are more vulnerable to 
predation (Connelly et al. 1991, p. 524; Coates 2007, pp. 38-39; Hagen 
2011, p. 96). Agricultural development, landscape fragmentation, and 
encroaching human populations may increase the diversity and density of 
predators (Summers et al. 2004, p. 523; Coates and Delehanty 2010, p. 
246; Dinkins et al. 2014, p. 639). Degraded and fragmented landscapes 
can benefit predators by increasing their kill efficiency, as well as 
subsidizing their food and nest or den substrate (Hagen 2011, p. 100). 
The abundance of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), raccoons (Procyon lotor), 
crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and ravens, which historically were rare 
in the sagebrush landscape, has increased in association with human-
altered landscapes (Luginbuhl et al. 2001, p. 570). Raven abundance has 
increased as much as 1,500 percent in some areas of western North 
America since the 1960s (Coates and Delehanty 2010, p. 244). Several 
studies have documented negative effects to sage-grouse associated with 
increased corvid populations (corvids are a group of birds that include 
ravens, crows, magpies (Pica spp.), and jays) (Holloran 2005, p. 58; 
Coates 2007, p. 130; Conover et al. 2010, p. 335; Lockyer et al. 2013, 
p. 242; Coates et al. 2014, pp. 73-74; Howe et al. 2014, p. 36). Ravens 
may prefer certain sage-grouse habitats, such as big sagebrush 
communities and wet meadows, and the abundance of ravens may increase 
near livestock grazing and agriculture (Coates et al., in press).
    High predator abundance within a sage-grouse nesting area may 
negatively affect sage-grouse productivity without causing direct 
mortality. The increase in the numbers of corvids within the sagebrush 
ecosystem is an important change because sage-grouse nests are at 
greater risk of predation by these visual predators (Conover et al. 
2010, p. 335). Even low but consistent raven presence can influence 
sage-grouse reproductive behavior (Bui 2009, p. 32; Dinkins et al. 
2012, p. 606). Sage-grouse females tend to select nest and brood-
rearing locations that are farther away from predator perches and have 
lower densities of avian predators (Dinkins et al. 2012, p. 606; 
Dinkins et al. 2014, p. 637). When nesting in areas with relatively 
higher abundances of ravens, females reduce the amount of time they 
spend off their nests, potentially compromising their ability to secure 
sufficient nutrition to complete the incubation period (Coates and 
Delehanty 2008, p. 636).
    Data are lacking that definitively link sage-grouse population 
trends with predator abundance. At the rangewide scale, predation is 
not believed to be a widespread factor limiting sage-grouse

[[Page 59923]]

population growth (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 975; Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 10-1). However, in localized areas where habitat is compromised by 
human activities, predation could be limiting local sage-grouse 
populations (Coates 2007, p. 131; Bui 2009, p. 33; Lockyer et al. 2013, 
p. 242). Holloran (2005, p. 58) attributed increased sage-grouse nest 
depredation to high corvid abundances in western Wyoming, which 
resulted from anthropogenic food and perching subsidies in areas of 
natural gas development. Mammalian predators and ravens are suspected 
of causing sage-grouse population decline and extirpation in Washington 
(Schroeder et al. 2014, p. 10). Raven abundance was also strongly 
associated with sage-grouse nest failure in Nevada, resulting in 
negative effects on sage-grouse reproduction (Coates 2007, p. 130; 
Lockyer et al. 2013, p. 242). Studies on increasing raven populations 
have also been recently conducted in Idaho (Coates et al. 2014, entire; 
Howe et al. 2014, entire) and central Utah (Conover et al. 2010, 
entire).
    Since 2010, conservation efforts have been implemented to address 
predation and associated impacts. Conservation measures can limit the 
effects of predation by preventing habitat fragmentation caused by 
transmission lines, roads, and nonnative vegetation (Howe et al. 2014, 
p. 46). As discussed in other sections of this finding, regulatory 
measures provided by the Federal Plans and certain State Plans limit 
new development within important sage-grouse habitat, thus reducing 
habitat fragmentation that facilitates increased predation (see 
Nonrenewable Energy Development, Mining, Renewable Energy, and Urban 
and Exurban Development). Measures to remove predator perches or 
subsidized food sources could minimize effects, but predator removal 
programs have not yet proven to be effective, as predator populations 
quickly rebound without continual control (Coates 2007, p 152; Hagen 
2011, p. 99).
    In summary, predation was identified as a potential threat in the 
2010 finding and will likely continue to have adverse impacts to local 
populations, particularly in areas where habitat fragmentation has 
occurred. Mortality due to nest predation by ravens or other human-
subsidized predators is increasing in some areas (e.g., in MZs III, VI, 
and VII), at times causing local population declines, and in extreme 
cases, local extirpations. However, information about the rangewide 
extent of predation is limited and there is no indication that 
predation is causing a rangewide decline in population trends. Since 
the 2010 finding, regulatory mechanisms from Federal Plans and Wyoming, 
Montana, and Oregon State Plans have been implemented that limit 
additional future habitat loss and fragmentation to the areas 
identified as PHMA and GHMA which encompass approximately 90 percent of 
the modeled breeding habitat across the species' range (see Sagebrush 
Landscape Conservation Planning for a detailed discussion of 
conservation measure implementation and effectiveness). These 
restrictions on future development will effectively eliminate new 
disturbances that remove cover habitat and facilitate the expansion of 
predators, thus reducing the potential for predation on sage-grouse.

Disease

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of disease (Factor C) on sage-
grouse and concluded that disease was not a threat to the species (75 
FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13970). In that finding, we determined 
that, while WNv was affecting some populations, no evidence existed 
that disease was a substantial mortality factor for the persistence of 
sage-grouse across the species' range (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 
13970). We have no new information to indicate that analysis has 
changed.
    Sage-grouse are host to numerous parasites and pathogens (Connelly 
et al. 2004, pp. 10-4 to 10-8; Christiansen and Tate 2011, pp. 114-
118). The presence of parasites or pathogens is not synonymous with the 
presence of disease or population-level impacts (Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 10-3; Christiansen and Tate 2011, p. 114). To date, most parasites 
and pathogens found in sage-grouse are not known to cause substantial, 
chronic mortality or other adverse impacts to sage-grouse populations 
(reviewed in Christiansen and Tate 2011, pp. 114, 119-125).
    West Nile virus is known to have localized impacts to sage-grouse 
populations (Christiansen and Tate 2011, p. 122; Walker and Naugle 
2011, p. 139). Similar to other North American bird species (McLean 
2006, p. 54), sage-grouse are highly susceptible to WNv, with mortality 
rates nearing 100 percent of infected birds (McLean 2006, pp. 53-54; 
Clark et al. 2006, p. 18). West Nile virus is transmitted among birds 
mainly through a mosquito-bird-mosquito infection cycle that relies on 
optimal climate conditions and movement of birds (McLean 2006, p. 52). 
The mosquito (Culex tarsalis) is the primary vector of WNv in sage-
grouse (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 617). Most sage-grouse infected with WNv 
die in as few as 6 days, but a small proportion of infected birds 
survive, as evidenced by the presence of WNv-specific antibodies in 
live birds (Walker et al. 2007b, p. 691; Dusek et al. 2014, p. 726). 
High mortality rates from WNv can reduce average annual adult survival, 
a limiting factor in sage-grouse population growth (Johnson and Braun 
1999, p. 81; Taylor et al. 2012b, p. 343). Population-level impacts can 
also result from WNv mortality in juvenile sage-grouse by decreasing 
recruitment into the breeding population the following year (Kaczor 
2008, p. 65; Taylor et al. 2012b, p. 343).
    West Nile virus has been detected across the species' range, with 
localized outbreaks occurring in 10 of 11 States and 1 of 2 Canadian 
provinces in the species' range (WNv has not been detected in 
Washington or Saskatchewan (USFWS 2014b)); however, sage-grouse are 
likely to have been infected in Saskatchewan as well (Walker and Naugle 
2011, p. 133). West Nile virus infections in other species in 
Washington suggest that sage-grouse in the Columbia Basin could be 
exposed to the disease (USGS NWHC 2014). West Nile virus was first 
detected in sage-grouse in 2003, with localized outbreaks occurring 
from 2004 to 2009 (Naugle et al. 2004, p. 705); no outbreaks have been 
recorded since 2009 (USFWS 2014b). However, no rangewide disease 
surveillance program exists to know for certain the extent of outbreaks 
across the species' range, and it is likely that many WNv-related sage-
grouse mortalities go undocumented.
    Although WNv is present throughout the range of sage-grouse, on a 
finer scale WNv presence depends upon water sources that provide 
aquatic breeding habitat for mosquitoes (Zou et al. 2006, p. 1035; 
Doherty 2007, pp. 60-61). The development of anthropogenic water 
sources could provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes that contribute 
to WNv outbreaks. In addition, WNv outbreaks in humans are associated 
with drought conditions and high ambient temperature in spring and 
summer (Epstein and Defilippo 2001, p. 106), and drought conditions 
likely increase the probability of WNv outbreaks in sage-grouse as 
well. When high temperature and drought combine, sage-grouse are 
concentrated in shrinking mesic habitats (Schrag et al. 2011, p. 2). 
Under these conditions, contact between mosquitoes and birds increases, 
and the risk of WNv transmission and an outbreak among sage-grouse is 
elevated (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 131).
    The primary conservation measure for WNv is the control of 
mosquitoes and their breeding habitat (Walker and

[[Page 59924]]

Naugle 2011, pp. 140-141). Measures that limit development that creates 
new mosquito breeding habitat or measures that manage existing water 
features so that mosquitos cannot use them to breed (e.g., circulating 
water, using larvicides, or mosquito fish (Gambusia spp.)) are most 
effective in reducing future WNv outbreaks. As discussed in other 
sections of this finding, regulatory measures provided by the Federal 
Plans and the Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon Plans limit new development 
within important sage-grouse habitat, thus reducing the risk of 
anthropogenic water sources being constructed that could provide 
mosquito breeding habitat (see Nonrenewable Energy Development, Mining, 
Renewable Energy, and Urban and Exurban Development). In addition, the 
Federal Plans contain RDFs that will minimize the risk of WNv 
outbreaks, such as requirements for water feature installation to 
minimize the likelihood of mosquito breeding (see Sagebrush Landscape 
Conservation Planning for a detailed discussion of conservation measure 
implementation and effectiveness). The SGI program includes assistance 
to private landowners to manage water features in a way that minimizes 
the likelihood of mosquito breeding.
    With the exception of WNv, we could find no evidence that disease 
poses an impact to sage-grouse across the species' range. West Nile 
virus currently is a localized stressor that has had impacts on some 
sage-grouse populations, having caused declines and in some cases local 
extirpations of populations in North Dakota, South Dakota, southeast 
Montana, and Idaho. In those affected areas, WNv is likely to have an 
adverse effect on population growth rates, with small populations being 
at greatest risk of extirpation if outbreaks reduce population size 
below a threshold where recovery is no longer possible (Walker and 
Naugle 2011, pp. 137-139, 140). The incidence of WNv is likely to 
continue across the species' range in the future. The factors most 
likely to affect future occurrence are climate change and the abundance 
and the distribution of anthropogenic surface water. Conservation 
measures that limit and or manage the development of new artificial 
water sources will minimize habitat availability for mosquitoes that 
could spread WNv. As noted in our 2010 finding, a complex set of 
environmental and biotic conditions that support the WNv cycle must 
coincide for an outbreak to occur, and the annual patchy distribution 
of the disease is currently keeping population-level impacts at a 
minimum (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13970).

Recreational Hunting

    In 2010, we evaluated the effect of recreational hunting on sage-
grouse and concluded that recreational hunting is not a threat to the 
species (75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010; p. 13965). In 2010, we also 
determined that the effects of falconry hunting and poaching are 
negligible due to their extremely limited extent (75 FR 13910; March 
23, 2010; p. 13965). We have no new information about falconry hunting 
or poaching to change those determinations; therefore, they will not be 
discussed further in this status review.
    During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the sage-grouse was heavily 
exploited by both commercial and sport hunters (Factor B) (Patterson 
1952, pp. 30-33; Autenrieth 1981, pp. 3-11). State wildlife agencies 
were sufficiently concerned with the observed declines in the 1920s and 
1930s that many closed their hunting seasons and others reduced bag 
limits and season lengths as a precautionary measure (Patterson 1952, 
pp. 30-33; Autenrieth 1981, p. 10). By the 1950s, populations were 
considered recovered and recreational hunting was again allowed 
throughout the range (Patterson 1952, p. 242; Autenrieth 1981, p. 11). 
In recent years, hunting seasons and bag limits have fluctuated and 
become more conservative across the species' range as States responded 
to changing population numbers and perceived threats to birds (Reese 
and Connelly 2011, p. 104).
    In 2014, sage-grouse hunting took place in 8 of the 11 States where 
sage-grouse occur. Sage-grouse are listed as a threatened species in 
Washington (Stinson et al. 2004, p. 1), and hunting has been closed 
since 1988. Sage-grouse has not been hunted in Saskatchewan since 1938, 
and Alberta closed the season in 1996 (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 
25). In 1998, sage-grouse was designated as endangered in Canada, and 
hunting is prohibited there (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-3). North 
Dakota closed its hunting season in 2008 due to low lek count numbers, 
and it has remained closed. South Dakota closed its hunting season in 
2013 due to low lek count numbers; it also remained closed in 2014. 
Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission closed all or parts of 32 counties 
to sage-grouse hunting in 2014, and shortened the hunting season from 2 
months to 1 month.
    Sage-grouse hunting is regulated by State wildlife agencies. 
Hunting seasons are reviewed annually, at which time States can adjust 
harvest management based on updated abundance information and adaptive 
management criteria established in State wildlife management plans. 
Information on abundance and local habitat conditions is used to make 
any adjustments to the hunting season necessary to reduce the potential 
for additive mortality. Seasonal adjustments take the form of changes 
to the number of permits issued, changes to the season length or bag 
limit, or total closure of the hunting season. Bag limits and season 
lengths are relatively conservative compared to prior decades (Connelly 
2005, p. 9; Gardner, California Department of Fish and Game, 2008, 
pers. comm.; USFWS 2014b). Emergency closures, changes in permit 
numbers, and implementation of more conservative hunting seasons have 
been used for populations in decline or in areas experiencing other 
issues of potential concern (Budeau, Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife, 2014b, pers. comm.; Christiansen, Wyoming Game and Fish 
Department, 2014b, pers. comm.; Espinosa, Nevada Department of 
Wildlife, 2014b, pers. comm.; Griffin, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, 
2014, pers. comm.; Moser, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 2014, 
pers. comm.; Robinson, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 2014b, 
pers. comm.; Wightman, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 2014b, pers. 
comm.).
    Recreational hunting is anticipated to continue into the future, 
though it is difficult to make accurate predictions about specific 
levels of hunting mortality because States make adjustments annually. 
Given the downward trend in hunting mortality reported over the last 
several decades, mortality rates from hunting will likely continue to 
decrease. Rangewide, hunting seasons are more conservative than in the 
past, which has resulted in a reduction in sage-grouse hunting 
mortality across all sex and age classes (USFWS 2014b). Many States 
have reported estimated hunting mortality to be lower than the 10 
percent mortality cap recommended by Connelly et al. (2000a p. 976) 
(Christiansen 2010, p. 12; Budeau 2014b, pers. comm.).
    In 2010, we concluded that hunting was not a threat to the species 
and based on current information about harvest rates, it continues not 
have substantial impacts to sage-grouse. To date, changes in the 
management of sage-grouse hunting have resulted in a substantial 
reduction in sage-grouse hunting mortality rangewide.

Scientific and Educational Use

    In 2010, we evaluated the potential overuse of sage-grouse for 
scientific and educational purposes and determined

[[Page 59925]]

that it was not a threat to the species (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). 
Scientific use was occurring at low levels, but no evidence existed to 
indicate that scientific use was affecting populations or abundance 
trends. No educational use was known at that time. As discussed further 
below, we have no new information indicating that the level of 
utilization for scientific purposes has changed since the 2010 status 
review.
    Sage-grouse are one of the most intensely researched and monitored 
birds in North America. Scientists researching or monitoring sage-
grouse typically observe, approach, capture, handle, band, or attach 
radio transmitters to individual sage-grouse to study their movements, 
behaviors, and population dynamics. Translocations have been used for a 
variety of scientific purposes, such as a management tool to restore or 
augment declining populations of sage-grouse and to improve the genetic 
diversity of populations (Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource 
Development 2013, p. viii; White 2013, p. 9; Schroeder et al. 2014, p. 
8; Yakama Nation 2015, entire).
    During research-related activities, scientists could 
unintentionally kill, disturb, or reduce the survival of individual 
sage-grouse (Factor B) (Connelly et al. 2003, p. 32; Gibson et al. 
2013, p. 773). Despite these potential impacts, sage-grouse mortalities 
from scientific activities are extremely rare. Annually, less than 3 
percent of the sage-grouse captured for research or monitoring 
activities die as a result of their capture and handling (USFWS 2014b). 
Radio transmitters have had negative impacts to individual birds 
(Connelly et al. 2003, p. 32; Colorado Parks and Wildlife 2013, p. 48; 
USFWS 2014b), but no population-level impacts have been observed.
    Survival rates of translocated sage-grouse vary from 36 percent in 
central Idaho (Musil et al. 1993, p. 88) to greater than 45 percent in 
north-central Utah (Baxter et al. 2013, p. 809) and 62.4 percent in 
northeastern California (Bell and George 2012, p. 373). The efficacy of 
translocation efforts have been questioned because translocation 
success, as measured by persistence of reintroduced populations or 
increases of extant populations, has been low (Reese and Connelly 1997, 
pp. 235-238). However, more recent attempts have been successful 
(Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2014, p. 6; 
Baxter et al. 2006, p. 182). When translocation protocols are followed, 
translocated female sage-grouse survive just as well as resident 
individuals and quickly integrate into the local population (Bell and 
George 2012, p. 373). Sage-grouse translocated into the Columbia Basin 
in Washington (MZ VI) have generally survived (White 2013, p. 9; 
Schroeder et al. 2014, pp. 8, 17, 21). Translocations will likely 
continue at similar rates, and there is no evidence that the removal of 
sage-grouse from source populations has caused declines in abundance.
    In summary, although research or monitoring of sage-grouse could 
potentially affect individuals, the best available information does not 
indicate that adverse impacts are occurring at the population level. 
Information gained through these methods has directly benefited the 
species. In addition, while translocations have variable success rates, 
the best available information does not indicate that the 
translocations affect the populations from which the birds were 
removed. Although sage-grouse are intensely studied and monitored, 
there is no evidence to indicate that sage-grouse use for scientific 
purposes is affecting the species locally or rangewide.

Contaminants

    In 2010, we determined that contaminants were not a threat to the 
sage-grouse (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp.13982-13984). Sage-grouse 
exposed to contaminants may become sick or die (Factor E), and 
contaminants may reduce or remove sage-grouse habitats (Factor A). 
Types of contaminants that potentially affect sage-grouse include but 
are not limited to pesticides, products from mining and energy 
development, human waste, fire retardants, and airborne pollutants from 
roads, vehicles, and other machinery (Beck and Mitchell 2000, p. 997; 
Olsgard et al. 2009, p. 178; Hansen et al. 2011, p. 593; Christiansen 
and Tate 2011, p. 125). Contaminants may be intentionally introduced 
into sage-grouse habitats to improve conditions for crops and 
livestock, extract nonrenewable and nuclear energy resources, construct 
infrastructure, and manage wildfires (Larson et al. 1999, p. 115; 
Gibbons et al. 2015, p. 105). Spills or leaks along pipelines, 
highways, roads, and railroads can also unintentionally release 
contaminants into sage-grouse habitats.
    In the past, pesticides were used to remove sagebrush, other 
unwanted woody shrubs, invasive plants, and nuisance insects in sage-
grouse habitats in order to improve conditions for agricultural crops 
and livestock (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-28; Beck et al. 2012, p. 
445). Exposure to pesticides and herbicides can kill sage-grouse, cause 
abnormal behavior, or degrade sagebrush habitat (Blus and Connelly 
1998, p. 23; Christiansen and Tate 2011, p. 125; Mineau and Palmer 
2013, p. 20; Gibbons et al. 2015, p. 105). However, Federal and State 
regulations to protect air and water quality and ban certain pesticides 
have likely reduced applications in sagebrush habitats. Generally, 
pesticides and herbicides are now used to improve sagebrush habitats 
for native wildlife rather than for livestock (Beck et al. 2012, p. 
446), and properly applied pesticides should not poison sage-grouse 
(Call and Maser 1985, p. 15; APHIS 2002, p. 10). Furthermore, light 
applications of some herbicides may benefit sage-grouse by decreasing 
the shrub canopy and increasing the cover of grasses and forbs that are 
important to sage-grouse during the nesting and brood-rearing periods 
(Crawford et al. 2004, p. 2). Therefore, pesticides do not likely 
affect more than individual sage-grouse.
    Nonrenewable energy development and chemical spills could expose 
sage-grouse to contaminants, such as oil, gas, and waste products. 
Sage-grouse may encounter harmful radiation, metals, minerals, or 
contaminated fluids and waste released by nuclear facilities, 
nonrenewable energy developments, and mines (Ramirez and Rogers 2002, 
pp. 434-435; Beyer et al. 2004, p. 116; Hansen et al. 2011, p. 593). 
Although nonrenewable energy development can expose sage-grouse to 
contaminants, there is only one documented case of a dead, oil-covered 
sage-grouse discovered in a wastewater pit near an oil and gas well 
(Domenici 2008, USFWS, pers. comm.). Deaths or injury from wastewater 
pits are likely rare as sage-grouse typically do not require free water 
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 6) and the intense noise, activity, and lack 
of vegetative cover around the pits likely deter sage-grouse. 
Therefore, contaminants released from nonrenewable and chemical spills 
are not likely to affect more than individual sage-grouse.

Conservation Efforts

    The risk of exposure to contaminants is often related to 
anthropogenic activities that also present potential impacts to sage-
grouse, such as nonrenewable energy development and mining, as 
discussed in other sections of this finding. Any conservation measures 
that minimize the exposure of sage-grouse to those activities also 
minimize the risk of exposure to contaminants. Regulatory measures 
provided by the Federal Plans and the Wyoming Plan limit new 
development within important sage-grouse habitat, thus

[[Page 59926]]

potentially reducing the risk of contaminant exposure in those areas 
(see Nonrenewable Energy, and Mining). Based on previous Federal plans, 
we expect these regulatory mechanisms to be implemented for the next 20 
to 30 years.

Summary of Contaminants

    While potential exposure to contaminants occurs across the species' 
range, the best available information indicates that killing or injury 
of birds is rare and has not had population-level impacts. Regulatory 
mechanisms that substantially reduce new energy development and mining 
in important habitats further reduce the potential for impacts to sage-
grouse. For a detailed discussion of conservation measure 
implementation and effectiveness, see Sagebrush Landscape Conservation 
Planning.

Military Activity

    In 2010, we did not identify military activity as an impact to the 
species. Since 2010, we have become aware of several military 
facilities that overlap to varying degrees with the occupied range of 
sage-grouse and which have confirmed sage-grouse presence. Military 
installations in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming 
encompass less than 1 percent of the currently estimated sage-grouse 
range. With the exception of YTC, most of the installations have little 
habitat or sage-grouse on the property. The YTC contains one of the two 
sage-grouse populations in MZ VI (Stinson and Schroeder 2014, p. 3), 
and was designated as a PAC in the COT Report (USFWS 2013, p. 39).
    Military training and testing activities have the potential to 
negatively impact sage-grouse (Factor E) and their habitats. Training 
activities can ignite wildfires resulting in habitat loss and 
fragmentation (Factor A). This issue has been a particular concern in 
MZ VI, where approximately one quarter of the remaining sage-grouse in 
the MZ are located on YTC (Stinson and Schroeder 2013, p. 3). In 
addition to impacts from wildfire, habitat can be degraded by cross-
country maneuvers with military vehicles if they crush vegetation, 
compact soil, or introduce invasive plants (Stinson and Schroeder 2014, 
p. 3). These kinds of impacts are limited, because the levels of 
military surface training occurring across the sage-grouse range are 
limited.
    Compared to surface training, the military manages more extensive 
sections of the sage-grouse occupied range as Special Use Airspace for 
both testing and training. Military training airspace occurs over 
portions of all MZs. Recent research has demonstrated that sage-grouse 
are sensitive to noise (Blickley et al. 2012, p. 467); however, this 
study did not examine aircraft noise (Blickley et al. 2012, entire). 
The behavioral response of sage-grouse to overflight noise has not been 
examined. Potential impacts include increased detectability by 
predators and disruption of breeding and nesting behavior if sage-
grouse repeatedly flush in response to the noise (Blickley et al. 2012, 
pp. 467-470).
    The U.S. military must balance its role of public land steward with 
its primary mission of maintaining a well-trained, combat-ready 
fighting force. The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a-670f, as amended), 
enacted in 1960 with subsequent amendments, provides for cooperation 
between the DoD and DOI for planning, developing, and maintaining fish 
and wildlife resources on military lands (see Regulatory Mechanisms, 
below). The Sikes Act applies to Federal land under DoD control and 
requires military services to establish Integrated Natural Resources 
Management Plans (INRMPs) to conserve natural resources for their 
military installations. Through installation-specific INRMPs, developed 
in cooperation with the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies, 
the military has implemented conservation and mitigation actions for 
sage-grouse.
    The YTC continues to manage habitat in Washington that supports one 
of two populations of sage-grouse in the State. Management of sage-
grouse and its habitat at YTC is described in the Western Sage-Grouse 
Management Plan (Livingston 1998, entire), which is incorporated in the 
Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan (CNRMP) (DoD 2002, 
entire). The CNRMP specifies management prescriptions and actions for 
sage-grouse and their habitat, including identifying conservation 
objectives and measures for habitat quantity and quality necessary for 
maintaining a sage-grouse population at or above the 10-year average of 
200 birds. Direct protection of sage-grouse and their habitat is done 
through timing and area restrictions, including air space restrictions. 
Vegetation restoration of sagebrush ecosystems is required to address 
habitat impacted by wildfire and military training activities. Wildfire 
protection measures are required to prevent, contain, and rapidly 
extinguish wildfires. Monitoring of sage-grouse and their habitats, 
including monitoring of habitat restoration activities, is conducted 
within YTC jurisdictional boundaries.
    In 2011, additional measures were implemented to protect sage-
grouse on YTC. The Fort Lewis Army Growth and Force Structure 
Realignment Record of Decision's realigned sage-grouse protection area 
(SGPA) boundaries to incorporate new sage-grouse habitat use 
information and updated habitat management objectives (DoD 2011, 
entire). As a result, all but one active lek on the installation are 
protected. In addition, vegetation management of five primary 
containment areas within SGPAs was changed to fit with wildfire 
management objectives; flight restrictions were revised to cover newly 
proposed SGPAs; WNv surveillance and control was increased; and 
construction of forb greenhouse facilities was proposed for use in 
habitat restoration projects. The Army is currently updating the YTC 
resource management plan to reflect these improved sage-grouse 
conservation measures.
    Overall, military installations cover less than 1 percent of the 
species' occupied range, and most installations have little or no sage-
grouse habitat on or near their property. The YTC is the only 
installation where impacts to sage-grouse are a potential concern, in 
part because two of the four populations in MZ VI occur on that 
installation. The CNRMP has been effective in minimizing impacts to 
these populations, and its implementation is expected to continue into 
the future. Based on studies of noise impacts from others activities, 
it is possible that overflight noise could affect sage-grouse, but no 
research has been done to know if this impact actually occurs and any 
assessment of potential impacts would be speculative.

Small Populations

    In 2010, we determined that small population size could result in 
extirpation of some populations, but was not a threat to sage-grouse 
rangewide (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, p. 13985). As summarized below, 
although small population size likely places some populations at risk 
of extirpation, sage-grouse is a widely distributed species with large, 
interconnected populations at the core of the range (USFWS 2013, pp. 
16-29 and Appendix A). As discussed below, we again find that small 
population size is not a rangewide threat to the species, now or in the 
future.
    Overall, small, isolated populations are more susceptible to 
impacts and relatively more vulnerable to extinction due to potential 
losses of genetic diversity, demographic and environmental 
fluctuations, and susceptibility to environmental

[[Page 59927]]

catastrophes (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757; Frankham and Ralls 1998, p. 
442). As population size decreases, a population's susceptibility to 
adverse impacts and its risk of extinction can increase. In general, 
the minimum population size needed to sustain the evolutionary 
potential of a species has been estimated to be approximately 500 to 
5,000 adult individuals so that the population retains sufficient 
genetic diversity needed to avoid the detrimental effects of inbreeding 
(Traill et al. 2010, p. 32). Although we know of no published estimates 
of minimum population sizes in sage-grouse, up to 5,000 individual 
sage-grouse may be necessary to maintain an effective population size 
of 500 birds based on individual male breeding success, variation in 
reproductive success of males that do breed, and the survival rate of 
juvenile birds (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30; 75 FR 13910, March 
23, 2010, p. 13985).
    A number of sage-grouse populations across the species' range have 
been identified as at risk due to their small population size (Figure 9 
and Table 14). These small populations (Table 14) may lack connectivity 
to other habitats and populations, and may have experienced negative 
population impacts from other stressors, such as WNv outbreaks, recent 
wildfire, habitat loss, and habitat fragmentation (USFWS 2014b). These 
populations may be at increased risk of extirpation due to their 
isolation, low population numbers, and continued impacts from natural 
and human-caused sources (Pimm et al. 1988, p. 757). Further, these 
small populations may be at risk from loss of genetic diversity. For 
example, populations in Jackson Hole and Gros Ventre in Wyoming and 
southeastern Montana were genetically isolated with reduced genetic 
diversity compared to nearby populations (Schulwitz et al. 2014, p. 
567). Sage-grouse populations in Canada (MZ I) are also small, with 
less than 100 sage-grouse counted in 2012 (Alberta Environment and 
Sustainable Resource Development 2013, p. 8). Some of the small 
populations have already been estimated below minimum population values 
(Garton et al. 2011, entire; WAFWA 2015, entire), suggesting their 
ability to persist long term may have already been compromised if that 
value is correct.
    Although small, some of the identified sage-grouse populations may 
not have experienced declines in genetic diversity. For example, small 
sage-grouse populations in northern Montana may have a sufficient 
number of dispersing sage-grouse to maintain genetic diversity. 
Additionally, despite population declines and habitat loss, sage-grouse 
populations occupying fragmented landscapes at the northern extent of 
the species' range (Bush et al. 2011, p. 539) and in a peripheral 
population in northeastern California (Davis et al. in press) exhibited 
high genetic diversity with no evidence that these populations were 
genetically depressed. However, increased habitat fragmentation could 
cause demographic declines in these small, peripheral populations (Bush 
et al. 2011, p. 539).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02OC15.008


[[Page 59928]]



                                  Table 14--Sage-Grouse Populations That Have Been Identified as Small and/or Isolated
                                                                 [USFWS 2013, pp. 16-29]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Population ID
              Management zone                      No.                                         Population name (state)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I..........................................               3  Dakotas (ND/SD).
II.........................................               6  Jackson Hole (WY).
                                                         11  Laramie (CO/WY).
                                                         13  Middle Park (CO).
                                                         14  Eagle-South Routt (CO).
III........................................              21  Strawberry Valley (UT).
                                                         22  Carbon (UT).
                                                         23  Sheeprock Mountains (UT).
                                                         24  Parker Mountain & Emery (UT).
                                                         26  Bald Hills (UT).
                                                         30  Northwest Interior (NV).
                                                         27  Quinn Canyon Range (NV).
                                              \1\ 28 \1\ 28  Ibapah (UT; portion of the Southern Great Basin).
                                                             Hamlin Valley (UT; portion of the Southern Great Basin).
IV.........................................               7  Belt Mountains (MT).
                                                         10  East Central (ID).
                                                         35  Sawtooth (ID).
                                                         36  Weiser (ID).
                                                         37  Baker (OR).
V..........................................              31  Warm Springs Valley (NV).
                                                         33  Klamath (OR/CA).
VI.........................................              38  Yakama Indian Nation (WA).
                                                         39  Yakima Training Center (WA).
                                                         40  Crab Creek (WA).
                                                         41  Moses Coulee (WA).
VII........................................              15  Meeker-White River (CO).
                                                         16  Parachute-Piceance-Roan Basin (CO).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of the status review, the Ibapah (UT) and Hamlin Valley (UT) populations were joined with the rest of the southern Great Basin
  population.

    As summarized above, the potential loss of the small, Columbia 
Basin populations in Washington (MZ VI), which contain approximately 
0.6 percent of the estimated rangewide abundance (Doherty et al. 2015, 
entire), would not represent a significant loss for the status of the 
sage-grouse as a whole (See Columbia Basin Population section). 
However, the four populations in MZ VI are identified above as being at 
risk due to small population size and are reliant on management 
actions, such as translocations, to maintain the population size and 
its genetic diversity. These populations also face potential habitat 
loss and fragmentation from agricultural conversion (See Agricultural 
Conversion section above) and military training activities (See 
Military Activities section above). Connectivity between these 
populations is also very limited (Crist et al. 2015, p. 12). Although 
the populations in MZ VI have declined from historical levels, are 
exposed to a variety of potential impacts, and have limited 
connectivity, population trends in MZ VI are currently stable (WAFWA 
2015, pp. 40-41), likely due to active management and translocations. 
Further, the State of Washington has protected sage-grouse as a State 
threatened species since 1998 and developed a recovery program (Stinson 
et al. 2004, entire).
    Although some populations of sage-grouse are small and/or isolated 
(Table 14), with some at risk of extirpation, the remaining populations 
of sage-grouse are well distributed across the overall range of the 
species (see Distribution and Population Abundance and Trends, above). 
The number and size of these more robust populations provide redundancy 
for the sage-grouse, and the wide distribution of the populations 
across the species' overall range provides resiliency. Additionally, 
the rangewide distribution of the larger populations provides 
representation, by capturing the variation of habitat and climatic 
conditions across the species' range such that the loss of any of the 
small populations will not result in the loss of ecological diversity. 
These small or isolated populations represent only a small percentage 
of the overall species' range, and the relative population index and 
their potential loss may affect connectivity (Crist et al. 2015, p, 18) 
but is unlikely to put the entire species at risk now or in the future.

Regulatory Mechanisms

    In the 2010 finding, we concluded that existing regulatory 
mechanisms were inadequate to protect the species (75 FR 13910, March 
23, 2010, p.13982). Since 2010, there have been substantial changes in 
regulatory protections for sage-grouse and their habitats (Factor D). 
The most significant change is the Federal Plans and the Montana, 
Wyoming, and Oregon State Plans, which collectively manage 
approximately 90 percent of the breeding habitat (See Sagebrush 
Landscape Conservation Planning section above). Combined, these efforts 
have substantially improved the regulatory mechanisms across the range 
of the sage-grouse since the 2010 finding, such that we now determine 
that existing regulatory mechanisms adequately address effects to the 
species and its habitats (Factor D). Other Federal and State laws and 
local authorities are discussed below.

Federal Laws

    In addition to the Federal Plans, other Federal laws provide 
regulatory authorities to Federal agencies to address sage-grouse and 
habitat management for the species.
    Other BLM Authorities--The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 
and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947, as amended, 
gives the BLM responsibility for oil and gas leasing on BLM, USFS, and 
other

[[Page 59929]]

Federal lands, as well as private lands where mineral rights have been 
retained by the Federal Government. The Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, 
as amended (84 Stat, 1566; 30 U.S.C. 1001-1025), provides the Secretary 
of the Interior with the authority to lease public lands and other 
Federal lands, including USFS lands, for geothermal exploration and 
development in an environmentally sound manner. This leasing authority 
has been delegated to the BLM. The BLM implements the Mineral Leasing 
Act through 43 CFR 3200.
    The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, opened the public lands 
of the United States to mineral acquisition by the location and 
maintenance of mining claims. Mineral deposits subject to acquisition 
in this manner are generally referred to as locatable minerals. 
Locatable minerals include metallic minerals (e.g., gold, silver, lead, 
copper, zinc, and nickel), nonmetallic minerals (e.g., fluorspar, mica, 
gypsum, tantalum, heavy minerals in placer form, and gemstones), and 
certain uncommon variety minerals. Under the new Federal Plans, 
locatable minerals have been recommended for withdrawal in the SFAs. 
Valid existing rights would not be impacted by these recommended 
withdrawals. Withdrawals on BLM and USFS lands are processed under the 
BLM's withdrawal regulations (43 CFR 2310) and, if 5,000 acres or more, 
shall be subject to the Congressional review provision (43 U.S.C. 
1714(c)).
    Other Federal Agencies--Other Federal Agencies in the DoD, DOE, and 
DOI (including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Service, and National 
Park Service) are responsible for managing less than 5 percent of the 
species' occupied range (Knick 2011, p. 28). Regulatory authorities and 
mechanisms relevant to these agencies' management jurisdictions include 
the National Park Service Organic Act (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, 
and 4), the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), and the Department of the Army's Integrated 
Natural Resources Management Plans for their facilities within sage-
grouse habitats. Due to the limited amount of land administered by 
these agencies, we have not described them in detail here. However, 
most of these agencies do not manage specifically for sage-grouse on 
their lands, except in localized areas (e.g., specific wildlife 
refuges, reservations). A notable exception, where substantial 
populations of sage-grouse occur, is the YTC (discussed above under 
Military Activity).
    The YTC continues to manage habitat in Washington that supports one 
of two populations of sage-grouse in the State. As a joint base, YTC is 
now a sub-installation of the Fort Lewis McChord Army installation. 
Management of sage-grouse and its habitat at YTC is dictated by 
management direction described in their Western Sage Grouse Management 
Plan (Livingston 1998, entire), which is tiered to their CNRMP (DoD 
2002, entire), combined with changes contained in the Fort Lewis Army 
Growth and Force Structure Realignment Record of Decision (DoD 2011, 
entire) (also known as Grow the Army). The 2002 CNRMP is currently 
being updated into a newer Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan, but is not yet final. The Grow the Army Final Environmental 
Impact Statement analyzed the environmental and socioeconomic impacts 
of stationing approximately 5,700 soldiers and their families at Fort 
Lewis and additional aviation, maneuver, and live-fire training needs 
at both installations.
    The CNRMP specifies management prescriptions and actions for sage-
grouse and their habitat, including identifying conservation objectives 
and measures for habitat quantity and quality necessary for maintaining 
a sage-grouse population at or above the 10-year average of 200 birds. 
Direct protection of sage-grouse and their habitat (i.e., mating, 
nesting, and brood-rearing) is achieved through timing and area 
restrictions, including air space restrictions. Vegetation restoration 
of sagebrush ecosystems is required to address habitat impacted by 
wildfire and military training activities. Wildfire protection measures 
are required to prevent, contain, and rapidly extinguish wildfires. 
Monitoring of sage-grouse and their habitats, including monitoring of 
habitat restoration activities, are conducted within YTC jurisdictional 
boundaries. Army participation in sage-grouse recovery planning efforts 
and adaptive management through implementation reviews are also 
required.
    The Grow the Army Record of Decision realigned sage-grouse habitat 
and core use area protection boundaries to incorporate new sage-grouse 
habitat use information and updated habitat management objectives. New 
leks were incorporated into the management scheme, SGPAs were 
reconfigured, vegetation management of fire primary containment areas 
within SGPAs were changed to fit with wildfire management objectives, 
flight restrictions were revised to cover newly proposed SGPAs, WNv 
surveillance and control was increased, and construction of forb 
greenhouse facilities were proposed for use in habitat restoration 
projects. The SGPAs currently protect almost all active leks at YTC. 
The Grow the Army Record of Decision also established Army commitment 
to updating their Sage-Grouse Management Plan; participating in 
sagebrush ecosystem conservation partnerships to promote sagebrush 
ecosystem conservation, restoration, and protection from wildfire in 
and around the PAC; and establishment of a candidate conservation 
agreement with the Service.
    Coal mining is regulated by the provisions identified in the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), which is 
implemented by the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation. This 
Federal law requires consideration of fish and wildlife resource 
information for the permit and adjacent area, including species listed 
under the Endangered Species Act, along with a detailed analysis by the 
permittee on how impacts will be minimized or avoided. SMCRA also 
requires that activities permitted under this law cannot result in the 
jeopardy of a listed species, or the destruction of adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Species-specific standards 
and procedures must also be developed if necessary to protect listed 
species and their habitats (USFWS 1996). Permittees must also include a 
plan for enhancement of fish and wildlife resources on the permit area. 
While SMCRA does not specifically address candidate species, protection 
must be given to all potential future listed species that may be 
affected by coal mining activities (USFWS 1996, p. 4).
    The OSM has delegated the regulatory authority for implementing 
SMCRA to five States within the range of sage-grouse: Wyoming, Montana, 
Utah, Colorado, and North Dakota. Sage-grouse, therefore, must be 
considered in the implementation of SMCRA, and coal mining, in those 
States. The implementation agency must consider impacts on fish and 
wildlife, including sage-grouse. Sage-grouse are also typically 
addressed in all States within the species' range during the 
development of coal resources simply due to its status as a State trust 
resource.

State Mining Regulations

    The Utah Executive Order provides a regulatory mechanism to 
minimize potential effects from mining to sage-grouse habitat on State 
and private lands (Utah EO 2015-002). The Utah Executive Order requires 
the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining to coordinate with the Utah 
Division of Wildlife Resources before issuing

[[Page 59930]]

permits for energy development. The Executive Order further directs the 
Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining to implement recommendations 
provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources that could require 
avoidance and minimization measures on State and private lands 
consistent with the conservation plan. However, these measures are 
subject to the statutory requirements to protect rights on private 
property and avoid waste of the mineral resource.

State General Wildlife Protection Laws

    All States across the range of sage-grouse have laws and 
regulations that provide for the general protection, conservation, 
propagation, management, and use of wildlife and that regulate the 
taking of wildlife, including sage-grouse (see Connelly et al. 2004, 
pp. 2-2 through 2-11). While these statutes limit direct taking of 
sage-grouse, none provide specific and binding protections for sage-
grouse habitat.
    Many States have laws to list and protect threatened and endangered 
species, but these laws vary in their statutory provisions to protect 
species from threats (George and Snape 2010, pp. 345-346). Sage-grouse 
are listed as a threatened species by the State of Washington under the 
authorities of RCW 77.12.020. Threatened status in Washington means 
that a species cannot be hunted (WAC 2015, 232-12-011) and also 
requires the State to develop a recovery plan, which must include 
target population objectives, criteria for reclassification, an 
implementation plan, and a monitoring plan (WAC 2015, 232-12-297). 
However, implementation of recovery plan actions is discretionary and 
subject to funding.
    Several States list the sage-grouse as a ``species of concern,'' 
(e.g., Montana) or ``species of special concern (e.g., California, 
South Dakota), but these are administrative designations and do not 
afford any substantive regulatory protections.

State Sage-Grouse Hunting Regulations

    Sage-grouse hunting is regulated by State wildlife agencies. 
Hunting seasons are reviewed annually, and States can adjust limits on 
updated abundance information and adaptive management criteria 
established in State wildlife management plans. States maintain 
flexibility in hunting regulations through emergency closures or season 
changes in response to unexpected events that affect local populations. 
As discussed in more detail under the Hunting section, 8 of the 11 
States with sage-grouse had open hunting seasons for sage-grouse in 
2014, with hunting prohibited in Washington, South Dakota, North 
Dakota, and Canada (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 25; Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 6-3; Stinson et al. 2004, p. 1). In 2014, Montana closed 
hunting of sage-grouse across much of the State and reduced the length 
of the hunting season to respond to population declines (Montana Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks 2014). South Dakota closed its hunting season for 
sage-grouse in 2013 and 2014. As evidenced by recent changes, States 
can and have adopted more conservative hunting seasons based on new 
information and population levels. Rangewide, hunting seasons are more 
conservative than in the past, which has resulted in a large reduction 
in sage-grouse hunting mortality. Therefore, hunting regulations are 
adequate in managing hunting impacts to sage-grouse.

State Noxious Weed Laws

    Some State regulations require that landowners control noxious 
weeds on their property, but designations of noxious weeds and the 
development of noxious weed lists vary by State. For example, only five 
States list medusahead as a noxious, regulated weed, but the grass is 
problematic in at least two additional States. Similarly, despite the 
proliferation of cheatgrass across the range of the sage-grouse, 
Colorado is the only western State that recognizes the grass as a 
noxious weed (USDA 2015). Therefore, State regulations that address 
noxious weeds may help reduce impacts to sage-grouse in local areas, 
but large-scale control of the most problematic invasive plants is 
currently unfeasible and uncoordinated (Pyke 2011, p. 543; Ielmini et 
al. 2015, pp. 2-3). While State noxious weed laws are not effectively 
addressing potential impacts from invasive plants, measures provided by 
the Federal and State plans, as discussed above, have substantially 
reduced the potential threat of invasive plants (see Wildfire and 
Invasive Plants).

Canadian Federal and Provincial Laws and Regulations

    Sage-grouse were first listed in Canada in 1997 as threatened by 
the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada because of 
very small and declining populations in Saskatchewan and Alberta. The 
species' status was changed to endangered in 1998, and sage-grouse are 
now federally protected in Canada as an endangered species under 
schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA). This designation protects 
sage-grouse and their nests and eggs on Federal lands and prohibits 
unauthorized killing, harming, harassing, capturing, taking, 
possessing, collecting, buying, selling, or trading of individuals of 
the species (SARA 2002, p. 17). SARA also provides for identification 
of habitat on Federal lands that is critical to the survival and 
recovery of species designated as threatened or endangered, and the 
Canadian Government is responsible for ensuring that critical habitat 
is protected. Although voluntary measures are the preferred method for 
protecting critical habitat, SARA provides the means for the government 
to promulgate regulations to ensure that critical habitat is not 
destroyed (SARA 2002, pp. 27-30). However, at this time, no such 
regulations have been developed for sage-grouse critical habitat.
    On December 4, 2013, the Canadian Government issued an Emergency 
Order for the protection of the sage-grouse under SARA (CWS 2013, 
entire). The Emergency Order prohibits construction of new tall 
(greater than 1.2 m [3.9 ft]) structures, new roads, and new fences and 
destruction of native plants, and requires nightly noise reduction in 
April and May (CWS 2013, p. 112). These restrictions apply to critical 
habitat identified on 1,672 km\2\ (646 mi\2\) of Federal and provincial 
crown lands in southeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan (CWS 
2013, p. 111).
    In 2014, the Canadian Government finalized an amended recovery 
strategy for sage-grouse (Environment Canada 2014, entire). In addition 
to updating the 2008 document to reflect the most recent scientific 
information about the status of sage-grouse in Canada and establishing 
population objectives, the 2014 amended strategy completed the 
identification of critical habitat for the species in accordance with 
SARA (Environment Canada 2014, p. 23). The 2008 recovery strategy did 
not identify critical habitat, citing a lack of information (Lungle and 
Pruss 2008, p. 27). In 2009, a replacement for the critical habitat 
section of the strategy identified ``necessary, but not sufficient'' 
critical habitat in breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing habitat for 
sage-grouse in Alberta and Saskatchewan (Lungle and Pruss 2009, p. 2) 
for a total of 165 km\2\ (63 mi\2\). The amended recovery strategy 
identifies 2,812 km\2\ (1,086 mi\2\) of year-round habitat and 12.5 
km\2\ (4.8 mi\2\) of lek critical habitat in Saskatchewan and Alberta 
(Environment Canada 2014, pp. 23-30). Therefore, as a result of the 
amended recovery strategy and the Emergency Order combined, a total of 
3,354 km\2\ (1,295 mi\2\) of Federal and provincial crown lands in 
Saskatchewan and Alberta, including Grasslands National Park in 
Saskatchewan, is

[[Page 59931]]

identified as critical habitat for sage-grouse (Environment Canada 
2014, p. iv; Parks Canada 2015, p. 693). The amended recovery strategy 
also includes numerous nonregulatory actions for the protection of 
critical habitat and the recovery and conservation of sage-grouse.
    The sage-grouse is listed as endangered at the provincial level in 
Alberta and Saskatchewan, affording additional protections to the 
species on provincial and private lands. Recreational hunting has been 
closed in Saskatchewan since at least the 1930s (Weiss and Prieto 2014, 
p. 1), and in Alberta since 1995 (Alberta Environment and Sustainable 
Resource Development 2013, p. 1). In Saskatchewan, sage-grouse were 
designated as threatened in 1987 under The Wildlife Regulations 
(Saskatchewan 1981, entire), and as endangered in 1999 under the 
province's Wildlife Act of 1998 (Weiss and Prieto 2014, pp. 1, 13). The 
Wildlife Act states that, without a license, no one may ``kill, injure, 
possess, disturb, take, capture, harvest, genetically manipulate or 
interfere with or attempt to do any of those things . . . export or 
cause to be exported from Saskatchewan . . . [or] traffic in'' 
designated species (Saskatchewan 1998, p. 20). Sage-grouse habitat in 
Saskatchewan is protected under The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act, 
which prohibits sage-grouse habitat from being sold or cultivated 
(Saskatchewan 1983, p. 4). Restrictions put in place under the Wildlife 
Act formerly prohibited development within 500 m (1,640 ft.) of leks 
and prohibited construction activities within 1,000 m (3,281 ft.) of 
leks between March 15 and May 15 (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 32). In 
our 2010 finding, we deemed these buffers inadequate to protect sage-
grouse from disturbance. These activity restrictions were revised in 
2012 to increase lek buffers to 3,200 m (10,499 ft.); include 1,000-m 
(3,281-ft) buffers between development and lekking, brood-rearing, and 
wintering habitat; and make these restrictions apply year-round instead 
of only during the breeding season (Environment Canada 2014, p. 16; 
Weiss and Prieto 2014, p. 13).
    Alberta's Wildlife Act requires that an Endangered Species 
Committee provide recommendations to the provincial Minister regarding 
designation of endangered species in Alberta and development of 
recovery plans, which may include population goals, conservation 
strategies, and the identification of critical habitat (Alberta 
Wildlife Act 2000, p. 13). The law states that ``[a] person shall not 
willfully molest, disturb or destroy a house, nest or den of prescribed 
wildlife'' (Alberta Wildlife Act 2000, p. 25), but does not require 
development and implementation of recovery plans for species designated 
as endangered. However, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource 
Development has designated more than 3,880 km\2\ (1,500 mi\2\) as 
conservation habitat for sage-grouse, including areas adjacent outside 
of federally identified critical habitat (Nicholson, Alberta 
Environment and Sustainable Resource Department, 2015, pers. comm.). 
All known active and inactive leks are protected by 12-ha (30-ac) 
Protective Notations designated by the Province, and Protective 
Notations covering the range of sage-grouse in Alberta prohibit public 
land sales and potentially restrict surface development (Alberta 
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development 2013, pp. 19-20). In 
addition, in 2013 the Alberta Department of Energy restricted all new 
surface access for oil and gas development through subsurface addenda 
to leases or other drilling rights accorded to private businesses 
(Nicholson, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Department, 
2015, pers. comm.). Aside from Protective Notations, regulation of new 
surface access, and the protection of individual sage-grouse by 
provincial law, efforts to recover the species and protect its habitat 
in Alberta (e.g., Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource 
Development 2013, pp. 18-21) are nonregulatory.

Regulatory Mechanisms Summary

    In 2010, we concluded that regulatory mechanisms in place at that 
time were not adequate to reduce the threats to the species and its 
habitat, and that the absence of adequate regulatory mechanisms was a 
threat to the species, then and into the foreseeable future. Since 
then, there have been major changes in the regulatory mechanisms that 
avoid or minimize impacts to sage-grouse and their habitats. Most 
importantly, BLM and USFS adopted amended or revised Federal Plans to 
conserve sage-grouse over more than half of its occupied range (See 
Federal Plans section above). The Federal Plans include provisions to 
address activities that could occur in sage-grouse habitats and threats 
identified in 2010 as having inadequate regulatory measures including: 
Oil and gas development, wildfire and invasive plants, infrastructure, 
and improper livestock grazing. In addition, the Federal Plans include 
provisions to avoid or minimize impacts authorized in sage-grouse 
habitats for monitoring, adaptive management, limitations on 
anthropogenic disturbance, and requirements for mitigation. The Federal 
Plans are the foundation of land-use management on BLM and USFS managed 
lands. We are certain that the Federal Plans will be implemented and 
that the measures included are based on the best scientific information 
and are effective at avoiding and minimizing impacts to the species and 
its habitat.
    Since 2010, of the 11 States within the occupied range of the sage-
grouse, 10 have revised and adopted grouse conservation plans and 
regulatory mechanisms to address threats to the species and its habitat 
identified in 2010. State sage-grouse conservation plans in Wyoming, 
Montana, and Oregon contain regulatory mechanisms that minimize impacts 
to the species and its habitat. Since 2008, the Wyoming Plan has 
effectively minimized impacts within core habitats, protecting the 
highest density areas for the species within the State. The Montana and 
Oregon regulatory mechanisms include proven conservation measures, 
including disturbance caps, density restrictions, and lek buffers, to 
minimize disturbance to important habitats. In combination, the Federal 
and three State plans, cover 90 percent of the sage-grouse breeding 
habitat. Taken together, these efforts have substantially altered the 
regulatory landscape across the range of sage-grouse since the 2010 
finding, such that we now determine that existing regulatory mechanisms 
adequately address effects to the species and its habitat (Factor D).

Other Conservation Plans

    Since 2010, all States except California have drafted, revised, 
finalized, or implemented conservation plans for the sage-grouse to 
address threats to the sage-grouse. These plans take different 
approaches, but in general, they identify important conservation 
objectives and provide mechanisms to incentivize conservation. We 
anticipate that state plans and related efforts will continue into the 
future and will strengthen as implementation continues. In this section 
we provide a summary of the non-regulatory conservation plans (See 
Conservation Efforts section above for a description of the Wyoming, 
Montana, and Oregon Plans and the Regulatory Mechanisms section above 
for a description of the Utah Executive Order).

California

    California does not have a State Sage-grouse Conservation Plan. 
California

[[Page 59932]]

recognizes sage-grouse as a State-species of special concern that 
should be considered during the State's environmental review process. 
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code 
sections 21000-21177) requires that State agencies, local governments, 
and special districts consider impacts that their proposed project may 
have to species of concern, including sage-grouse.

Colorado

    Colorado has contributed to greater sage-grouse conservation and 
research, working with numerous partners over the last several decades. 
This coordination spans from local and State levels, to rangewide 
participation. The State conservation plan for greater sage-grouse 
(State of Colorado 2008, entire) has been implemented since 2008 over 
1.5 million ha (approximately 3.7 million ac) across all landownership 
types. The plan uses voluntary conservation strategies to address and 
promote the conservation of sage-grouse in Colorado. It provides 
guidance to address impacts to sage-grouse from habitat fragmentation 
and conversion, agriculture, urbanization, conifer encroachment, 
recreation, nonrenewable energy, and other impacts.
    The plan and the State of Colorado recommend measures to help 
reduce impacts from nonrenewable energy development. Colorado 
regulations require that effects to sage-grouse be considered by the 
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and the Colorado 
Department of Reclamation and Mining Safety during their permitting 
processes. In addition, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) makes 
recommendations based on the State's conservation plan designed to 
reduce impacts to greater sage-grouse from nonrenewable energy 
development (State of Colorado 2008, pp. 22, 109, 123, 313, 325-331).
    In addition, the State of Colorado issued an Executive Order 
(Colorado E.O. D 2015-004) in May 2015 to promote the conservation of 
greater sage-grouse and further implement the 2008 conservation plan. 
This order enhances communication and coordination among State 
agencies, including CPW, the State Land Board, and COGCC, as well as 
designating a single point of contact for external greater sage-grouse 
communications. Under the order, the COGCC will evaluate its existing 
wildlife siting rules for potential improvement and develop a 
comprehensive tracking system for development in sensitive wildlife 
habitat. Lastly, the order also prioritizes the completion of the 
Colorado Habitat Exchange, a voluntary compensatory mitigation tool for 
impacts to the species.

Dakotas

    North and South Dakota finalized State management plans that 
emphasized working cooperatively with private landowners due to the 
relatively large acreages of private lands in those States. Both States 
have provided assistance working through the Sage Grouse Initiative 
under NRCS and are continuing sage-grouse research efforts to 
prioritize the best sage steppe habitat for conservation, expand core 
areas, and further their understanding of WNv. Both States have closed 
sage-grouse hunting seasons.
    South Dakota has provided additional firefighting resources and in 
the past has restricted off-road travel if drought conditions may 
elevate fire danger during hunting seasons (State of South Dakota 2014, 
p. 23). Further, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 
works with the South Dakota School and Public Lands Office, Public 
Utilities Commission, and the Department of Environment and Natural 
Resources to provide comments and input if oil and gas development, 
wind development, or other proposed projects may impact sage-grouse 
core areas (State of South Dakota 2014, pp. 23, 24).

Idaho

    Earlier this year, the Governor signed an Executive Order adopting 
Idaho's Sage-grouse Management Plan, which focuses on the management of 
invasive vegetation, fuels and wildfire (Idaho E.O. 2015-04). The plan 
provides wildfire suppression guidance to complement Secretarial Order 
3336, and commits the State to assist with fire rehabilitation and with 
implementation of fuel breaks, weed control, and conifer removal in 
mixed State and Federal ownerships. Under the plan, Idaho assumes 
responsibility for development, coordination, and equipping and 
training for Rangeland Fire Protection Associations to provide rapid 
response to sagebrush fires. In FY 2016 the Idaho legislature 
appropriated over $500,000 for various sage-grouse conservation efforts 
of which $120,000 was dedicated to better support RFPA implementation 
and effectiveness (S-1128). In Idaho, RFPAs currently account for 
approximately 230 firefighters in 6 areas in Idaho resulting in 
protection of approximately 5.7 million acres within greater sage-
grouse habitat. An additional 4 RFPAs are in development within greater 
sage-grouse habitat. Idaho's Governor directed that all State agencies, 
to the extent consistent with existing State law, apply the elements of 
Idaho's Sage-grouse Plan to all land ownerships across the State (Idaho 
E.O. 2015-04).

Nevada

    The State of Nevada has implemented several measures to conserve 
habitat in the State. On September 26, 2008, the Governor of Nevada 
signed Executive Order 2008-10-29 calling for the preservation and 
protection of sage-grouse habitat in the State of Nevada. The Executive 
Order directs the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) to work with 
State and Federal agencies and the interested public to implement 
Nevada's conservation plan for sage-grouse (Nevada E.O. 2008-10-29). 
The Executive Order also directs other State agencies to coordinate 
with the NDOW in these efforts. Further, the Nevada Conservation Credit 
System establishes a mitigation market to facilitate exchanges between 
credit sellers and buyers. In November 2012, the Governor signed 
Executive Order 2012-09 establishing the Sagebrush Ecosystem Council, a 
multiagency and multidiscipline group that was tasked with developing a 
conservation strategy for sage-grouse in Nevada. In October 2014, the 
Sagebrush Ecosystem Council finalized the Nevada Greater Sage-grouse 
Conservation Plan (State of Nevada 2014, entire). The Nevada plan 
creates the Conservation Credit System, which creates financial 
incentives for private landowners to conserve sage-grouse habitat for 
use as compensatory mitigation. Nevada's plan requires that any 
development that affects greater sage-grouse habitat in Nevada will 
need to acquire credits to compensate for those effects before the 
development proceeds. In addition, on June 23, 2015, the Governor 
signed emergency regulations related to the formation of Rural Fire 
Protection Associations (RFPAs) within the State of Nevada (NRS 472 per 
AB 163, sec. 3.5(1) of the 78th Session of the Nevada legislature). 
RFPAs, as seen in other States, help support fire suppression efforts 
by adding capacity and resources for fire suppression.

Utah

    Utah issued a final conservation plan for the sage-grouse on 
February 14, 2013, and the Governor of Utah's Executive Order (Utah 
E.O. 2015/002) mandated its implementation on February 25, 2015. Utah's 
Plan and Executive Order includes mechanisms aimed at addressing 
threats to sage-grouse associated with fire, invasive species, 
predation, conifer

[[Page 59933]]

encroachment, recreation, energy development, and the removal of 
sagebrush. The Utah Plan applies to all lands within the State's 11 
Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs) across approximately 3 million ha 
(7.5 million ac), which conserves 90 percent of the State's greater 
sage-grouse habitat and approximately 94 percent of the State's 
population. Many of the conservation measures in the plan are voluntary 
and rely on negotiated incentive-based covenants, easements, or leases 
to achieve conservation on private lands, School and Institutional 
Trust Administration Lands, and local government lands (See Regulatory 
Mechanisms section above for a discussion of the Utah Executive Order). 
In 2014, Utah's incentive-based approach, coupled with efforts from 
State, Federal, and private partners, exceeded the Utah conservation 
plan objectives, reporting 249,170 acres of habitat enhancement and 
restoration (UDNR 2014, p. 5).
    The Utah Plan addresses fire control, suppression, and 
rehabilitation by providing an organizational framework for partners to 
prioritize suppression efforts and fire rehabilitation, and leverage 
funding and agency resources (State of Utah 2013, p. 13). The Utah 
Governor's Executive Order also directs the Utah Division of Forestry, 
Fire and State Lands to prioritize fuels-mitigation activities and pre-
attack planning and coordination with other Federal and local fire 
suppression partners, second only to the protection of human life and 
structures (State of Utah 2015, p. 4). Furthermore, the Utah Governor's 
Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy was completed in 2013, 
establishing a Statewide steering committee and regional working groups 
to develop a Statewide risk map that will include prioritized sage-
grouse habitat areas (UDNR 2014, page 10).

Washington

    Sage-grouse are State-listed as threatened in Washington. The 
State's recovery plan and actions implemented to date have relied 
heavily on voluntary conservation actions, on which the State and its 
partners have made progress (Stinson et al. 2004, entire). For example, 
sage-grouse have been translocated to the Columbia Basin from Idaho, 
Oregon, Nevada, and Wyoming to help supplement and maintain the 
Washington population (Livingston et al. 2006, pp. 2-3; Schroeder et 
al. 2014, pp. 8, 14-15).

Finding

    As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing 
whether the sage-grouse is endangered or threatened throughout all of 
its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding the past, present, and foreseeable future threats 
faced by sage-grouse. Foreseeable future describes the extent to which 
we can reasonably rely upon predictions about the future (DOI 2009). In 
this context, ``reliable'' does not mean ``certain'': It means 
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the 
prediction. Because information for each threat may be reliable for 
different periods of time, each threat may have different extents of 
foreseeability. The final conclusion may be a synthesis of this 
information.
    For the purposes of this determination, we conclude that the 
foreseeable future is 20 to 30 years. This timeframe is based on the 
time horizons for which various threats can be reliably projected into 
the future. Many of the analyses on which we have relied, such as the 
fire modeling and the period for climate change predictions, cover a 
30-year timeframe. Additionally, other potential threats will be 
governed by Federal and State Plans across the most important habitats 
as long as these plans are in place. Based on our assessment of 
existing BLM and USFS land use plans, the typical lifespan is 20 to 30 
years (BLM 2015g). While these plans are in place, the extent of 
impacts from energy development, infrastructure, grazing, mining, and 
other regulated activities will be dictated by stipulations in these 
plans. Therefore, we can reliably predict over 20 to 30 years the 
extent of impacts from fire, climate change, and potential effects to 
the species and habitat addressed by the Federal Plans. Beyond these 
timeframes is a high degree of uncertainty, which precludes credible 
predictions of the effectiveness of actions that will be implemented 
beyond the planning horizon and how the species may or may not respond. 
Exceeding this timeframe, we have concluded, goes into the realm of 
speculation.
    Our regulations direct us to determine if a species is endangered 
or threatened due to any one or a combination of the five threat 
factors identified in the Act (50 CFR 424.11(c)). We consider 
cumulative effects to be the potential threats to the species in 
totality and combination; this finding constitutes our cumulative 
effects analysis. The discussions above evaluated the individual impact 
of the following potential threats to the sage-grouse: Nonrenewable 
energy development (Factor A), infrastructure (Factor A), agricultural 
conversion (Factor A), wildfire and invasive plants (Factor A and E), 
improper grazing (Factor A), free-roaming equids (Factor A), conifer 
encroachment (Factor A), mining (Factor A), renewable energy (Factor 
A), predation (Factor C), disease (Factor C), urbanization (Factor A), 
recreation (Factor A), climate change (Factor E), drought (Factor A), 
hunting (Factor B), scientific and educational use (Factor B), 
contaminants (Factor A), military activities (Factor A), and small 
populations (Factor E). We also evaluated the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). As discussed above, based on new 
information and effective regulatory mechanisms implemented since the 
2010 finding, we determined that none of these impacts are substantial 
threats to the sage-grouse individually. Additionally, despite past 
reductions in occupied range, sage-grouse currently occupy 56 percent 
of their historical range. In this section, we evaluate whether some or 
all of these impacts act cumulatively to increase the overall scope and 
magnitude of potential effects to the sage-grouse now and into the 
foreseeable future such that cumulative effects are a threat to the 
species.
    The sagebrush ecosystem has changed over time. Prior to the 
influence of human settlement, the sage-grouse inhabited parts of 13 
states and 3 Canadian provinces. Before European settlers converted 
sagebrush habitats to croplands and pasturelands in the 1800s, natural 
events, such as blizzards, droughts, and large wildfires historically 
impacted sage-grouse. With the arrival of European settlers, 
agricultural conversion, urbanization, energy development, and other 
activities increased the loss and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitats 
across the overall range. Due to the historical loss and fragmentation 
of sagebrush habitats, sage-grouse now occupy approximately 56 percent 
of their historical range. Despite historical losses of occupied range, 
today the sage-grouse is relatively well-distributed across portions of 
11 states and 2 Canadian provinces. The sagebrush ecosystem upon which 
the sage-grouse depends remains one of the largest, most widespread 
ecosystems in the United States, spanning approximately 70 million ha 
(173 million ac).
    Declines in the extent of the sagebrush ecosystem and sage-grouse 
populations have been a concern for more than 25 years. Since 1999, we 
have reviewed 8 petitions and reviewed the status of the species 3 
times. In our first evaluation completed in 2005, we found that listing 
the sage-grouse was not warranted because the species occurred over a 
large area and potential threats

[[Page 59934]]

were not well defined. In 2010, we determined that sage-grouse were 
warranted for listing due to a long-term decline in abundance 
throughout their range, habitat loss and fragmentation, and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms to address threats.
    The 2010 finding serves as the baseline for this current review. In 
the 2010 finding, we concluded that sage-grouse was warranted for 
listing because of habitat loss and fragmentation due to a variety of 
causes, such as nonrenewable energy development, agricultural 
conversion, wildfire, and infrastructure and the inadequacy of 
regulatory mechanisms to address these conditions. We acknowledged the 
existence of substantial landscape elements containing high-quality 
habitat and abundant sage-grouse, particularly in southwestern Wyoming 
and in the northern Great Basin, but expressed concern that, without 
adequate regulatory mechanisms, habitat loss, and abundance, declines 
would continue (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 13986-13988). As noted 
in that finding, when determining its listing priority status, we 
considered the threats that the sage-grouse faced to be moderate in 
magnitude because the threats did not occur everywhere across the 
range, and, where they were occurring, they were not of uniform 
intensity or of such magnitude that the species required listing 
immediately to ensure its continued existence. While sage-grouse 
habitat had been lost or altered in many portions of the species' 
range, substantial habitat still remained to support the species in 
many areas of its range (75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010, pp. 14008-14009).
    In the 2010 finding, we identified the types of conservation 
actions that would remediate or ameliorate these threats, and 
encouraged land managers and other interested parties to implement such 
measures. In particular, we noted that the Federal Plans could provide 
adequate regulatory mechanisms to address the threats of nonrenewable 
and renewable energy development and infrastructure if they were 
amended to consider sage-grouse conservation needs (75 FR 13910, March 
23, 2010, p. 13982). Further, we recommended changes in prevention, 
suppression, and restoration activities to address threats from the 
wildfire and invasive plant cycle. This current finding describes the 
extent to which recent conservation efforts--particularly the Federal 
and State Plans--have addressed the impact of potential threats and 
positively affected the species' status.
    Since 2010, Federal and State agencies have collaborated on the 
development of landscape-scale conservation efforts to protect the most 
important habitats across the range of the species (as discussed in 
detail in Changes Since the 2010 Finding, above). The 2013 COT Report 
outlined where those most important habitats occurred (also known as 
PACs) and identified them as the areas necessary for species' 
resilience, redundancy, and representation. The COT Report also 
provided conservation objectives and recommended conservation actions 
to preserve the PACs and served as the foundation of a landscape-level 
conservation strategy (Federal, State, and private) developed and 
implemented by BLM, USFS, SGI, the States of Wyoming, Montana and 
Oregon, and private landowners. Together, the Federal Plans, Wyoming 
Plan, Montana Plan, and Oregon Plan reduce potential threats on 90 
percent of sage-grouse breeding habitat across the species' range. 
These conservation efforts result in the preservation of large expanses 
of undisturbed habitat supporting the largest, best-connected sage-
grouse populations into the foreseeable future.
    The Federal Plans, Wyoming Plan, Montana Plan, and Oregon Plan 
provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to reduce the threats of human-
caused habitat disturbance on the most important sage-grouse habitats 
(as discussed in detail in the Changes Since the 2010 Finding, above). 
The Federal Plans designate PHMAs, and the State Plans designate Core 
Areas, all of which correspond closely with the PACs identified in the 
COT Report and include important breeding and seasonal habitats for the 
species. The PHMAs and Core Areas are managed for sage-grouse habitat 
objectives, primarily by excluding or avoiding major new surface-
disturbing activities that could cause habitat destruction (BLM and 
USFS 2015, entire). For example, in many important habitats, the 
Federal Plans require NSO for nonrenewable energy development, which 
results in no new oil and gas wells or associated infrastructure being 
constructed within PHMAs. For the few ongoing land uses that could 
continue to occur in PHMAs, such as limited wind development in certain 
areas and existing rights for nonrenewable energy or mining, the 
Federal, Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon Plans work together to limit the 
total amount of human-caused habitat disturbance on PHMAs and Core 
Areas to no more than 3 to 5 percent. To prevent indirect impacts to 
sage-grouse that could occur from land uses in areas outside of PHMAs 
and Core Areas, the Federal Plans, Wyoming Plan, Montana Plan, and 
Oregon Plan all require lek buffers so that breeding birds will not be 
disturbed by human activities. Lastly, the Federal Plans require any 
project that may adversely affect sage-grouse (in both PHMA and GHMA) 
to minimize impacts by implementing RDFs and mitigating to a net 
conservation benefit for sage-grouse. As a result of these measures, 
the Federal and three State Plans reduce the potential threat of 
habitat loss caused by human-caused disturbances on approximately 90 
percent of breeding habitat across the species' range. These measures 
were effective immediately upon the implementation of the Federal 
Plans, the Wyoming Plan, the Montana Plan, and the Oregon Plan and will 
be in place for the next 20 to 30 years.
    Wildfire and its interaction with invasive annual grasses, 
especially cheatgrass, is a significant risk to the sage-grouse and its 
habitat. In 2010, we determined that the combination of wildfire and 
invasive plants was a threat to the sage grouse and a major contributor 
to our finding that protection for the sage-grouse was warranted. Some 
wildfires will continue in the Great Basin, as we cannot manage the 
lightning strikes that spark many wildfires. Between 2000 and 2014, 
just less than one percent of sage-grouse habitat has burned per year. 
A recent modeling study predicts there could be a 43 percent decline in 
sage-grouse abundance within the next 30 years unless effective 
management is implemented to reduce the effects of wildfire and 
invasive plants.
    The Federal and State Plans include commitments to change ongoing 
land uses and to prioritize wildfire management and invasive plant 
treatments in ways that reduce the synergistic threat of flammable 
invasive vegetation and altered wildfire regimes to sage-grouse 
habitats (as discussed in detail in Changes Since the 2010 Finding, 
above). Within the Great Basin, where wildfire is most prevalent, the 
majority of breeding habitat is in habitats that are most resilient to 
invasive plants and wildfire. To reduce the magnitude and severity of 
future wildfires, FIAT assessments prioritize wildfire and invasive 
plant management strategies in those most resilient areas that reduce 
the risk of habitat loss from wildlife and invasive plants. Fire and 
its impacts will be managed across the landscape by the implementation 
of the FIAT assessments and the Secretarial Order that prioritize 
suppression of wildfire in sage-grouse habitat. When a wildfire occurs 
in sage-grouse habitat, suppression in sage-grouse habitat will

[[Page 59935]]

continue to receive the highest priority allocation of wildfire 
suppression and rehabilitation management, after human safety. After a 
wildfire, the FIAT assessments and the commitments in the Secretarial 
Order ensure that restoration will be initiated in the immediate 
aftermath of the fire, when restoration is most effective in preventing 
invasive plant infestations. To reduce impacts from grazing and free-
roaming equids that could stimulate the wildfire and invasive plant 
cycle, the Federal Plans require that livestock and free-roaming equids 
be managed at levels that achieve sage-grouse habitat objectives in the 
4.5 million ha (11 million ac) of SFAs, and after that in the 14 
million ha (35 million ac) of PHMA. Implementation of these measures 
began in 2015, with the completion of the Secretarial Order, and will 
continue throughout the 20- to 30-year lifespan of the Federal Plans. 
The work needed to protect the highest priority areas for conservation 
(SFAs) will be completed within 5 years (BLM 2015h, entire; DOI 2015a, 
p. 3). The new focus and prioritization of wildfire suppression and 
restoration for sage-grouse is an unprecedented change in wildfire 
fighting in sagebrush habitats that has been successfully implemented 
during the 2015 wildfire season. As described in the Wildfire and 
Invasive Plants section above, we expect the Secretarial Order and all 
other wildfire related actions will be implemented and effective. This 
sustained change in wildfire strategies reduce the risk that fire and 
invasive plants are likely to impact sage-grouse now and into the 
future. While we expect to see some continued loss of habitat and sage-
grouse in the future due to wildfire and invasive plants, we do not 
expect that the species will be at risk of extinction or likely to 
become so due to risks posed by wildfire and invasive plants.
    In addition to the benefits provided by the regulatory mechanisms 
and management activities in PHMAs and SFAs, the Federal Plans require 
new minimization measures in GHMA, where habitat is important for 
connectivity between populations and restoration opportunities (as 
discussed in detail in Changes Since the 2010 Finding, above). In GHMA, 
the plans reduce potential threats from human-caused disturbances by 
avoiding certain uses, such as infrastructure. When land-uses are 
allowed, science-based lek buffers (Manier et al. 2014, entire) are 
required for any projects implemented in GHMAs to ensure that the 
project is sited at a distance away from leks so that breeding sage-
grouse are not disturbed. All projects implemented in GHMAs include 
RDFs to minimize indirect effects to sage-grouse, such as design and 
management of water features so that mosquito habitat is not created 
that could provide a vector for WNv. Lastly, all projects implemented 
in GHMAs (and PHMAs) are required to be fully mitigated to a net 
conservation gain for sage-grouse; these measures are a substantial 
improvement from management in 2010, where no avoidance, minimization, 
or mitigation was required. GHMA corresponds with approximately 27 
percent of breeding habitat rangewide. These measures were effective 
immediately upon the implementation of the Federal Plans and will be in 
place for the next 20 to 30 years.
    Some other minor potential threats exist such as hunting, disease, 
predation, recreational activities, and scientific use. As discussed in 
the assessment of those potential threats (see Summary of Information 
Pertaining to the Five Factors, above), some minor or localized adverse 
effects may occur, but the best available information does not indicate 
that rangewide population-level effects are occurring. For example, 
while sage-grouse hunting continues to be allowed in several States, it 
is highly regulated and monitored with season and bag limits adjusted 
based on population monitoring so that this activity does not 
negatively impact the sustainability of this species. In addition, some 
of those potential threats are ameliorated by the Federal and State 
Plans, as the exclusion or limitation on land uses thereby further 
minimizes these minor potential threats. For example, exclusion of 
surface development of nonrenewable energy in PHMA and Core Areas and 
RDFs for those projects in GHMA prevents the creation of human-made 
water sources that provide breeding habitat for mosquitos that are 
vectors for WNv, thus reducing the potential for disease outbreaks in 
sage-grouse populations.
    In addition to the Federal and State Plans, extensive work by 
private landowners is an important part of the rangewide sage-grouse 
conservation effort that has been implemented since 2010 (as discussed 
in detail in Changes Since the 2010 Finding, above). Private lands 
comprise about 39 percent of the species' range and contain some key 
habitat types that are important to sage-grouse. Since 2010, SGI has 
completed targeted sage-grouse habitat restoration and enhancement 
actions on more than 1.8 million ha (4.4 million ac) of private 
ranchlands throughout the species' occupied range. This work includes 
conifer removal, which will be strategically implemented through use of 
new conifer mapping (NRCS 2015a, 19). It also includes more than 
180,000 ha (450,000 ac) of conservation easements that protect sage-
grouse habitat from future agricultural conversion or urban and exurban 
development. The SGI is also actively engaged in the BLM and USFS 
efforts to address the wildfire and invasive plants cycle by working 
with ranchers to implement grazing practices and fuels treatments to 
improve resistance and resilience of the sagebrush ecosystem. The NRCS 
has committed 198 million dollars to continue these efforts, with a 
goal of doubling previous accomplishments by 2018 (NRCS 2015a, p. 30, 
NRCS 2015b, p. 6).
    Private lands conservation has occurred in Oregon and Wyoming with 
the completion of CCAAs that provide opportunities for enrollment for 
all private lands within those States (as discussed in detail in 
Changes Since the 2010 Finding, above). Programmatic and Umbrella CCAAs 
in these States provide sage-grouse guidance for ranch management 
practices, ensuring that enrolled lands will be managed to benefit 
sage-grouse. The programmatic agreements in Oregon provide a framework 
for other landowners to easily enroll without a large amount of time 
and paperwork, making it likely that others will enroll in the future. 
These agreements have resulted in substantial private lands 
conservation for sage-grouse. For example, landowners in Oregon have 
either completed enrollment or have signed formal letters of intent to 
enroll, representing more than 575,000 ha (1.4 million ac) of private 
rangeland in Oregon. In Wyoming, a completed umbrella CCAA covers 
important private lands in the range of the sage-grouse, and 36 private 
landowners have completed CCAAs in Wyoming under this programmatic 
CCAA. Collectively, there are 180,223 ha (445,343 ac) of private and 
State lands in the umbrella CCAA.
    To summarize, in the 2010 finding, we determined that the 
regulatory mechanisms needed to address the loss and fragmentation of 
sage-grouse habitats were inadequate. Five years later, and following 
an unprecedented conservation planning effort by Federal, State, local, 
and private partners, we now determine that regulatory mechanisms and 
conservation efforts adequately address the loss and fragmentation of 
sage-grouse habitats based on the following reasons:

     The BLM and USFS have successfully amended or revised 
98 land use plans that

[[Page 59936]]

govern approximately 50 percent of the sage-grouse occupied range. 
These plans now clearly out outline the expectations for management 
that will conserve sage-grouse habitat on BLM and USFS lands.
     The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon completed 
plans with regulatory mechanisms that effectively reduce the loss 
and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitats. Collectively, the Federal 
Plans and three State Plans reduce impacts on more than 90 percent 
of sage-grouse breeding habitat under this umbrella of Federal and 
State protection.
     The implementation of the FIAT and Secretarial Order is 
reducing and restoring habitat lost to wildfire in important sage-
grouse habitats and making the protection and rehabilitation of 
sage-grouse habitats a priority second to human health and safety. 
During the 2015 wildfire season, we are already seeing the positive 
results of these focused efforts to reduce habitat loss and 
fragmentation from wildfire.
     The SGI, led by the NRCS, is working with private 
landowners across the range of the sage-grouse. The initiative 
targets land within priority sage-grouse habitat and is improving 
rangeland health on more than 2.4 million acres.
     We have worked with the States and private landowners, 
especially in Oregon and Wyoming, to implement CCAAs that cover more 
than 1.8 million acres. These agreements will ensure the 
conservation of sage-grouse habitat while providing working 
landscapes for the landowners.

    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 endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.''
    We recognize that all impacts to the species have not been 
completely eliminated, and that existing and ongoing activities will 
continue to affect the species and its habitat. Therefore, it is likely 
that, over the foreseeable future, there will be some reduction in 
available habitat quantity and quality, some decrease in the relative 
population index, and local range contraction (including the loss of 
some small populations on the edges of the species' range). The 
conservation efforts included in this analysis, however, have 
significantly reduced the impacts in the most important habitats for 
the species. These areas are highly correlated with the PACs identified 
in the COT Report as areas necessary for sufficient representation, 
resilience, and redundancy to ensure persistence of the species.
    The conservation efforts by Federal, State, and private partners 
have greatly changed the likely trajectory of the species from our 2010 
projections when we determined that the species warranted listing. We 
conclude that, taking into account the potential, but now minimized, 
effects to the species over the foreseeable future, the species is not 
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future because of 
the number of large, connected populations distributed across the 
species' range and the unprecedented level of conservation actions now 
in place for 90 percent of the breeding habitat across the species' 
range. In other words, even with the remaining likely reduction in 
habitat and populations discussed above, the sage-grouse will retain 
sufficient representation, resilience, and redundancy throughout the 
foreseeable future.
    The sage-grouse has a broad distribution across the seven MZs, 11 
States, and 2 Canadian Provinces. Despite historical reductions in 
occupied range, sage-grouse occupy approximately 703,453 km\2\ (271,604 
mi\2\), more than 50 percent of their historical range. The species 
occurs over a variety of habitats that vary by vegetation, elevation, 
soil type, and precipitation. Through this broad distribution in these 
varied ecological conditions, the species will maintain representation. 
The species will continue to exist in the large and most of the small 
populations across the range, providing species redundancy now and into 
the future. The larger populations, which comprise the core of the 
species' range and are protected through Federal and State Plans, will 
be more resilient to direct impacts and are expected to rebound 
following disturbance. In summary, for sage-grouse, maintaining 
representation, redundancy, and resilience means having multiple and 
geographically distributed populations throughout the varied habitats 
across the species' range, and we conclude that this goal is achieved 
through the Federal and State Plans.
    The new Federal land-management paradigm is established in 98 
amended Federal Plans that reduce and minimize threats to the species 
in the most important habitat for the species. Several States have 
adopted their own regulatory measures to reduce habitat loss and 
fragmentation on non-Federal lands. Many private landowners have also 
engaged in proactive conservation efforts that provide additional 
benefits to the species and indicate a shift in cultural attitudes 
towards the sagebrush ecosystem. Together, the Federal Plans and State 
Plans in Wyoming, Montana, and Oregon reduce threats on approximately 
90 percent of the breeding habitat across the species' range. Looking 
ahead, we expect these conservation efforts will continue to be 
implemented for the next 20 to 30 years, ensuring the protection of the 
most important habitats so that large sage-grouse populations continue 
to be distributed across the species' range. These conservation efforts 
occur in the areas needed for redundancy, representation, and 
resilience of the species.
    Therefore, we find that the magnitude and imminence of threats 
either individually or in combination do not indicate that sage-grouse 
is currently in danger of extinction (endangered). Further, based on 
our analysis and the conservation provided by the conservation efforts 
described throughout this document, we find that the magnitude and 
imminence of threats either individually or in combination do not 
indicate that the sage-grouse is likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future (threatened). Therefore, based on our assessment of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the sage-grouse as a threatened or an endangered species is not 
warranted at this time.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
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, July 1, 
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be 
endangered or threatened 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 endangered or 
threatened 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

[[Page 59937]]

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 
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any 
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is 
endangered or threatened 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 in danger 
of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all of its range in 
the foreseeable future, we then determine whether the species is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future 
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 
endangered or threatened. 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 endangered or threatened 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 applies 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 
endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened in the SPR. 
To determine whether a species is endangered or threatened throughout 
an SPR, we will use the same standards and methodology that we use to 
determine if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its 
range.
    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 endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
significant.
    Because we determined that the sage-grouse is neither endangered 
nor threatened throughout all of its range, due largely to the 
effective reduction and amelioration of threats by ongoing and future 
regulatory mechanisms and other conservation efforts, we must next 
determine whether the sage-grouse may be endangered or threatened in a 
significant portion of its range. To do this, we must first identify 
any portion of the species' range that may warrant consideration by 
determining 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 is likely to become so within 
the foreseeable future. We note that a positive answer to these 
questions is not a determination that the sage-grouse is endangered or 
threatened within a significant portion of its range, but rather a 
positive answer to these questions confirms whether a more detailed 
analysis is necessary.
    While the overall range of the sage-grouse could be subdivided into 
numerous portions, there are four primary biological divisions based on 
differences in populations and the concentrations of potential threats. 
These four portions are: The bi-State population in Nevada and 
California; the Columbia Basin population in Washington; and the Rocky 
Mountain and Great Basin portions of the range. We previously evaluated 
the status of the bi-State population and determined that listing is 
not warranted. We now consider the Columbia Basin population to be part 
of the Great Basin portion of the range. The range of the sage-grouse 
is the general geographical area within which the species is found at 
the time of this finding. Specifically, the current range of the sage-
grouse covers 11 States (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, 
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, and North Dakota), and 
two Canadian provinces (Alberta and Saskatchewan), and encompasses all 
the current populations of sage-grouse, with the exception of the bi-
State sage-grouse Distinct Population Segment, and the intervening 
habitat (Figure 1, above). Analyzing the threats to the Rocky Mountain 
and Great Basin populations also satisfies the requirement of the Act 
to address populations and threats in significant portions of the sage-
grouse's overall range.
    We first evaluated whether potential threats to the sage-grouse 
might be geographically concentrated in any one portion of its range. 
We examined impacts to sage-grouse from fire, invasive plants, conifer 
encroachment, agricultural conversion, renewable- and nonrenewable-
energy development, mining, infrastructure, fences, improper grazing, 
free-roaming equids, urban and exurban development, recreation, climate 
change, drought, recreational hunting, scientific and educational 
purposes, disease, predation, contaminants, military activities, small 
populations, the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, and cumulative 
effects. In our rangewide finding, we determined that impacts to the 
sage-grouse are found throughout its range. Although these potential 
threats occur throughout the current range, they are concentrated 
differently between eastern and western portions of the range. 
Additionally, there are differences in the composition and ecology of 
sagebrush habitats in the eastern versus the western portions of the 
range, and sage-grouse are variably distributed across the landscape 
from

[[Page 59938]]

east to west (see Habitat and Distribution section above). The type and 
focus of conservation efforts to reduce and ameliorate potential 
threats vary between eastern and western portions of the range due to 
the differences in concentration. Therefore, these differences in 
sagebrush habitats, the distribution of sage-grouse, the concentrations 
of potential threats, and conservation efforts suggest that eastern and 
western portions of the range could be significant and warrant 
additional analysis.
    The eastern, or Rocky Mountain portion (MZs I, II, and VII), of the 
species' current range covers approximately half of the occupied range, 
contains approximately 49 percent of the sage-grouse estimated 
abundance, and generally contains sagebrush habitat that is higher in 
elevation and receives greater amounts of precipitation (Figure 1). The 
western or Great Basin (MZs III, IV, V, and VI) portion of the species' 
current range similarly covers about half of the occupied range and 
approximately 51 percent of the sage-grouse, but contains sagebrush 
habitat that is lower in elevation and receives less precipitation 
(Figure 1). Concentrations of potential threats differ between these 
two portions of the range, with nonrenewable energy development, 
agricultural conversion, and infrastructure more concentrated in the 
Rocky Mountain portion, while wildfire and invasive species are more 
concentrated in the Great Basin portion. The Great Basin portion of the 
range includes the sage-grouse populations in the Columbia Basin (MZ 
VI).
    Because some potential threats are more concentrated in either the 
Rocky Mountain or Great Basin portions, we determine that the Rocky 
Mountain and Great Basin portions warrant further consideration as 
potential significant portions of the range. Next we evaluate whether 
the sage-grouse is threatened or endangered in either the Rocky 
Mountain or Great Basin portions of its current range.
    The current range of the sage-grouse could theoretically be divided 
into an infinite number of portions. In the first step of our 
significant portion of the range analysis, we identified the Rocky 
Mountains and the Great Basin as portions that warrant further 
consideration. Both portions represent approximately half of the 
current range, and the entire sage-grouse population is distributed 
equally between both portions. As we discussed in the Bi-State Distinct 
Population Segment section of this document above, the Columbia Basin 
represents less than 1 percent of the species' occupied range less than 
3 percent of the breeding habitat, and its loss would not result in a 
significant gap in the occupied range of the sage-grouse. Therefore, 
the Columbia Basin does not contribute to the overall viability of the 
species and does not meet the definition of ``significant'' under the 
SPR policy. We did not identify any other portions within these larger 
portions that warrant further consideration because the potential 
threats are not substantially concentrated within any areas other than 
the Rocky Mountain or Great Basin portions, that are particularly 
large, constitute a particularly high percentage of the species' range, 
or are likely to be particularly important for the representation, 
resilience, or redundancy of the species. Therefore, we conclude that 
any portions of the range within the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin 
portions that we have identified do not warrant further consideration 
as significant portions of the range.

 Status of the Rocky Mountain Portion of the Current Range

    In our 2010 finding, we were concerned with long-term declines in 
abundance trends for the Rocky Mountain MZs (MZs I, II, and VII), and 
we identified a number of threats likely contributing to those declines 
(75 FR 13910, March 23, 2010). The most important threats identified 
for the Rocky Mountain portion of the range were habitat loss and 
fragmentation from energy development, infrastructure, and agricultural 
conversion; disease--particularly WNv; loss of habitat from improper 
livestock management; and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms limiting 
human-caused impacts. Of these threats, the most significant of these 
involved a combination of habitat loss and fragmentation from 
infrastructure and energy development, and inadequate regulatory 
mechanisms to address these impacts.
    The potential threats from fire, invasive grasses, free-roaming 
equids, conifer encroachment, and urban and exurban development have 
only limited, localized impacts to sage-grouse in the Rocky Mountain 
portion of the range now and into the foreseeable future. In addition, 
our evaluation of the Rocky Mountain portion of the current range 
focuses primarily on those potential threats most likely to affect, 
individually or cumulatively, sage-grouse in the Rocky Mountains, which 
does not include urban and exurban development, recreation, climate 
change and drought, recreational hunting, scientific and educational 
uses, contaminants, and military activity. Those threats that are 
likely to affect sage-grouse in the Rocky Mountains are summarized 
below. Full discussions of each of these potential threats can be found 
in Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors (above).
    Due to new regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts, the 
potential threats identified in 2010 have been adequately ameliorated 
in the Rocky Mountain portion of the range. Historically, agricultural 
conversion reduced and fragmented sage-grouse habitats in the Rocky 
Mountain portion of the range, primarily in MZ I. However, the new 
cropland risk model (described above in the Summary of Information for 
Agricultural Conversion) indicates that future agricultural conversion 
is unlikely to have substantial impacts in MZ I of the Rocky Mountain 
portion of the current range, and future conversions to agriculture are 
unlikely to occur at greater rates or magnitudes outside of MZ I. 
Further the implemented regulatory mechanisms effectively reduce 
impacts from nonrenewable energy development, such that less than 17 
percent of the sage-grouse population and 12 percent of the breeding 
habitat in the Rocky Mountain portion of the range could be exposed to 
nonrenewable energy development in the future.
    We identified improper livestock management as a source of habitat 
loss and fragmentation in 2010. Since that time, rangeland-health 
standards in the Federal Plans, Wyoming and Montana State Plan 
requirements, and SGI practices of applying grazing systems, vegetating 
former rangeland with sagebrush and perennial grasses, and controlling 
invasive grasses, effectively ameliorate this threat to the sage-grouse 
in the Rocky Mountain portion of the range, now or in the future.
    Renewable energy development has not occurred extensively within 
the Rocky Mountains, but potential exists, particularly for wind 
development. Infrastructure exists throughout the Rocky Mountains and 
will likely continue into the future. For each of these impacts, the 
regulatory mechanisms provided by Federal Plans, the Montana Plan, and 
the Wyoming Plan substantially reduce this potential impact by 
restricting new development in important sagebrush habitats. Coal 
mining, the primary kind of mining occurring in the Rocky Mountains, 
has generally declined since 2008. Regulatory mechanisms provided by 
the Federal Plans exclude new leasable (except coal) and saleable 
mineral

[[Page 59939]]

development on more than 14 million ha (35 million ac) of PHMA. Because 
of the effective regulatory mechanisms that protect important habitats, 
these types of development are not threats to sage-grouse within the 
Rocky Mountain portion of the range, now or in the future.
    As described in the Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five 
Factors (above), we also evaluated the impacts of predation and disease 
and found that, although they present localized impacts, they were not 
likely to result in population-level effects. This remains true when 
reviewing the information for the Rocky Mountain portion of the range.

Conservation Efforts in the Rocky Mountain Portion of the Current Range

    Since the 2010 finding, many parties have collaborated to develop 
comprehensive strategies that ameliorate the major potential threats, 
consistent with the COT Report. The Federal Plans and Wyoming and 
Montana Plans provide adequate regulatory mechanisms to reduce the 
threats of human-caused habitat disturbance on the most important sage-
grouse habitats (as discussed in detail in the Changes Since the 2010 
Finding, above). The Federal Plans designate PHMA, and the Wyoming and 
Montana Plans designate Core Areas, all of which correspond closely 
with the PACs identified in the COT Report. In the Rocky Mountain 
portion of the range, more than 67 percent of the sage-grouse breeding 
habitat distribution is protected as PHMA and more than 30 percent is 
protected as GHMA.
    The Federal Plans address the primary potential threats that reduce 
and fragment sage-grouse habitats on BLM- and USFS-administered lands 
in the Rocky Mountain portion of the range, including infrastructure 
and energy development. All forms of development--from energy, to 
transmission lines, to recreation facilities and grazing structures--
would be avoided in PHMA unless a further assessment found that the 
project would not adversely affect the sage-grouse. Consistent with COT 
guidance, a limited amount of development could occur in GHMAs, 
although additional conservation measures, such as lek buffers, 
seasonal and timing restrictions, and project-design features, will 
minimize potential effects in GHMA.
    In conjunction with the Federal Plans, the Wyoming Plan 
incorporates stipulations and conservation measures, such as controlled 
surface use, seasonal and noise restrictions, consultation 
requirements, density of development restrictions, and lek buffers to 
reduce impacts associated with energy development on all lands within 
Core Areas in Wyoming. The Montana Plan includes a regulatory mechanism 
similar to the Core Area Strategy to reduce impacts associated with 
energy development in Core Areas on State-owned lands and private lands 
when a State authorization is required. The Montana Plan also requires 
similar conservation measures to reduce impacts, such as seasonal and 
noise restrictions, density development restrictions, and lek buffers.
    Finally, conservation efforts on private lands through SGI and 
CCAAs reduce potential threats in the Rocky Mountain portion of the 
range. SGI efforts with ranchers to address grazing systems and fences, 
to implement habitat restoration, and to provide conservation easements 
have protected sage-grouse habitat from further fragmentation; NRCS' 
commitment to adaptive management, partnerships, and flexibility in 
conservation approaches ensures continued and constantly improving 
conservation on private lands within sage-grouse habitat. In Wyoming, a 
completed umbrella CCAA covers important private lands in the range of 
the sage-grouse, and 30 private landowners have completed CCAAs in 
Wyoming under this programmatic CCAA. Collectively, there are 180,223 
ha (445,343 ac) of private and State lands committed within the 
umbrella CCAA, 112,212 ha (277,282 ac) of which are located within 
sage-grouse Core Areas, and 8,235 ha (20,348 ac) are in connectivity 
areas.
    By taking a landscape-level view that spans land ownership in the 
Rocky Mountain portion of the range, these conservation efforts have 
significantly reduced the potential threats to sage-grouse now and in 
the foreseeable future. Many of these conservation efforts are 
regulatory mechanisms on Federal lands that are managed consistently by 
BLM and USFS in the five Rocky Mountain States (MT, WY, CO, ND, and 
SD). Similar regulatory mechanisms are provided by Montana and Wyoming 
State Plans and Executive Orders to reduce potential impacts on non-
Federal lands in those States. These regulatory mechanisms are 
finalized, are currently being implemented, and are likely to continue 
to be implemented for the next 20 to 30 years. In addition, SGI and 
private land owners have implemented conservation projects across the 
Rocky Mountain portion of the range, further contributing to sage-
grouse conservation. The SGI has committed to continue this work for 
the next 3 years, ensuring private land conservation will continue to 
be implemented through the authorization of the next Farm Bill (NRCS 
2015a, p. 2). All of these conservation actions are consistent with the 
COT Report recommendations and scientific literature, which indicates 
they will effectively conserve sage-grouse.

Conclusion for the Rocky Mountain Portion of the Current Range

    Based on Federal and State regulations and conservation efforts, 
the risk and exposure of the sage-grouse to the potential threats of 
nonrenewable-energy development, agricultural conversion, and habitat 
fragmentation from infrastructure and other development are 
significantly reduced. These conservation efforts are ameliorating the 
potential threats and decreased the amount and rate of development well 
below what was expected, and by minimizing and mitigating impacts to 
sage-grouse, have significantly addressed threats facing sage-grouse as 
described in the 2010 finding, the COT Report, and other published 
scientific findings. In the Rocky Mountain portion, some habitat loss 
associated with energy development, infrastructure, agricultural 
conversion, and urbanization will continue into the future.
    Some sage-grouse populations may continue to decline in some parts 
of the Rocky Mountains. However, the existing and future effective 
regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts in the Rocky Mountain 
portion of the range will protect the most important habitats and 
maintain relatively large, well-distributed, and interconnected sage-
grouse populations across much of the eastern portion of its range. 
Since the 2010 finding, there has been an unprecedented and substantial 
proactive conservation effort to reduce potential habitat loss and 
fragmentation from infrastructure and energy development. More than 67 
percent of the sage-grouse breeding habitat in the Rocky Mountains is 
protected by PHMA, where no development will occur, and more than 30 
percent is protected by GHMA, where required conservation measures will 
avoid and reduce adverse effects. Therefore, we determined that, due to 
the combination of regulations on Federal lands and regulatory and 
voluntary measures on private lands that provide adequate avoidance and 
mitigation, these potential threats are effectively being reduced in 
the Rocky Mountain portion of the range.
    Therefore, we conclude that sage-grouse in the Rocky Mountain 
portion of

[[Page 59940]]

the current range are not in danger of extinction or likely to become 
so within the foreseeable future, due to the existing effective 
conservation efforts implemented since 2010 and future conservation 
efforts. Sage-grouse will remain well-distributed and interconnected 
into the foreseeable future as these conservation efforts are 
implemented. Therefore, the sage-grouse is not threatened or endangered 
in the Rocky Mountain portion of its current range.

Status of the Great Basin Portion of the Current Range

    In our 2010 finding, we identified long-term declines in sage-
grouse abundance trends for the Great Basin MZs, and we identified a 
number of threats likely contributing to those declines (75 FR 13910, 
March 23, 2010). The most important threats identified in the 2010 
finding for the Great Basin were: Wildfire, invasive plants, conifer 
invasion, habitat fragmentation, climate change, loss of habitat 
quality due to improper livestock and free-roaming equid grazing, and 
the inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to address human-caused impacts 
such as energy and infrastructure development. Of these threats, the 
greatest concern in the Great Basin was habitat loss and fragmentation 
from wildfire and invasive plants. Currently, the primary potential 
threats to sage-grouse in the Great Basin include wildfire and its 
synergistic effects with invasive plants. We will also specifically 
summarize habitat loss and fragmentation due to conifer encroachment, 
mining, renewable energy, and infrastructure in the Great Basin. Our 
evaluation of the Great Basin portion of the current range focuses 
primarily on those potential impacts most likely to affect, 
individually or cumulatively, sage-grouse in the Great Basin and does 
not include urban and exurban development, recreation, predation, 
climate change and drought, recreational hunting, scientific and 
educational uses, contaminants, and military activity. Full discussions 
of each of these potential threats can be found in Summary of 
Information Pertaining to the Five Factors (above).
    Wildfire and its synergistic relationship with invasive species, 
climate change and drought, improper grazing, and free-roaming equids 
was identified in the 2010 finding as the most serious threat to sage-
grouse populations in the Great Basin. Wildfire is a natural and 
integral part of the Great Basin landscape, and will continue into the 
future. A recent study predicts that a 43 percent decline in Great 
Basin sage-grouse populations could occur by 2044 if no additional 
management is implemented to address the wildfire and invasive plant 
cycle. If conservation measures reduce the area burned by at least 25 
percent, the rate of population decline is likely to be reduced. 
Further, the study emphasizes the importance of implementing 
conservation actions in areas of moderate and high resistance and 
resiliency and containing high densities of sage-grouse. The FIAT 
Assessments and Secretarial Order conservation measures are consistent 
with this recommendation to prioritize implementation actions in places 
most likely to be effective and to provide the greatest benefit for 
sage-grouse. Therefore, we conclude the continued implementation of 
FIAT and the Secretarial Order will reduce the rate of decline in the 
Great Basin over the next 30 years.
    Through the Federal Plans, the BLM and USFS have established land 
health standards that now consider and incorporate sage-grouse habitat 
needs. The Federal Plans restrict grazing in areas that are not meeting 
standards, and the agencies will manage free-roaming equid populations 
at levels that minimize impacts to the most important sage-grouse 
habitats. Voluntary conservation through SGI's invasive species removal 
programs, improved grazing practices, and the enhancement and 
protection of healthy rangeland conditions further improve habitat for 
sage-grouse in the Great Basin. Finally, State conservation efforts in 
Oregon have further reduced the impacts of wildfire, invasive plants, 
grazing, and free-roaming equids through regulatory mechanisms.
    These and many other positive conservation activities described in 
this finding were not implemented, planned, or certain to occur when 
the 2010 warranted finding was completed, leading us to conclude that 
sage-grouse warranted protections of the Act. The regulatory mechanisms 
and commitments to manage wildfire and invasive plants will result in a 
substantial reduction of habitat lost to these impacts, such that sage-
grouse populations will continue to be distributed and connected across 
the Great Basin. Therefore, because the potential impacts have been 
substantially reduced by effective regulatory mechanisms and the 
ongoing implementation of conservation efforts, wildfire and the 
associated synergistic effects from invasive species, climate change 
and drought, improper grazing, and free-roaming equids are not 
substantial threats to the sage-grouse within the Great Basin portion 
of the range, now or in the future.
    In addition to wildfire and its synergistic impacts, habitat loss 
from conifer encroachment has also been identified as a concern in the 
Great Basin. Conifers are a natural component of the sagebrush 
ecosystem, and, if not actively managed, are expected to continue to 
expand, resulting in additional loss of habitat in the Great Basin. 
However, Federal and State Plan vegetation objectives and on-the-ground 
removal of conifers through SGI and State efforts have reduced impacts 
of this potential threat. For the next 3 years, SGI has committed to 
continue this work, ensuring private land conservation will continue to 
be implemented (NRCS 2015a, p. 2; NRCS 2015b, p. 6). As a result of 
direction provided in State and Federal Plans and ongoing 
implementation of SGI, the rate of encroachment and habitat loss is 
reduced such that conifer encroachment is not a threat in the Great 
Basin portion of the range, now or in the future.
    Development due to mining, renewable energy, and infrastructure 
continues to occur in the Great Basin. As discussed above (see Mining), 
mining potential is difficult to predict. The Federal Plans contain 
regulatory mechanisms to avoid and minimize potential impacts from 
mining in important sage-grouse habitat. Similarly, infrastructure and 
development of renewable energy is currently present across the Great 
Basin and will likely continue at some level, but regulatory mechanisms 
provided by Federal Plans reduce potential future development by 
eliminating or capping disturbance in important sagebrush habitat and 
by implementing project design features to minimize impacts (e.g., 
buffers, noise restrictions, etc.).

Conservation Efforts in the Great Basin Portion of the Current Range

    Since the 2010 finding, many parties have collaborated to develop 
comprehensive strategies that would substantially ameliorate the major 
potential threats, consistent with the COT Report. Through Federal 
Plans, State Plans, and voluntary conservation on private lands through 
CCAA and SGI, the Great Basin is being actively managed for the benefit 
of sage-grouse.
    The Federal Plans provide clear management regulations with 
measurable objectives to address invasive annual grasses, conifer 
encroachment, improper grazing, and free-roaming equids. They 
prioritize management in the most important habitat (PHMA), which 
encompasses approximately 60 percent of the

[[Page 59941]]

breeding habitat in the Great Basin. All forms of development--from 
energy, infrastructure, and grazing structures--would be avoided in 
PHMA unless further assessment found the project not to have any 
adverse effects on the species. Consistent with COT guidance, a limited 
amount of development could occur in GHMAs, which support 23 percent of 
the breeding habitat in the Great Basin (USFWS 2013, pp. 43-52). In 
those instances, additional measures such as lek buffers, seasonal and 
timing restrictions, and project design features will minimize 
potential indirect effects that could occur. A more comprehensive 
discussion on these measures and their expected effects is provided 
earlier in this finding (see Summary of Information Pertaining to the 
Five Factors, above).
    The majority of sage-grouse habitat in the Great Basin occurs on 
Federal lands, making the Federal Plans' implementation most important 
for sage-grouse conservation in the Great Basin. However, States can 
help reduce potential threats through collaboration with Federal land 
managers and by promoting conservation outside Federal lands. To date, 
Oregon is the only State in the Great Basin that completed and 
implemented a plan that provides regulatory mechanisms. The Oregon Plan 
provides regulatory protections for sage-grouse habitat across all land 
ownerships, a coordinated mitigation system, wildfire management 
measures, and a development cap for Core Areas that is coordinated with 
the Federal Plans.
    Threat reduction is also enhanced on private lands in the Great 
Basin through the SGI and associated Farm Bill programs. Throughout the 
western States, SGI has implemented targeted sage-grouse conservation 
practices on more than 4.4 million acres, and has allocated more than 
$424 million in project funding. In the Great Basin portion of the 
Range, SGI efforts with ranchers to address grazing systems and fences, 
to implement habitat restoration, and to provide conservation easements 
have protected sage-grouse habitat from further fragmentation. The NRCS 
made funding available from 2010 through 2018 to fund and implement the 
SGI program (NRCS 2015a, p. 2, NRCS 2015b, p. 6). Since 2010, SGI has 
implemented action on more than 1,000 ranches. NRCS' commitment to 
adaptive management, partnerships, and flexibility in conservation 
approaches ensures continued and constantly improving conservation on 
private lands within sage-grouse habitat. Based on the track record of 
successfully implemented conservation actions consistent with the COT 
Report recommendations and commitments to continue implementing the 
program, we conclude that the SGI program provides substantial 
conservation benefits to sage-grouse in the Great Basin, now and in the 
future.
    The greatest amount of private lands conservation in the Great 
Basin has occurred in Oregon. In 2015, we completed a series of 
programmatic CCAAs for sage-grouse that potentially covers all private 
lands in the range in Oregon. In Oregon, more than 575,000 ha (1.4 
million ac) of rangeland have been effectively conserved for sage-
grouse through enrollment of private landowners in CCAAs. These 
programmatic agreements provide a framework for other landowners to 
easily enroll without a large amount of time and paperwork, making it 
likely that others will be enrolled in the near future.
    This coordinated approach to conserve sage-grouse and sagebrush 
habitat has resulted in substantial reductions in all of the potential 
threats facing sage-grouse in the Great Basin in the foreseeable 
future. Many of these conservation efforts on Federal lands are 
consistent across the five States due to the management by BLM and 
USFS, while programs on non-Federal lands vary from State to State due 
to different regulatory, political, ecological, and economic 
circumstances in the respective States. Since 2010, many of the 
specific measures described in this finding are under way or are being 
finalized with actions to be implemented during the coming years. We 
have a high degree of certainty that the majority of the planned future 
actions will be implemented and will reduce the magnitude of potential 
threats facing the sage-grouse in the Great Basin.

Conclusion for the Great Basin Portion of the Current Range

    Based on Federal, State, and private landowner efforts, the 
potential threats of wildfire (and associated, synergistic impacts from 
invasive plants, climate change and drought, improper grazing, and 
free-roaming equids), conifer encroachment, mining, and infrastructure 
have been reduced. Some habitat loss in the Great Basin portion 
associated with wildfire and invasive plants and conifer encroachment 
will continue into the future, and it is likely that sage-grouse 
populations will continue to decline in some parts of the Great Basin. 
However, we expect that the existing and future effective conservation 
efforts in the Great Basin portion of the range will reduce declines 
and will protect the most important sage-grouse habitat, resulting in 
relatively large, well-distributed, and interconnected populations 
across much of the western portion of its range. Since the 2010 
warranted finding, Federal, State, and local entities to identify 
specific needs of this species and to provide resources for the 
conservation and protection of the species and its habitat. Due to 
these conservation efforts, the species will remain well-distributed 
and interconnected into the foreseeable future as these measures are 
implemented. Therefore, the sage-grouse is not a threatened or 
endangered species in the Great Basin portion of its range.

Conclusion

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the sage-grouse is not in danger of 
extinction nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range. Additionally, we determined that 
the sage-grouse is not in danger of extinction now or within the 
foreseeable future throughout either the Rocky Mountain or Great Basin 
portions of its range. Therefore, the sage-grouse is not in danger of 
extinction nor likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout a significant portion of its range. Therefore, we 
find that listing the sage-grouse as an endangered or threatened 
species under the Act is not warranted at this time.
    The completion of this status review is not the end of our 
commitment to sage-grouse conservation. Our determination today is 
based on the best scientific and commercial data currently available. 
That determination, however, cannot guarantee that the sage-grouse (or 
other sagebrush ecosystem species) will not in the future warrant 
listing under the Act. New threats may develop, management may change, 
or the species may not prove as resilient as we concluded based on the 
currently available science. Thus, although our best judgment today 
indicates that successful sage-grouse conservation will be achieved by 
continued implementation of the regulatory mechanisms and conservation 
efforts we relied on in our finding above, we and our partners must 
carefully monitor threats to the sage-grouse and its response to those 
threats. Therefore, we will work with our Federal and State partners to 
conduct a sage-grouse status review in 5 years. This status review will 
inform adaptive management and guide future research needs to ensure 
that conservation efforts continue to

[[Page 59942]]

benefit sage-grouse into the future. In the meantime, to ensure the 
long-term successes of this unprecedented conservation effort, we will 
continue to work with our partners to augment and improve current 
management within the sagebrush ecosystem. If at any time new 
information indicates that the provisions of the Act may be necessary 
to conserve sage-grouse, we can initiate listing procedures, including, 
if appropriate, emergency listing pursuant to section 4(b)(7) of the 
Act.

References

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Mountain-Prairie 
Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

Author(s)

    The primary author(s) of this notice are the staff members of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4 of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 21, 2015.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-24292 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P