sign in sign up
<<
Home , Poncha Pass, Ute Mountain

Vol. 79 Thursday, No. 224 November 20, 2014

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Gunnison Sage-Grouse; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69192 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR species can only be completed by provide conservation benefit to the issuing a rule. In this case, we are species. The Candidate Conservation Fish and Wildlife Service required by a judicially approved Agreement with Assurances for settlement agreement to make a final Gunnison sage-grouse (CCAA), 50 CFR Part 17 determination regarding the Gunnison Gunnison Basin Candidate Conservation [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2012–0108; sage-grouse by no later than November Agreement (CCA), conservation plans, 4500030114] 12, 2014. Elsewhere in today’s Federal multi-county commitments, habitat Register we finalize the designation of improvement projects, and similar non- RIN 1018–AZ20 critical habitat for the species. regulatory conservation actions that This rule will finalize the listing of the address habitat-related impacts and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus issues are described and evaluated and Plants; Threatened Status for minimus) as a threatened species. under Factor A in this rule. Federal, Gunnison Sage-Grouse The basis for our action. Under the State, and local laws and regulations, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act, we can conservation easements, and other Interior. determine that a species is an regulatory mechanisms are evaluated endangered or threatened species based ACTION: Final rule. under Factor D. Scientific research on any of five factors: (A) The present activities are described under Factor B SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and or threatened destruction, modification, and throughout this rule where Wildlife Service (Service), determine or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) applicable. Also, conservation efforts threatened species status under the Overutilization for commercial, are described and evaluated as Endangered Species Act of 1973, as recreational, scientific, or educational appropriate under relevant threat amended (Act), for the Gunnison sage- purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) sections throughout this rule. grouse (Centrocercus minimus), a bird The inadequacy of existing regulatory Peer review and public comment. We species from southwestern and mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or sought comments on the proposed rule southeastern Utah. The effect of this manmade factors affecting its continued from independent and qualified regulation will be to add the Gunnison existence. specialists to ensure that our sage-grouse to the List of Endangered As described in detail below, we have determination is based on scientifically and Threatened Wildlife. determined that the most substantial sound data, assumptions, and analyses. threats to Gunnison sage-grouse DATES: This rule is effective December We invited these peer reviewers to 22, 2014. currently and in the future include comment on our listing proposal. We habitat decline due to human also considered all comments and ADDRESSES: This final rule is available disturbance (Factor A), small population on the internet at http:// information received during each public size and structure (Factor E), drought comment period. www.regulations.gov and http:// (Factor E), climate change (Factor A), www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ and disease (Factor C). Other threats Previous Federal Actions birds/gunnisonsagegrouse. Comments that are impacting Gunnison sage-grouse Please refer to the proposed listing and materials we received, as well as to a lesser degree or in localized areas rule for the Gunnison sage-grouse (78 supporting documentation we used in include grazing practices inconsistent FR 2486, January 11, 2013) for a detailed preparing this rule, are available for with local ecological conditions, fences, description of previous Federal actions public inspection at http:// invasive plants, fire, mineral concerning this species. Federal actions www.regulations.gov. All of the development, pin˜ on-juniper that have occurred since that comments, materials, and encroachment, large-scale water publication are described below. documentation that we considered in development (Factor A); predation On January 11, 2013, we published a this rulemaking are available by (Factor C), primarily in association with rule proposing to list the Gunnison sage- appointment, during normal business anthropogenic disturbance and habitat grouse as endangered throughout its hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, decline due to human disturbance range (78 FR 2486), and a proposed rule Western Colorado Field Office, 445 (Factor A); and recreation (Factor E). As to designate 1.7 million acres of critical West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240, described in Factor D below, some habitat for the species (78 FR 2540). We Grand Junction, CO 81501–5720; existing regulatory mechanisms are in opened a public comment period until telephone 970–243–2778. place to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse, March 12, 2013, that was subsequently FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: but individually or collectively they do extended until April 2, 2013 (78 FR Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, U.S. not fully address the substantial threats 15925, March 13, 2013). Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado faced by the species, particularly habitat On July 19, 2013, we announced that Ecological Services Office, 134 Union decline, small population size and we were extending the final rule Blvd., Suite 670, P.O. Box 25486 DFC, structure, drought, climate change, and deadline by 6 months, from September , CO 80225; telephone 303–236– disease. The threats listed above are also 30, 2013, to March 31, 2014; and 4774. Persons who use a acting cumulatively, contributing to the reopened the comment period until telecommunications device for the deaf challenges faced by Gunnison sage- September 3, 2013 (78 FR 43123). This (TDD) may call the Federal Information grouse now and into the future. extension served to solicit additional Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. Multiple partners, including private scientific information due to scientific SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: citizens, nongovernmental disagreement regarding the sufficiency organizations, and Tribal, State, and and accuracy of the available data Executive Summary Federal agencies, are engaged in relevant to our listing determinations for Why we need to publish a rule. Under conservation efforts across the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. the Endangered Species Act a species Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous On September 19, 2013, we may warrant protection through listing conservation actions have been announced the availability of a draft if it is endangered or threatened as those implemented or are planned for economic analysis and draft terms are defined in the Act. Listing a Gunnison sage-grouse, and these efforts environmental assessment for our species as an endangered or threatened have provided and will continue to proposal to designate critical habitat for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69193

Gunnison sage-grouse, and reopened the Service with additional time to whenever the scientific data and public comment period on those complete a final listing determination information is relevant to both species. subjects and the proposed listing and for the Gunnison sage-grouse, and if Species Information critical habitat rules until October 19, listed, a final critical habitat 2013. We also announced two planned designation. In the event the Service A detailed summary of Gunnison public informational sessions and decided to list the species as threatened, sage-grouse taxonomy, the species public hearings for the proposed rules the court order also allowed for the description, historical distribution, (78 FR 57604). Service to publish a proposed rule habitat, and life-history characteristics On November 4, 2013, we reopened under section 4(d) of the Act (which are can be found in the 12-month finding the public comment period on the only available for threatened species) published September 28, 2010 (75 FR proposed rules until December 2, 2013, and finalize it with the final listing 59804). More recent scientific and announced the rescheduling of determination on November 12, if information relevant to the species and three public information sessions and appropriate. We decided not to propose our evaluation of the species is included public hearings that were postponed and finalize a 4(d) rule for the Gunnison throughout this final rule. due to the lapse in government sage-grouse at this time, but continue to appropriations in October 2013 (78 FR evaluate the potential for issuing a Current Distribution and Population 65936). section 4(d) rule in the future to tailor Estimates and Trends Public information sessions and the take prohibitions of the Act to those public hearings were held in Gunnison, Gunnison sage-grouse currently occur necessary and advisable to provide for in seven populations in Colorado and Colorado, on November 19, 2013; the conservation of the Gunnison sage- Montrose, Colorado, on November 20, Utah, occupying 3,795 square grouse. 2 2013; and Monticello, Utah, on kilometers (km ) (1,511 square miles 2 November 21, 2013. Elsewhere in today’s Federal Register, [mi ]) (Gunnison Sage-grouse In a press release on February 12, we finalize the designation of critical Rangewide Steering Committee) 2014, available on our Web page at habitat for the species. [GSRSC] 2005, pp. 36–37; CDOW 2009a, http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ Background p. 1). The seven populations are species/birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/, we Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, announced a 6-week extension, to May Gunnison sage-grouse and greater Monticello-Dove Creek, Pin˜ on Mesa, 12, 2014, for our final decision on our sage-grouse (a similar, closely related Crawford, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims proposed listing and critical habitat species) have similar life histories and Mesa, and Poncha Pass (Figure 1). A rules. This extension was granted by the habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. summary of land ownership and recent Court due to delays caused by the lapse 44). In this final rule, we use scientific population estimates among these seven in government appropriations in information specific to the Gunnison populations is presented in Table 1, and October 2013, and the resulting need to sage-grouse where available but apply Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The reopen a public comment period and scientific management principles and following information and Figures 2 and reschedule public hearings. scientific information for greater sage- 3 are based on lek count data In a press release on May 6, 2014, grouse that are relevant to Gunnison (systematic counts of male sage-grouse available on our Web page at http:// sage-grouse threats, conservation needs, attendance at traditional breeding sites) www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ and strategies—a practice followed by and associated population estimates birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/, we the wildlife and land management from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) announced a 6-month extension, to agencies that have responsibility for and the Utah Division of Wildlife November 12, 2014, for our final management of both species and their Resources (UDWR) for the period 1996– decision to list Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Throughout this rule, we use 2014 (CDOW 2010a, p. 2; CPW 2012a, under the Act. This extension was sage-grouse in reference to both pp. 1–4; CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW 2014d, granted by the Court to provide the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse p. 1).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69194 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations : < ~ I Location K;;:;:::::::;J Map N A Mi1es 20 Kilometers 20 0 0 Populations. HI 10 20 20 Sage-grouse Roads Gunnison Major Rivers/Lakes ~ -- Current Mesa Boundaries of Features State Habitat Map Boundaries c::J Locations County Occupied 1. ~ D Figure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20NO14.000 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69195

TABLE 1—PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIED a HABITAT [GSRSC b 2005, pp. D–3–D–6; CDOW c 2009a, p. 1; CPW 2013e, spatial data]

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat management and ownership CO State of Population Hectares Acres BLM d NPS e USFS f CPW Private SLB g UT % % % % % % %

Gunnison Basin ...... 239,641 592,168 51 2 14 2 <1 0 i 30 San Miguel Basin ...... 41,177 101,750 g 35 0 1 11 g 3 0 h 49 Monticello-Dove Creek (Combined) ...... 45,544 112,543 7 0 0 3 0 <1 90 Dove Creek...... 16,949 41,881 13 0 0 6 0 0 82 Monticello ...... 28,595 70,661 5 0 0 0 0 1 94 Pin˜on Mesa...... 18,080 44,678 28 0 2 0 0 0 70 Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 15,039 37,161 13 <1 0 11 0 0 76 Crawford ...... 14,170 35,015 63 12 0 0 0 0 24 Poncha Pass...... 11,229 27,747 48 0 20 0 4 0 28 Rangewide ...... 384,880 951,061 42 2 10 3 <1 <1 43 a Occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by Gunnison sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping, and areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which have no barriers to grouse movement from known use areas (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; CPW 2013e, spatial data). b Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee. c Colorado Parks and Wildlife. d Bureau of Land Management. e National Park Service. f Forest Service. g State Land Board. h Estimates reported in San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group (SMBGSWG) 2009, p. 28) vary by 2 percent in these categories from those reported here. We consider these differences insignificant. i Includes approximately 12,000 ac of land on Pinecrest Ranch, west of Gunnison, Colorado. This is restricted fee status land held in private ownership by the Ute Tribe.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69196 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations - - 2014 3978 4705 pp...... --- 2013 4,160 2005, 2012 4,082 4,621 4,773 sage-grouse Jlllll1lll""' (GSRSCa 2011 3,743 4,150 1). p. - --- Plan 2010 3,655 4,023 Gunnison --...... 2009 2014d, total .... "' 2008 3,669 3,817 4,371 4,386 CPW Conservation 2007 5,480 4,616 "~ entire; rangewide 2006 6,220 5,205 ...... the Rangewide 2013a, and r~"' 2005 5,720 4,763 'r /I - .I CPW 2004 2,443 3,208 1-3; - sage-grouse population 2003 2,453 3,194 pp. "'""'- 2002 3,027 4,101 Basin 2012a, Gunnison 2001 3,493 4,581 the in Gunnison ~ 2000 3,130 4,873 Committee (CDOWb the 3,547 5,207 ...... --~" for leks presented Steering on 1998 1999 3,360 4,782 year by 3,164 4,258 ____.,.. ~ counts formula 1111111"'" the 1996 1997 2,880 4,038 Rangewide male estimates Wildlife 0 from Totals high 2,000 1,000 7,000 3,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 Basin and to derived Sage-grouse Parks Population applied 2. N cu 0 0 c c. :II Q. u; ':ij .!!! -Ill-Gunnison -&-Rangewide bColorado 44--45) Figure aGunnison population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20NO14.001 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69197 10 74 98 .. 206 157 182 ...& 2014 ~ 0 44 108 123 152 """" 20l3 ... 54 54 98 Pass 172 186 147 z-Q 2012 2013a, Gunnison 29 15 15 93 64 44 ~/'/ 162 the .iiiC .IL 2011 CPW Poncha in 5 15 20 and 132 1-3; 2010 ~7:: pp. Mesa 20 78 39 78 74 191 162 123 presented 2009 ~"""" ~ 2012a, ... 10 25 98 216 108 ~ 2008 formula _'\. 25 34 the 245 245 113 324 (CPWb 2007 ~ leks from - 49 44 At.. 201 191 152 123 378 2006 on .... 25 44 Summit-Cimarron-Sims 191 196 334 ~ 2005 derived "' counts 39 39 ./ Cerro 128 255 142 167 2004 male the -- 29 34 118 250 186 162 ,..- 2003 high populations for to 39 44 _A. 206 270 132 123 383 1998 2002 ~ and applied 29 15 137 152 392 363 2001 -~~~ 1996 A~ \ 5 280 162 511 44--45) ..Ill 2000 .;II pp. Gunnison sage-grouse 25 29 25 V"""-'\ 231 265 245 486 between Committee 1999 \...... - 2005, 128 142 270 446 Af occur 1998 satellite ..-tlr Steering IX not six 270 255 289 201 113 1997 did (GSRSCa the for ... ~ .. 206 226 118 304 Plan 1996 counts Rangewide year 0 Wildlife lek 200 100 400 300 600 500 Mesa by and {Combined) (Note: Conservation Sage-grouse Parks 6) estimates Creek p. Basin 2014e, Pass Rangewide bColorado aGunnison Mesa Summit-Cimarron-Sims Population Miguel 3. CPW ~Crawford ""*'"'Cerro ....,Monticello-Dove ..,._Pinon ..,._San ...,.Poncha entire; sage-grouse Figure rQ2!:J:lati~!:!Sl_

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20NO14.002 69198 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Lek count data are the primary means Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and (7,500 to 9,500 feet [ft]). Approximately of estimating and monitoring Gunnison Poncha Pass, are 74 and 16, respectively 69 percent of the land area occupied by sage-grouse populations. However, sage- (CPW 2014d, p. 1). A count of zero birds Gunnison sage-grouse in this population grouse populations can fluctuate widely at Poncha Pass in 2013 suggests that is managed by Federal agencies (67 on an annual basis, and there are extirpation of this population may have percent) and CPW (2 percent), and the concerns about the statistical reliability occurred, although 17 birds were remaining 30 percent is primarily of population estimates based on lek translocated there later that fall, and ten private lands, including approximately counts (CDOW 2009b, pp. 1–3). Stiver et more in spring of 2014, with 16 known 12,000 ac on Pinecrest Ranch owned by al. (2008, p. 474) concluded that lek to survive into summer 2014 (see Factor the under counts likely underestimate population B, Scientific Research and Related restricted fee status. Wyoming big size. Another study (Davis 2012, p. 136) Conservation Efforts). The satellite sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. indicated that, based on demographic population areas are much smaller than wyomingensis) and mountain big data, lek count indices overestimate the Gunnison Basin population area, all sagebrush (A. t. ssp. vaseyana) dominate population size. Although lek count with less than 40,500 hectares (ha) the upland vegetation, with highly data are available from as early as the (100,000 acres [ac]) of occupied habitat variable growth form depending on 1950s for some populations, lek count (Table 1) and, with the exception of the local site conditions. protocols were first standardized and San Miguel population, fewer than 40 In 1964, Gunnison County was one of implemented in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. males counted on leks (CDOW 2009b, p. five counties containing the majority of 46). Prior to 1996, lek count data are 5; CPW 2012a, p. 3; CPW 2013a, p. 1; all sage-grouse in Colorado. This was highly variable and uncertain, and are CPW 2014d, p. 1). likely the case before Euro-American not directly comparable to recent Lek count-based population estimates settlement, around the turn of the population data (Braun 1998, p. 3; Davis suggest some satellite populations have century, as well (Rogers 1964, pp. 13, 2012, pp. 139, 143). Therefore, for the increased slightly over the last several 20). The 2014 population estimate for purposes of evaluating current years. However, lek count data spanning the Gunnison Basin was 3,978 birds population sizes and trends, the the last 19 years (1996 to 2014) as a (CPW 2014d, p. 1). Population estimates analysis in this rule is focused on lek whole indicate that all the satellite from 1996 to 2014 meet or exceed the count data from 1996 to 2014. We also populations were generally in decline population target of 3,000 breeding consider other available scientific until 2010 (Figure 3). Several of the birds (based on a 10-year average) for information such as demographic data satellite populations remain in decline the Gunnison Basin, as set forth by the and population viability analyses (see and all remain at population size Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Factor E). Historical distribution and estimates that indicate concern for their Conservation Plan (RCP) (CPW 2013a, p. population information is discussed viability, ranging from 206 to 10 birds 10; GSRSC 2005, p. 270). Based on under Factor A below. (Figure 3). Furthermore, some of the available habitat and other The Gunnison Basin is the largest recent increases in population sizes can considerations, the RCP identified population (approximately 3,978 birds) be attributed to translocation and survey population targets as attainable and, while showing variation over the efforts, rather than an actual increase in population sizes sufficient to conserve period of record, including drought the population. For example, the 2014 Gunnison sage-grouse in each cycles and harsh winters, has been estimated population for Pin˜ on Mesa population (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). relatively stable, based on lek count was 182 birds (CPW 2014d, p. 1), much Approximately 45 percent of leks in the estimates (but see further discussion greater than the 2012 estimate of 54 Gunnison Basin occur on private land; below and in the Factor E analysis). The birds. The population in Crawford and 55 percent are on public land Gunnison Basin population is the increased from 20 birds in 2010 to 157 administered primarily by the BLM primary influence on the rangewide in 2014. These increases may be due in (GSRSC 2005, p. 75). Five physiographic population size of Gunnison sage-grouse part to the translocation of 93 birds to zones or divisions are recognized in the (see Figure 2); thus, the significance of the Pin˜ on Mesa population between the Gunnison Basin population area for the this population to the species’ survival spring of 2010 and spring of 2013 and purposes of monitoring and and persistence is evident. The 73 birds to Crawford over the same management actions (CSGWG 1997, pp. Gunnison Basin population area period. (CPW 2014c, entire), and two 6–7). includes approximately 239,600 ha new leks found in 2012 on Pin˜ on Mesa San Miguel Basin Population— The (592,053 ac) of occupied habitat. (CPW 2012a, pp. 2–3). The potential San Miguel Basin population estimate In contrast, the remaining six historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse in 2014 was 206 individuals (CPW populations, or satellite populations, are is discussed briefly below by 2014d, p. 1). Population estimates from much smaller than the Gunnison Basin. population, and loss of historical range 1996 to 2014 are less than 50 percent of All satellite populations were generally is discussed under Factor A. the population target of 450 Gunnison in decline until 2010; however, Gunnison Basin Population—The sage-grouse (based on a 10-year average) increases in several populations have Gunnison Basin is an intermontane for the San Miguel Basin, as set forth by been observed recently (Figure 3) and (located between mountain ranges) the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC could be a product of numerous factors basin that includes parts of Gunnison 2005, p. 296). This population occurs in including but not limited to population and Saguache Counties, Colorado. The Montrose and San Miguel Counties in cycles, translocation efforts, and current Gunnison Basin population is Colorado, and comprises six small increased access to leks. San Miguel and distributed across approximately subpopulations (Dry Creek Basin, Pin˜ on Mesa are currently the largest of 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) (Table 1), Hamilton Mesa, Miramonte Reservoir, the satellite populations, with 206 and surrounding the City of Gunnison. This Gurley Reservoir, Beaver Mesa, and Iron 182 birds, respectively, in 2014. The population comprises approximately 84 Springs) occupying approximately Monticello-Dove Creek populations percent of the rangewide population 41,177 ha (101,750 ac). Gunnison sage- currently have less than 100 birds and 62 percent of occupied habitat for grouse use some of these areas year- combined (74 and 24, respectively). The the species rangewide. Elevations in the round, while others are used seasonally. current (2014) population estimates for area occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse in the San Miguel the two smallest populations, Cerro range from 2,300 to 2,900 meters (m) Basin move widely between the six

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69199

subpopulation areas (Apa 2004, p. 29; reestablished in most of the failed p. 30). The 2014 population estimate Stiver and Gibson 2005, p. 12). The area pastures. However, grazing pressure and was 24 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1). encompassed by this population is competition from introduced grasses Combined, the Monticello-Dove Creek thought to have once served as critical have limited overall sagebrush estimated population size in 2014 was migration corridors between representation (GSRSC 2005, pp. 96– 98 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1). Most populations to the north (Pin˜ on Mesa) 97). Sagebrush stands in the Iron population estimates from 1996 to 2014 and northeast (Cerro Summit-Cimarron- Springs and Beaver Mesa areas (2,590 ha are well below the population target of Sims Mesa) and to the west (Monticello- and 3,560 ha (6,400 ac and 8,800 ac 500 breeding birds (based on a 10-year Dove Creek) (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, respectively)) are contiguous with a average) for the Monticello-Dove Creek pp. 635–636; SMBGSWG 2009, p. 9), but mixed-grass understory. The Beaver population, as set forth by the RCP gene flow among these populations is Mesa area has numerous scattered (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. currently very low (Oyler-McCance et patches of oakbrush. 278). Likewise, most population al. 2005, p. 635). Historically, Gunnison Monticello-Dove Creek Population— estimates from 1996 to the present time sage-grouse occupied the majority of This population includes two separate are well below the population target of available big sagebrush (Artemisia subpopulations of Gunnison sage- 250 birds for each subpopulation alone tridentata) plant communities in San grouse, the Monticello and Dove Creek (CPW 2013a, p. 12). Miguel and Montrose Counties (Rogers subpopulations. Genetic data suggest Pin˜ on Mesa Population—The Pin˜ on 1964, pp. 22, 115). these two subpopulations could be Mesa population occurs on the Habitat conditions vary among the six considered one population (GSRSC northwestern end of the Uncompahgre subpopulation areas of the San Miguel 2005, p. 37), though we are unaware of Plateau in Mesa County, about 35 km Basin population areas. The following any current connectivity between the (22 mi) southwest of Grand Junction, discussion addresses conditions among two. The larger subpopulation is near Colorado. Gunnison sage-grouse likely the subpopulations beginning in the the town of Monticello in San Juan occurred historically in all suitable west and moving east. The majority of County, Utah. Gunnison sage-grouse in sagebrush habitat in the Pin˜ on Mesa occupied acres in the San Miguel Basin this subpopulation inhabit a broad area, including the Dominguez Canyon population (approximately 25,130 ha plateau on the northeastern side of the area of the Uncompahgre Plateau, (62,100 ac) or 62 percent of the total , with fragmented southeast of Pin˜ on Mesa proper (Rogers population area) occur in the Dry Creek patches of sagebrush interspersed with 1964, pp. 22, 114). Their current Basin subpopulation (SMBGSWG 2009, large grass pastures and agricultural distribution is approximately 18,080 ha p. 28). However, the Dry Creek Basin fields. In 1972, the estimated population (44,678 ac) (GSRSC 2005, p. 87) which, contains some of the poorest quality size ranged from 583 to 1,050 based on a comparison of potential habitat and the fewest individual individuals; by 2002, the population presettlement distribution, is Gunnison sage grouse numbers in the size had decreased, estimated at 178 to approximately 6 percent of San Miguel population (SMBGSWG 308 individuals (UDWR 2011, p. 1). The presettlement habitat on the northern 2009, pp. 28, 36). Sagebrush habitat in 2013 and 2014 population estimates are portion of the Uncompahgre Plateau in the Dry Creek Basin area is patchily 74 individuals (CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand distributed. Where irrigation is possible, 2014d, p. 1)). Gunnison sage-grouse County, Utah. The 2014 estimated private lands in the southeastern currently occupy an estimated 28,595 ha population was 182 birds (CPW 2014d, portion of Dry Creek Basin are (70,661 ac) in the Monticello area p. 1), much greater than the 2012 cultivated. Sagebrush habitat on private (GSRSC 2005, p. 81). estimate of 54 birds. Over the last 4 land has been heavily thinned or The Dove Creek subpopulation is years, CPW has translocated 93 sage- removed entirely (GSRSC 2005, p. 96). located primarily in western Dolores grouse to this area, which may have Elevations in the Hamilton Mesa County, Colorado, north and west of contributed to the increase observed subpopulation are approximately 610 m Dove Creek, although a small portion of over the past 2 to 4 years (CPW 2014c, (2,000 ft.) higher than in the Dry Creek occupied habitat extends north into San entire), in addition to the discovery of Basin, resulting in more mesic (moist) Miguel County. The majority of two formerly unknown leks in 2012 conditions. Agriculture is very limited sagebrush plant communities in Dolores (CPW 2012a, pp. 2–3). Population on Hamilton Mesa, and the majority of and Montezuma Counties within estimates from 1996 to 2014 are below the vegetation consists of oakbrush Colorado were historically used by the population target of 200 breeding (Quercus gambelii) and sagebrush. Gunnison sage-grouse (Rogers 1964, pp. birds (based on a 10-year average) for Gunnison sage-grouse use the Hamilton 22, 112). Habitat north of Dove Creek is the Pin˜ on Mesa population, as set forth Mesa area (1,940 ha (4,800 ac)) in the characterized as mountain shrub by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC summer, but use of Hamilton Mesa habitat, dominated by oakbrush 2005, p. 285). Of 12 known leks, only during other seasons is unknown. interspersed with sagebrush. The area 4 were active in 2012 (CPW 2012a, pp. Gunnison sage-grouse occupy west of Dove Creek is dominated by 2–3). The Pin˜ on Mesa area may have approximately 4,700 ha (11,600 ac) sagebrush, but the habitat is highly other leks as well, but the high around Miramonte Reservoir (GSRSC fragmented by agricultural fields. Lek percentage of private land, a lack of 2005, p. 96). Sagebrush stands there are counts in the Dove Creek area were roads, and heavy snow cover during generally contiguous with a mixed-grass more than 50 males in 1999, suggesting spring make locating new leks difficult and forb understory. Occupied habitat at a population of about 245 birds (C = (CDOW 2009b, p. 109). the Gurley Reservoir area (3,305 ha High male count; C/0.53 + (C/0.53 × Crawford Population—The Crawford (7,500 ac)) is negatively affected by 1.6)), but declined to 2 males in 2009 population of Gunnison sage-grouse human development. Farming attempts (CDOW 2009b, p. 71), suggesting a includes approximately 14,170 ha in the Gurley Reservoir area in the early population of 10 birds at that time. Low (35,015 ac) of occupied habitat in 20th century led to the removal of much sagebrush canopy cover, as well as low Montrose County, Colorado, about 13 of the sagebrush, although agricultural grass height, exacerbated by drought, km (8 mi) southwest of the town of activities are now restricted primarily to may have led to nest failure and Crawford and north of the Gunnison the seasonally irrigated crops (hay subsequent population declines River. Basin big sagebrush (A. t. ssp. meadows), and sagebrush has (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Apa 2004, tridentata) and black sagebrush (A.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69200 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

nova) dominate the mid-elevation 2000, the CPW translocated six area have been much lower and less uplands (GSRSC 2005, p. 62). The 2014 Gunnison sage-grouse from the dependable in recent years due to estimated population was 157 Gunnison Basin to Sims Mesa (Nehring drought conditions (Nehring 2013a, individuals (CPW 2014a, p. 1), much and Apa 2000, p. 12). There is only one pers. comm.). greater than the 2010 estimate of 20 currently known lek in the Sims Mesa The Poncha Pass population was birds, and 2011 estimate of 44 birds. and, since 2003, it has not been reintroduced in the 1970s in a portion This observed increase could be, in part, attended by Gunnison sage-grouse. of the where Gunnison the product of the translocation of 72 However, lek counts on Sims Mesa did sage-grouse were thought to have been birds to the Crawford population from not occur in 2011. A lek is designated extirpated by the 1950s (Rogers 1964, 2011 to the spring of 2013 (CPW 2014c, historic when it is inactive for at least pp. 22, 27, 116). Reestablishment of this entire), although natural increases or 10 consecutive years, according to CPW population began with 30 birds other reasons not understood could also standards. Therefore, the current status translocated from the Gunnison Basin in be contributing. Furthermore, new lek of the Sims Mesa lek is unknown 1971 and 1972 (GSRSC 2005, p. 94). In count techniques for this population (CDOW 2009b, p. 7; CPW 2012a, p. 1). 1992, a CPW effort to simplify hunting were implemented in 2012 (Gunnison The Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims restrictions inadvertently opened the County 2013a, p. 190), and increased Mesa population estimate in 2014 was Poncha Pass area to sage-grouse survey efforts may be partly responsible 74 individuals (CPW 2014a, p. 1), with hunting, and at least 30 grouse were for observed increases in high male all birds in the Cerro Summit–Cimarron harvested from this population. Due to counts and population estimates (Figure areas. Population estimates from 1996 to declining population numbers since the 3). Population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are below the population target of 1992 hunt, CPW translocated 24 2014 are well below the population 100 breeding birds (based on a 10-year additional birds from the Gunnison target of 275 breeding birds (based on a average) for this population, as set forth Basin in the spring of 2000 (Nehring and 10-year average) for the Crawford by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC Apa 2000, p. 11). In 2001 and 2002, an population, as set forth by the RCP 2005, p. 258). additional 20 and 7 birds, respectively, (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, p. Available information indicates that were moved to Poncha Pass by the CPW 264). Three leks are currently active in some birds translocated to the Crawford (GSRSC 2005, p. 94). the Crawford population (CPW 2012a, p. area between 2011 and 2013 went to the Translocated females have bred 1), all on BLM lands near an 11-km (7- Cerro Summit-Cimarron area, then successfully (Apa 2004, pers. comm.), mi) stretch of road. This area represents moved back to Crawford (Crawford Area and male display activity resumed on the largest contiguous sagebrush plant Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group the historical lek in the spring of 2001. community within the occupied area of 2014, p. 3). Translocated birds also The only known lek is located on BLM- the Crawford population (GSRSC 2005, returned to the Gunnison Basin administered land (CDOW 2011a, p. 1; p. 64). permanently (Crawford Area Gunnison CPW 2012a, p. 3). A high male count of Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa Sage-grouse Working Group 2014, p. 3). 3 males occurred in 2012, resulting in Population—This population is divided Genetic information (Oyler-McCance et an estimated population size of 15 for into two geographically separate al. 2005, pp. 635–636; SMBGSWG 2009, the Poncha Pass population. In 2013, no subpopulations, both in Montrose p. 9) indicates that there was past gene birds were counted at leks or in County, Colorado: The Cerro Summit– flow between the Cerro Summit– surrounding habitat despite Cimarron and Sims Mesa Cimarron population and the San considerable survey efforts, suggesting a subpopulations. It is unknown whether Miguel population. Therefore, we population estimate of zero birds. In the sage-grouse currently move between consider the Cerro Summit–Cimarron fall of 2013, CPW translocated 17 birds these subpopulations. population to be an important linkage to the Poncha Pass population from the The Cerro Summit–Cimarron area, providing connectivity between Gunnison Basin. As of January 2014, 10 subpopulation is centered about 24 km the two largest populations, the of these birds were known to be (15 mi) east of the City of Montrose. Gunnison Basin and the San Miguel surviving (Nehring 2014, pers. comm.). Rogers (1964, p. 115) noted a small populations, as well as the Crawford In 2014, CPW translocated 10 more population of sage-grouse in the population. birds to the area. Sixteen birds were Cimarron River drainage, but did not Poncha Pass Population—The Poncha known to survive into summer of 2014 report population numbers. The same Pass Gunnison sage-grouse population (all translocated birds had telemetry publication also reported that four is located in Saguache County, transmitters). Poncha Pass current and individual birds were observed during approximately 16 km (10 mi) northwest past population estimates from 1996 to lek counts at Cerro Summit in 1959. of Villa Grove, Colorado. The known 2013 are well below the population Habitat in this subpopulation area population distribution includes 11,229 target of 75 birds, as set forth by the RCP includes 15,039 ha (37,161 ac) of patchy ha (27,747 ac) of sagebrush habitat from (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. sagebrush habitat fragmented by the summit of Poncha Pass extending 291). We note that given the history of oakbrush and irrigated pastures. Four south for about 13 km (8 mi) on either this population, lack of unique genetics leks are currently known in the Cerro side of U.S. Highway 285. Sagebrush in (all sage-grouse were introduced from Summit–Cimarron group, although only this area is generally intact with little the Gunnison Basin), and concerns two have been active in recent years fragmentation, and habitat quality about translocation success, we do not (GSRSC 2005, p. 257; CPW 2012a, throughout the area appears adequate to consider this population necessary to entire). support a population of the species the recovery of the species. The Sims Mesa area, about 11 km (7 (Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 25). Despite mi) south of Montrose, consists of small this, the area has struggled to sustain a Additional Special Status Information patches of sagebrush fragmented by viable population. San Luis Creek runs The Gunnison sage-grouse has an pin˜ on-juniper, residential and through the area, providing a perennial International Union for Conservation of recreational development, and water source and wet meadow riparian Nature (IUCN) Red List Category of agriculture (CDOW 2009b, p. 43). Rogers habitat for brood-rearing. Decker and ‘‘endangered’’ (Birdlife International (1964, p. 95) recorded eight males from Rock Creeks also provide water most of 2009). NatureServe currently ranks the lek counts at Sims Mesa in 1960. In the year. However, water flows in the Gunnison sage-grouse as G1–Critically

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69201

Imperiled (Nature Serve 2010, entire). parties and invited them to comment. substantive comments from peer The Gunnison sage-grouse is on the We also published notices inviting reviewers are incorporated directly into National Audubon Society’s Watch List general public comment in local this final rule or addressed in the 2007 Red Category, which is ‘‘for newspapers throughout the species’ summary of comments below. species that are declining rapidly or range. (1) Comment: One peer reviewer have very small populations or limited Between January 11, 2013, and noted that population growth models of ranges, and face major conservation December 2, 2013, we received a total of greater sage-grouse (C. urophasianus) threats.’’ This information is provided 36,171 comment letters on the listing indicate adult annual survival is the here for background only; these and critical habitat proposals. Of those most sensitive vital rate. However, in assessments were not factored into our letters, we determined that the proposed rule, we said that analysis or listing determination in this approximately 445 were substantive limitations in the quality and quantity rule. comment letters; 35,535 were of nesting and early brood-rearing substantive form letters; and 191 were habitats, in particular, are especially Summary of Changes From the non-substantive comment letters. important because Gunnison sage- Proposed Rule Substantive letters generally contained grouse population dynamics are most Based upon our review of the public comments pertinent to both proposed sensitive during these life-history stages comments, comments from other rules, although the vast majority of (GSRSC 2005, p. G–15). Federal and State agencies, peer review comments were related to the proposed Our Response: Juvenile recruitment comments, issues raised at the public listing rule. Responses to comments has been identified as the most hearing, and new relevant information related to critical habitat are provided in important demographic factor that has become available since the the final rule to designate critical habitat influencing or limiting greater and publication of the proposal, we have for Gunnison sage-grouse, published Gunnison sage-grouse population reevaluated our proposed listing rule elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. growth rates and viability (Connelly et and made changes as appropriate. Other Also, we held three public hearings al. 2004, p. 3–11, GSRSC 2005, p. 173). than minor clarifications and between November 19 and 21, 2013, in In a recent demographic and population incorporation of additional information response to requests from local and viability study of Gunnison sage-grouse on the species’ biology and populations, State agencies and governments; we (Davis 2012), juvenile survival was this determination differs from the received oral comments during that time found to be the most influential vital proposal in the following ways: (see Previous Federal Actions). All rate in the Gunnison Basin population, (1) Based on our analyses of the substantive information provided a relatively stable population. However, potential threats to the species, we have during all comment periods and adult survival was more influential in determined that Gunnison sage-grouse hearings that pertains to the listing of the San Miguel population, a smaller does not meet the definition of an the species has been incorporated and steeply declining population where endangered species, contrary to our directly into this final rule or addressed no juvenile recruitment occurred (Davis proposed rule published on January 11, below. For the readers’ convenience, we 2012, pp. 89, 93). Therefore, both 2013 (78 FR 2486). combined similar comments and juvenile survival and adult survival (2) Based on our analyses, we have responses. rates appear to be important to the determined that the species meets the species’ viability. This topic is Comments From Peer Reviewers definition of a threatened species. discussed further under Factor E in this Subsequently, pursuant to this final In accordance with our peer review final rule. rule, the species will be added to the list policy published in the Federal Register (2) Comment: One peer reviewer of threatened species set forth in 50 CFR on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we stated that the methods and rationale Part 17. solicited expert opinion from five regarding the proposed rule’s evaluation (3) We have expanded the discussion independent and qualified individuals of residential development and of Ongoing and Future Conservation with scientific expertise on Gunnison estimated housing development in the Efforts, in Factor A below. sage-grouse biology and conservation. Gunnison Basin are not clear for the (4) We have found that the threat from The purpose of the peer review was to following reasons: It was unclear how current residential development in the ensure that our decisions are based on the potential spatial configuration of Gunnison Basin is not as high as we scientifically sound data, assumptions, new housing units was estimated; thus previously concluded. See Factor A and analyses, based on the input of calculations for habitat lost directly or analysis and discussion. appropriate experts and specialists. We indirectly are not transparent. The received written responses from all five reviewer stated that the conclusion that Summary of Peer Review and Public peer reviewers. We reviewed all the species should be listed as Comments comments received from the peer endangered relies heavily on the In our January 11, 2013, proposed reviewers for substantive issues and analysis of potential threats of rules for Gunnison sage-grouse new information regarding the listing of additional anthropogenic infrastructure (proposed listing, 78 FR 2486; proposed the Gunnison sage-grouse. One peer given increasing human populations. critical habitat designation, 78 FR 2540), reviewer concluded that our proposals The peer reviewer commented that there we requested written public comments included a thorough and accurate are potential flaws in the estimated on the proposal from all interested review of the available scientific and impacts of residential impact in the parties. At various times, public commercial data on Gunnison sage- Gunnison Basin, which relied primarily comment periods were extended or grouse, but did not provide substantive on Aldridge et al. (2012, entire). The reopened (see Previous Federal comments. The remaining four letters peer reviewer noted that to establish the Actions), with a final comment period provided additional relevant scientific credibility of these on both proposals ending on December information on biology, threats, and conclusions, additional information is 2, 2013. We contacted appropriate State scientific research for the species. Two required describing the methodology and Federal agencies, county peer review letters were opposed to the and data used in the analysis as well as governments, elected officials, scientific proposed listing and questioned our reporting the results; for example, citing organizations, and other interested rationale and determinations. All the spatial data sources, specifically

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69202 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

establishing the methods used to come (4) Comment: One peer reviewer anthropogenic water sources that harbor to the level of potential impact (spatially commented that the proposed rule mosquitoes should be analyzed. and temporally), providing results discusses the short-lived benefits of fire Our Response: In this rule, we specific to each analysis, and in sage-grouse habitats, including a reevaluated West Nile virus as a threat specifically establishing the flush of understory vegetation and forbs. to Gunnison sage-grouse and included assumptions made. The peer reviewer The peer reviewer noted that the several new citations. We did not also stated that an analysis of residential proposed rule states that beneficial conduct a landscape analysis on the development in the satellite populations effects of fire were found by studies in precise quantity or distribution of water is lacking. mesic habitats and that, therefore, some developments, but instead focused our Our Response: In Factor A of this final benefits may be expected from fire in analysis on the known distribution of rule, we reevaluate the threat of those habitat types (but this is West Nile virus across Gunnison sage- residential development in the contradictory to the previous statement). grouse range. In this final rule we find Gunnison Basin and in the six satellite The reviewer stated that effects in that, due to the known and potential populations, and explain the framework Wyoming sagebrush, where most presence and distribution of West Nile for our assessment. In that revised studies have taken place, may be virus across the majority of Gunnison analysis, based on new information different from those in mountain sage-grouse range, the high risk of regarding the location and magnitude of sagebrush types (such as in Gunnison mortality and population-level impacts past development patterns in Gunnison sage-grouse range). based on the biology of the species, and sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Our Response: As presented in this the immediacy of those potential Basin, we avoid the use of spatial zones final rule, effects of fire in sagebrush impacts, West Nile virus is a potential of influence to estimate or extrapolate habitat and to sage-grouse are highly future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse potential impacts of current and future variable. A clear positive response of throughout its range. The threat of West development, focusing instead on Gunnison or greater sage-grouse to fire Nile virus is currently lower in the high- human population growth rates and has not been demonstrated (Braun 1998, elevation areas, such as the Gunnison available developable private lands in p. 9). The few studies that have Basin and most of the Pin˜ on Mesa occupied habitat. suggested fire may be beneficial for populations, but we expect it to increase (3) Comment: A peer reviewer noted greater sage-grouse were primarily in the near term due to increased that the proposed rule analysis conducted in mesic areas used for drought and the predicted effects of indicated that approximately 85 percent climate change. This topic is discussed brood-rearing (Klebenow 1970, p. 399; of occupied habitat in the Gunnison in detail under Factor C of this rule. Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 323; Gates Basin has an increased likelihood of (6) Comment: A peer reviewer stated 1983, in Connelly et al. 2000c, p. 90; current or future road-related that limited evidence is provided to disturbance. This conclusion would Sime 1991, in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. establish predation as a substantial suggest that the vast majority of 972). In mesic habitat, small fires may threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. sagebrush habitats in the Gunnison maintain a suitable habitat mosaic by Our Response: We agree that research Basin are within 700 m of a road, an reducing shrub encroachment and and data linking predation and exceptionally dense road network—as a encouraging understory, herbaceous Gunnison sage-grouse abundance and comparison, Knick et al. 2011 (chapter growth. However, without available viability are limited. However, available 12 in Studies in Avian Biology No. 38 nearby sagebrush cover, the utility of scientific information (primarily for page 215) estimated that 89 percent of these sites is questionable, especially greater sage-grouse) presented in this sage-grouse habitats were within 2.5 km within the six small Gunnison sage- rule indicates that, particularly in areas of a road in Western Association of Fish grouse populations where fire could of intensive habitat alteration and and Wildlife Agencies Management further degrade the remaining habitat. fragmentation, and in smaller less Zone 7 (), road More recent research related to resilient populations, sage-grouse densities less than those reported here. Gunnison sage-grouse indicated that productivity and, potentially, The reviewer suggested that we provide due to the fragmented nature of population persistence could be more specificity on how we analyzed remaining sagebrush habitat across the negatively affected by predation. roads. The reviewer noted that, given species’ range, prescribed fire may be Because the Gunnison and greater sage- that this analysis is specific to the inappropriate if the goal is to improve grouse have similar behavior and life- spatial scale of the potential spread of sagebrush and overall habitat conditions history traits, it is reasonable to assume invasive weeds associated with roads in for the species (Baker 2013, p. 8). This that predator impacts on Gunnison sage- general, it may benefit the discussion to topic is discussed further under Factor grouse are similar to those observed in include the amount of habitat within A in this final rule. greater sage-grouse. The best available 700 m of improved surface roads as well (5) Comment: A peer reviewer information indicates that predation is as all roads (assuming two-tracks are recommended that our analysis include having an impact on Gunnison sage- included as roads in this analysis). more discussion on the role of water grouse, particularly in the satellite Our Response: Our analysis included developments in the proliferation of populations, where there is some all road types (primary, secondary, etc.) West Nile virus. The reviewer cited a evidence that predation is affecting in occupied habitat in the Gunnison study by Walker and Naugle (2011), chick and juvenile survival, especially Basin, hence the relatively high density arguing that West Nile outbreaks in in smaller populations. Based on the of road networks. We did not small, isolated sage-grouse greater sage-grouse data and the limited differentiate by road type, as our populations—similar to all except data available for Gunnison sage-grouse, primary intent was to estimate exposure perhaps the Gunnison Basin population we conclude that predation is a threat. of occupied habitat to road networks in of Gunnison sage-grouse—may result in While predation likely acts as a threat general. We revised this final rule to extirpation. Given the potential impact in localized areas across the range of the clarify that the extent and severity of to populations from West Nile virus and species, the stability of the Gunnison weed invasion would vary by road type. the predicted spread of this disease Basin population over the last 19 years See further discussion under ‘‘Roads’’ in associated with climate change, the indicates that predation is not having a Factor A. reviewer stated that the effect of significant impact on that population.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69203

We believe, however, that the effects of 2005, Prather 2010). During this period, acknowledge the benefits of CRP lands predation are more pronounced in the the peer reviewer stated, the primary to Gunnison sage-grouse, as habitat satellite populations. Given the stability agricultural crops in the county were provided under this program is of the Gunnison Basin population, we winter wheat (Triticum spp.) and generally more beneficial to the species do not believe that the magnitude of this dryland alfalfa (Medicago spp.). Many than lands under more intensive threat is significant at the rangewide growers did not use herbicides or agricultural uses such as crop level. This topic is discussed in detail insecticides at this time because of the production. However, CRP lands are in Factor C of the rule. slim profit margin in growing these generally lacking in the sagebrush and (7) Comment: A peer reviewer noted crops. The peer reviewer suggested that shrub components typically critical to that the proposed rule’s analysis on these practices may have resulted in a the survival and reproduction of non-renewable energy development is greater arthropod abundance as a result Gunnison sage-grouse and vary greatly lacking. of increased green vegetation and forb in plant diversity and forb abundance Our Response: This final rule availability, providing more food (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Prather includes a revised and expanded resources for Gunnison sage-grouse. The 2010, p. 32). As such, these CRP lands evaluation of mineral and energy reviewer also reported that during this are generally of lower value or quality development (Factor A). period landowners frequently reported than native sagebrush habitats. This (8) Comment: A peer reviewer stated observing flocks of sage-grouse in their topic is discussed further in Factor A that there are no data to support the fields during harvest and post-harvest (Conversion to Agriculture). conclusion that habitat conditions with periods. (13) Comment: A peer reviewer noted respect to grazing are better on public Our Response: While sage-grouse may that adult survival and nesting success lands than private lands, due in part to forage on agricultural croplands in San Juan County was higher (Lupis land health standards and more (Commons 1997, pp. 28–35), when 2005, Ward 2007) than that reported for regulation. possible, they tend to avoid landscapes other populations (Young 1994, Our Response: We agree and have dominated by agriculture (Aldridge et Commons 1997, Apa 2004). The revised our statement in the final rule to al. 2008, p. 991). Influences resulting reviewer hypothesized that this more accurately reflect that in our from agricultural activities extend into difference may be due to the effort in analysis of grazing under Factor A. adjoining sagebrush, and include San Juan County to reduce mammalian (9) Comment: A peer reviewer noted increased predation and reduced nest and corvid depredation (Lupis 2005, that the proposed rule states, with success due to predators associated with Ward 2007). respect to fences, that ‘‘we anticipate agriculture (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7– Our Response: While we acknowledge that the effect on sage-grouse 23). Agricultural lands provide some that predator control may be effective populations through the creation of new benefits for sage-grouse as some crops under certain circumstances, the cited raptor perches and predator corridors such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa), winter studies did not evaluate the effect of into sagebrush habitats is similar to that wheat (Triticum aestivum), and pinto predator control, nor was that their of powerlines.’’ The reviewer did not bean sprouts (Phaseolus spp.) are eaten objective. They only speculated think this assumption was correct. The or used seasonally for cover by regarding the potential positive effects commenter noted that differences in Gunnison sage-grouse (Braun 1998, of predator control on the Monticello height between a fence post and a utility pers. comm., Lupis et al. 2006, entire). (San Juan County) population of pole would theoretically result in Agricultural fields and their Gunnison sage-grouse. This topic is different spatial scales of functional management may provide a surplus of discussed further in Factor C (Predation) habitat loss due to differences in the arthropods and forbs for Gunnison sage- of this rule. distance from the perch a predator grouse, and for hens with broods, in (14) Comment: A peer reviewer could see while perched. particular. Despite these seasonal reported that the Gunnison sage-grouse Our Response: The final rule has been benefits, crop monocultures do not population in San Juan County may be revised to state that fence posts create provide adequate year-round food or stable or increasing based on increases perching places for raptors and corvids, sagebrush cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22– in brood sizes and hatch success which may increase their ability to prey 30). This topic is discussed in Factor A between 1974 and 2005 (UDWR 1974; on sage-grouse (Braun 1998, p. 145; of this rule (Conversion to Agriculture). Lupis 2005). This reviewer noted that Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 330; (12) Comment: One peer reviewer felt this hypothesis was not supported by Connelly et al. 2004, p. 13–12). This that the proposed rule neglected to lek count indices, which indicated that topic is discussed in detail in Factor A discuss the importance of Conservation the population was declining. of this rule. Reserve Program (CRP) lands in Utah to Our Response: Lek count data from (10) Comment: A peer reviewer Gunnison sage-grouse. 1996 through 2014 indicate a decline in suggested that we review a recent article Our Response: Lands within the the Monticello-Dove Creek population by Blomberg et al. 2012, related to occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse (located in the adjacent counties of San climate change and invasive plants. enrolled into the CRP occur within Juan, UT, and Dolores, CO, respectively) This article suggests that characteristics Dolores and San Miguel counties in collectively and in both of these of climate and landscape disturbance Colorado, and San Juan County in Utah populations individually. Further, influence the dynamics of greater sage- (USDA FSA 2010, entire). A significant current population estimates are well grouse populations. portion of the agricultural lands in the below the Rangewide Conservation Plan Our Response: We reviewed this Monticello subpopulation are enrolled (RCP) population target of 250 birds for article and cited it in Factor A (Invasive in the CRP program, and some CRP each population alone (CPW 2013, p. Plants) and Factor E (Drought and lands are sometimes used by Gunnison 12). Sample size for the aforementioned Extreme Weather) of this rule. sage-grouse as early-brood-rearing and study was limited to three nests, and (11) Comment: A peer reviewer noted summer-late fall habitat when they are predator control at the time may have that the Utah population of Gunnison part of a landscape that otherwise contributed to relatively high nesting sage-grouse was at its highest in the encompasses the species’ seasonal success (Lupis 2005, entire); the 1970s and 1980s (San Juan County habitats (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960; inference to be drawn from the study is, Working Group (SJCWG) 2000, Lupis Ward 2007, p. 15). We therefore therefore, limited. The best available

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69204 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

scientific information indicates that the (17) Comment: A peer reviewer stated Braun et al. (2014, entire) provides Monticello-Dove Creek population is that the proposed rule provides more detail on historical distribution in neither stable nor secure. This topic is information regarding the estimated Colorado that largely matches Schroeder discussed further in this rule in the historical occupied Gunnison sage- et al. (2004). Not all of this historical Current Distribution and Population grouse habitats, based largely on range would have been occupied at any Estimates and Trends section below; estimates of potential habitats. As such, one time. The species’ estimated current and in Factor E (Small Population Size these figures may overestimate the range is 1,822 square miles, or 1,166,075 and Structure). historical range of the species. The ac, in central and southwestern (15) Comment: A peer reviewer commenter noted that it is logical to Colorado, and southeastern Utah (Figure provided data and information from assume that, if a species’ habitat 1) (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted pertinent studies conducted in Utah and declines, so will the population. from Schroeder et al. 2004, entire). Colorado that the reviewer thought However, the peer reviewer could not Based on these figures, the species’ could improve our analysis. find any data to support the idea that current range represents about 8.5 Our Response: We reviewed the populations have declined over time. percent of its historical range (GSRSC provided study information and Our Response: Our listing decision is 2005, p. 32). Similarly, Schroeder et al. literature and found that most had based on the current status of Gunnison (2004, p. 371) estimated the species’ already been considered in our sage-grouse and the current and future current overall range to be 10 percent of proposed rule. In this final rule, we threats to the species and its habitat. potential presettlement habitat (prior to included all new studies, data, and However, the loss of historical range European settlement in the 1800s). As information relevant to our evaluation. and decline in abundance, and the estimated in our final rule to designate (16) Comment: A peer reviewer associated causes, are informative in critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse thought that the proposed rule was that they can be used to help forecast (published elsewhere in today’s Federal missing a description and summary of how populations and the species may Register), the species’ ‘‘overall range’’ the two decades of conservation actions respond to current and future threats. includes an estimated 1,621,008 ac in completed by local communities, The onset of Euro-American southwestern Colorado and landowners, public and private settlement in the 1800s resulted in southeastern Utah, comprising 923,314 agencies, and organizations in Utah and significant alterations to sagebrush ac (57 percent) of occupied habitat and Colorado to conserve the species. The ecosystems throughout North America, 697,694 ac (43 percent) of unoccupied reviewer indicated that stakeholders in primarily as a result of urbanization, habitat. Based on these figures, the both States dedicated significant agricultural conversion, and irrigation current overall range of 1,621,008 acres resources to conservation of the species projects (West and Young 2000, pp. represents approximately 12 percent of that have abated numerous threats. The 263–265; Miller et al. 2011, p. 147). the potential historical range of peer reviewer recommended expanding Areas in Colorado that supported basin 13,680,640 ac. The estimates above discussion of the efforts of the local big sagebrush were among the first indicate that approximately 88 to 93 working groups, the State agencies, sagebrush community types converted percent of the historical range of nongovernmental organizations, and to agriculture because their typical soils Gunnison sage-grouse has been lost. counties, as well as Natural Resources and topography are well suited for This topic is discussed further under Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). our introduction to Factor A. including the Sage-grouse Initiative Decreases in the abundance of sage- (18) Comment: A peer reviewer noted Program. grouse paralleled the loss of range that Davis (2012) suggested Gunnison Our Response: We recognize the (Braun 1998, pp. 2–3), and a gradual but sage-grouse populations in the contributions made by multiple partners obvious decrease in sage-grouse Gunnison Basin declined slightly over including private citizens, distribution and numbers in Colorado the last 16 years, but that Davis nongovernmental organizations, and had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, concluded the Gunnison Basin Tribal, State, and Federal agencies that pp. 20–22). population, which may comprise 85–90 are actively engaged in conservation The best available information percent of the entire population, is efforts across the range of Gunnison indicates a reduction of Gunnison sage- relatively stable. Population projection sage-grouse. Numerous conservation grouse distribution since Euro-American models based on Davis’ 6-year study actions have been implemented for settlement in the 1800s, with evidence suggested that the Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse, and these efforts of the loss of peripheral populations population in the Gunnison Basin is have provided and will continue to (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371, and declining. However, the peer reviewer provide conservation benefit to the references therein) and a northward and noted that lek count data extended species. The CCAA, Gunnison Basin eastward trend of extirpation (Schroeder farther back in time than the CCA, conservation plans, habitat et al. 2004, p. 369, and references demographic estimates and showed that improvement projects, and similar therein), meaning western and southern this population exhibited a considerable conservation efforts that address habitat- extents of the species’ former range are increase, so the peer reviewer indicated related issues are described and now lost. Based on historical records, that inference from this study is limited. evaluated under Factor A (see museum specimens, and potential Our Response: Based on an integrated Conservation Programs and Efforts sagebrush habitat distribution, the analysis of 16 years of lek count and Related to Habitat Conservation) in this potential historical range of Gunnison demographic data (1996–2011), Davis rule. Laws and regulations, conservation sage-grouse was estimated to have been found that the Gunnison Basin easements, and other regulatory 21,376 square miles, or 13,680,590 ac population may have been declining mechanisms are evaluated under Factor (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted slightly through the period of study D. Scientific research activities are from Schroeder et al. 2004, entire). This (Davis 2012, p. 137). That study described under Factor B and range included parts of central and indicated that the Gunnison Basin throughout this rule where applicable. southwestern Colorado, southeastern population may not be as stable as Also, throughout this rule, conservation Utah, northwestern New Mexico, and previously thought, although the time efforts are described under the relevant northeastern Arizona (Schroeder et al. span of the study may not have been factor section. 2004, pp. 368, 370). long enough to reveal a broader pattern

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69205

in a larger cyclical time series (Davis predictions into the future based on the grouse and greater sage-grouse (a 2012, p. 38). A more recent manuscript best available information. similar, closely related species) have by Davis et al. (in press) states that the We agree with the reviewer that the similar life histories and habitat Gunnison Basin population (1996–2012) viability of the six smaller (‘‘satellite’’) requirements (Young 1994, p. 44). In is ‘‘slightly declining’’ (line 24), and, populations is at risk (see Small this final rule, we use scientific while the growth rate of this population Population Size and Structure below information specific to the Gunnison has been variable, it is ‘‘near stable’’ under Factor E). sage-grouse where available but also (line 341). Consider also that the (20) Comment: A peer reviewer noted apply scientific management principles Gunnison Basin population may not be that, while the Gunnison basin and scientific information for greater as large as lek count-based estimates population appears to have stabilized sage-grouse that are relevant to suggest, which are based solely on more recently within a population Gunnison sage-grouse conservation counting males (Davis 2012, p. 136). cycle, the number of current and future needs and strategies, a practice followed Davis (2012, pp. 134, 136) found that, in threats makes one question whether this by the wildlife and land management comparison to demographic data, lek population will remain viable into the agencies that have responsibility for count data showed population growth future. The reviewer thought existing management of both species and their rates that varied wildly and should be threats, or levels of threats, appear to habitat. We have considered the best interpreted with caution. This is already threaten the Gunnison basin available information in our assessment, particularly true for the lek data population. This reviewer questioned including data and studies provided by collected prior to 1996, before the lek whether the remaining Gunnison basin CPW. survey methodology was standardized population will persist, if other smaller (22) Comment: A peer reviewer stated (Davis 2012, pp. 136–139). Demographic populations disappear, which seems that the effects of powerlines are not all stochastic simulations resulted in a likely in the near future without the same, depending on the type of the mean extinction time of 58 years for the considerable management efforts, given powerline. The peer reviewer requested Gunnison Basin population, without projected future threats. The reviewer that we clarify what types of powerlines removing any birds for translocation also questioned whether the localized we are referring to, and which were efforts (removal of birds decreased the nature of a single remaining population evaluated in each of the studies we estimated mean extinction time) (Davis in the Gunnison Basin is enough to address. prevent extirpation of the species, 2012, pp. 111, 137). Davis (2012, p. 92) Our Response: As described in this considering potential stochastic events noted, however, that if the study had rule, depending on the infrastructure and the likely continued and increasing been conducted just a few years earlier design, size, location, and site-specific effects of habitat degradation and or later, a different trend across time factors, powerlines can directly affect fragmentation. could have resulted, because it was greater sage-grouse by posing a collision based on a 6-year period of time when Our Response: Based on the best available information, we found that and electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, the population was experiencing a slight pp. 145–146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. decline. This study and other survival of the Gunnison Basin population alone would be insufficient 974) and can have indirect effects by population viability analyses are decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. evaluated in detail in Factor E (Small to ensure the species’ long-term 2002, p. 10, Walker et al. 2007a, p. Population Size and Structure) of this persistence in the face of ongoing and 2,644), increasing predation (Connelly rule. future threats (see Factor E (Small (19) Comment: One peer reviewer Population Size and Structure)). et al. 2004, p. 12–13, Howe et al. 2014), thought that it is difficult to assess what (21) Comment: One peer reviewer fragmenting habitat (Braun 1998, p. future conditions hold, be it vegetation questioned whether the Service had 146), and facilitating the invasion of responses to climate change or the access to the considerable amount of exotic annual plants (Knick et al. 2003, effects of population growth and telemetry data collected by Colorado p. 612; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25). development resulting in fragmentation Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in recent We also specify types of powerlines and associated effects on the species of years, primarily for birds located in the (transmission or distribution) and their conservation concern. The reviewer Gunnison Basin. This reviewer fully effects on Gunnison sage-grouse as thought it is also difficult to evaluate supported the use of existing appropriate. This topic is discussed how a species such as Gunnison sage- information and models, in lieu of further in Factor A (Powerlines) of this grouse might respond to projected restricted access to other important data. rule. changes, even 5 or 10 years into the The reviewer thought that the Service (23) Comment: A peer reviewer future, let alone 50–100 years. Despite had done a realistic job of proceeding commented that the proposed rule reads these uncertainties, the peer reviewer with existing information, whether it be as though Wisdom et al. (2011) tested considered the short- and long-term from model applications to assist with electromagnetic fields and found sage- viability for six of the seven populations broader habitat identification across the grouse avoidance of them. The reviewer of Gunnison sage-grouse to be tenuous, Gunnison Basin (see Aldridge et al. indicates that was not the case. Wisdom at best. 2012), or biological information and et al. (2011) found a correlation between Our Response: We agree with the responses (i.e., effects of fences on sage- sage-grouse extirpations and the reviewer that it is difficult to predict grouse mortality) based on studies presence of powerlines. The reviewer what will happen in the future. conducted on the closely related greater suggested this effect may be related to However, the Act requires us to sage-grouse. electromagnetic fields. The reviewer determine if a species is endangered (in Our Response: We do not have access cautioned that we ensure here, and danger of extinction throughout all or a to the telemetry data collected by CPW. throughout, that this supposition is not significant portion of its range) or This data has not been published. We presented as a finding. threatened (likely to become and do have some telemetry information Our Response: We revised our endangered species within the provided in overview maps and the analysis to explicitly state that no foreseeable future throughout all or a information was discussed in meetings. studies have been conducted significant portion of its range). Thus, As pointed out in the Species specifically on the effects of we are required to make assumptions or Information section, Gunnison sage- electromagnetic fields on sage-grouse.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69206 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

This topic is discussed further in Factor Table 8 in Factor A (Domestic Grazing or may not, affect Gunnison sage-grouse. A (Powerlines) of this rule. and Wild Ungulate Herbivory)). The The reviewer stated that we also (24) Comment: A peer reviewer noted information in the table was also frequently use vague language (i.e., that Gregg et al. (2004) did not actually updated based on comments received ‘‘may have’’, or ‘‘is likely to’’) and then test grazing impacts on vegetation from Federal agencies during the public make definitive statements about causing reduction in nest success. comment periods for the proposed rules. Gunnison sage-grouse in support for the Rather, they found that lower heights of (27) Comment: One peer reviewer proposed listing decision. grass cover (below 18 cm) resulted in commented that mortality of handled Our Response: As noted above, increased nest predation. The peer Gunnison sage-grouse (ranging between throughout this rule, we have carefully reviewer suggested that careful choice of zero and seven percent) could be identified and qualified instances of wording may be necessary to accurately significant. The peer reviewer would speculation or hypotheses from past reflect what was evaluated and found by prefer to see a summary of the scientific studies and publications. Our a study, versus what was inferred and percentages by study and age class of identification of current and future speculated from the results of the study. birds handled and a sample size to threats to Gunnison sage-grouse is based The reviewer stated that our proposed indicate the potential overall population on the best available scientific rule suggested that Gregg et al. (2004) effect. The reviewer suggested that we information, and we acknowledge evaluated livestock reduction in grass link the summary to match with the where there is uncertainty associated heights and showed a direct link to cited number of research related with data or predictions. For instance, reduced nesting success for sage-grouse, mortalities being typically below three in this final rule, we discuss that which was not the case. percent. The rule stated that ‘‘Mortality climate change predictions are based on Our Response: In this final rule, we from scientific research is low (two models with assumptions, and there are clarified that, Gregg et al. (1994, p. 165) percent) and is not a threat.’’ These all uncertainties regarding the magnitude of speculated that the reduction of grass need appropriate citations, and the associated climate change parameters heights due to livestock grazing in sage- differences between these numbers such as the amount and timing of grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas should be reconciled. precipitation and seasonal temperature may negatively affect nesting success Our Response: In this final rule, we changes. when cover is reduced below the 18 cm describe why, overall, we expect that There is also uncertainty as to the (7 in.) needed for predator avoidance. scientific research and related magnitude of effects of predicted This topic is discussed further under conservation efforts, such as climate parameters on sagebrush plant Factor A (Domestic Grazing and Wild translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse, community dynamics. These factors Ungulate Herbivory). have a net conservation benefit for the make it difficult to predict whether, or (25) Comment: A peer reviewer species. However, some unintended, but to what extent, climate change will commented that one could argue that minor negative effects are known to affect Gunnison sage-grouse. We livestock grazing on private lands might occur in the process. This topic is recognize that climate change has the be better managed than public lands, addressed further in Factor B (Scientific potential to alter Gunnison sage-grouse because individual landowners may be Research and Related Conservation habitat by facilitating an increase in the more cognizant of grazing practices on Efforts, see especially Table 11 distribution of cheatgrass and those lands. summarizing various research efforts). concurrently increasing the potential for Our Response: In this final rule, we (28) Comment: A peer reviewer noted wildfires, and reducing herbaceous state that livestock grazing allotments that in our table of conservation vegetation and insect production in containing both Federal and private easements, we have cumulated the drought years, all of which would have lands can often be managed by Federal percentages based on the area in negative effects on Gunnison sage- agencies to meet land health standards easements out of the total area grouse. through coordination and cooperation (rangewide) considered, as opposed to This topic is discussed further in with grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, p. taking the average of the percentages for Factor A (Climate Change) of this rule, 1–2). However, we have no information each population. and in Factor E (Drought and Extreme on the extent of grazing, management, or Our Response: In this final rule we Weather). habitat conditions on private lands in updated conservation easement (30) Comment: A peer reviewer stated Gunnison sage-grouse range, and information and acres, based on Lohr that we frequently make generalizations therefore cannot make a definitive and Gray (2013, entire) (see Factor A about the decline of Gunnison sage- assessment of these areas. Furthermore, (Other Regulatory Mechanisms: grouse abundance, such as, although Federal land and livestock Conservation Easements)). Therein, we ‘‘Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats grazing may be more regulated, we provide conservation easement acres by are a primary cause of the decline of cannot make any generalizations about population and rangewide in occupied Gunnison and greater sage-grouse how habitat conditions in those areas and unoccupied habitats. We feel this is populations.’’ However, the reviewer might compare with private lands where a better representation of lands notes, lek counts in the Gunnison Basin livestock grazing occurs. This topic is protected under conservation easement population are currently at historic high discussed further under Factor A for Gunnison sage-grouse; averaging levels and have increased substantially (Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate those values across populations would since the mid-1990s. The reviewer Herbivory). not accurately depict protected acres for further notes that lek counts from 2005– (26) Comment: A peer reviewer the species. 2007 were the highest counts recorded commented that the table displaying (29) Comment: A peer reviewer in the Gunnison Basin population. Land Health Standard data on Federal expressed concern about what the Since 2007, lek counts in Gunnison lands in Gunnison sage-grouse range is reviewer perceived as the frequent use Basin have averaged 703 males. confusing. of speculation and commentaries as Our Response: Loss, degradation, and Our Response: In this final rule, we empirical evidence. The peer reviewer fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse restructured the table and included stated that we speculate about proposed habitat is discussed in Factor A of this additional columns and figures to better threats (e.g., climate change) that we rule. Population trends based on 1996– show how numbers were calculated (see have no information on how they may, 2014 lek count data show stable to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69207

slightly declining levels from 1996 stochasticity were incorporated into the topic is discussed further in our through 2004, then the high levels model (i.e., the model does not assume introduction to Factor A in this rule. mentioned from 2005–2007; followed by ‘‘consistency of environmental Threats to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat lower but stable levels since (see Figure influences’’). are also discussed under Factor A in 2). The 2008–2014 population level is Our Response: The RCP and actual this rule. We agree that future higher than levels prior to 2005, but PVA (see GSRSC 2005, pp. 170 and G– residential development in occupied around 20 percent lower than the 2006 27) state that the estimates assumed habitat in the Gunnison Basin is likely peak (CPW 2014e. p.2). Population some degree of consistency of to be more limited than we presented in trends are discussed further in the environmental factors over time. This the proposed rule (see Factor A section, Current Distribution and topic is discussed further in Factor E (Residential Development), but Population Estimates and Trends; and (Small Population Size and Structure). nonetheless find, for the reasons stated Factor E (Small Population Size and (34) Comment: A peer reviewer in Factor A, that this development Structure) of this rule. Also see our commented that we misapply the terms remains a threat to the species and response to State Comment 5 below. habitat loss, fragmentation, and loss. supports our determination that the (31) Comment: One peer reviewer Our Response: In the scientific species is likely to become in danger of stated that we had not presented a case literature and community there are extinction throughout its range in the that Gunnison sage-grouse are in danger widely varying interpretations of habitat foreseeable future. of extirpation in the Gunnison Basin. It loss, degradation, and fragmentation (36) Comment: A peer reviewer noted is the largest of all Gunnison sage- processes, and various methods are that, related to livestock grazing, grouse populations, and three different applied to measure these processes. Williams and Hild (2011) showed that population viability analyses have all Therefore, in this final rule, we vegetation conditions in the Gunnison concluded it is relatively stable. collectively refer to these processes as Basin met, or exceeded, the habitat Our Response: In our proposed rule to habitat decline, as prefaced in the Factor structural guidelines in the Rangewide list Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered A section below. However, we do not Conservation Plan. The peer reviewer (78 FR 2486; January 11, 2013), we alter the terminology as applied by peer- also stated that we misrepresented the found that the species is in danger of reviewed or other studies. For instance, objective of this study in our proposed extinction throughout its range, if a particular study evaluated and rule, stating that it was not a grazing primarily due to habitat loss, presented results on habitat study and therefore our criticism is not degradation, and fragmentation fragmentation, we did not interpret the valid. With 392 transects distributed associated with residential and human study or authors to mean habitat loss, across Gunnison Basin for this study, development across its range and, in instead. This topic is discussed further the reviewer did not understand our particular, in the Gunnison Basin. In in our introduction to Factor A in this statement that ‘‘sampling is limited’’ this final rule we determined that the rule. (p. 2503). species is not currently in danger of (35) Comment: A peer reviewer stated Our Response: Because livestock extinction throughout its range, but is that we argue more than once that while grazing effects were not an objective of likely to become so in the foreseeable individual human activities or features the Williams and Hild (2011) study, the future. As a result, this final rule lists may not be a significant threat, it is the extent of past or ongoing livestock the species as threatened rather than cumulative impact of all these features grazing in these areas was not described, endangered. The basis for this decision that threatens the Gunnison sage-grouse. nor did the study compare un-grazed to is set out in the Determination section However, the peer reviewer stated that grazed areas. The Williams and Hild below. We also assess the three this reasoning ignores the spatial (and study found that habitat conditions are population viability analyses (PVA) for temporal) variation in these potential likely favorable to Gunnison sage-grouse the Gunnison Basin and other threats. The reviewer is of the opinion in a portion of the Gunnison Basin populations in Factor E (Effective that proposed threats are not uniformly (Williams and Hild 2011, entire), Population Size and Population distributed across space and therefore although the relationship to livestock Viability Analyses). will not uniformly impact Gunnison grazing effects in those areas is (32) Comment: A peer reviewer noted sage-grouse populations. The reviewer unknown. In this final rule, we clarify that we present the PVA from the stated that development will only that there is limited ability to make Rangewide Conservation Plan. However, impact a very small proportion of the inferences from this study for other the reviewer noted that there are two habitat in Gunnison Basin and will be areas in the Gunnison Basin, due to other PVAs we need to address: Garton restricted to zoned areas. The reviewer limitations of the study. Transect (2005) and Davis (2012). stated that preliminary analyses indicate locations for the study were prioritized Our Response: All three available that Gunnison sage-grouse are flexible and selected in areas used by radio- PVAs for Gunnison sage-grouse are in their movement patterns and the collared Gunnison sage-grouse, included in our assessment in this final habitats they use (CPW Demography potentially biasing study results. rule (Factor E, Effective Population Size and Movement project, in prep.). The Therefore, the relationship between and Population Viability Analyses). reviewer stated that the cumulative livestock grazing and habitat conditions Also see our response to peer review negative impacts are not as likely as we is unclear in this study, and there is comment 31 above. seem to assume. limited ability to infer from its (33) Comment: A peer reviewer noted Our Response: The historic loss of conditions in other portions of the that in referring to the PVA in the habitat and current isolation of once Gunnison Basin not prioritized for Rangewide Conservation Plan, we state connected populations, the declining sampling. This topic is discussed that small populations (<50 birds) are status of several satellite populations, further in Factor A (Domestic Grazing ‘‘at a serious risk of extinction within and presence of current and future and Wildlife Herbivory) of this rule. the next 50 years (assuming some degree threats to habitat all indicate that the (37) Comment: A peer reviewer stated of consistency of environmental cumulative loss or decline of habitat has that our discussion of ‘‘presettlement’’ influences in sage-grouse negatively influenced populations and distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse demography).’’ (p. 2531). However, the species as a whole and is likely to was highly speculative. The peer environmental and democratic continue to do so into the future. This reviewer also stated that we assume that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69208 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Gunnison sage-grouse distribution genetic diversity may have important reintroduction of Gunnison sage-grouse closely matches the distribution of consequences, but it is unlikely to have in Arizona is not being proposed. sagebrush, and that this assumption is an effect anytime in the near future and (2) Comment: The Colorado Office of used by some authors (e.g., Schroeder, that it must be demonstrated that low the Governor noted that letters had been et al. 2004, Wisdom et al. 2011), but is genetic diversity has negative sent from Colorado Parks and Wildlife not necessarily true. The peer reviewer consequences on individuals and (CPW) and Colorado Department of stated that the map by Schroeder et al. populations. Agriculture (CDA), and recommended (2004) is not meant to be a definitive The peer reviewer stated that it is that the Gunnison sage-grouse should be description that accurately defines inappropriate to suggest that there is a determined not warranted for listing. historical distribution, but a specific population size that is Our Response: The Colorado Office of generalization based on available necessary for long-term population the Governor referenced CPW and CDA information (i.e., the model includes survival from a genetic perspective (i.e., letters in support of a not warranted areas that are not habitat and omits that there should be 500–5,000 determination for Gunnison sage-grouse, other areas that are habitat). The peer Gunnison sage-grouse in a population but provided no other information or reviewer noted that we also state for it to be viable). The peer reviewer data to support their position. We Gunnison sage-grouse distribution commented that the genetic viability of acknowledge receipt of letters from depends on large areas of contiguous a population depends on the effective CPW and CDA. Their comments will be sagebrush. The peer reviewer also noted population size, the type of genetic addressed in further detail in this that this assumption does not seem to be variation in the population, and type of section. Our listing determination for well supported since Gunnison sage- selection acting on the population. The the Gunnison sage-grouse is explained grouse have existed in small, isolated peer reviewer noted it is possible that in this final rule. populations for decades (Rogers 1964). animals can rapidly adapt to inbreeding (3) Comment: CPW recommended the Our Response: Related to potential by the selective elimination of the genes following hierarchy in the evaluation of historical range of Gunnison sage- responsible for inbreeding depression biology and threats. grouse, and the estimated loss of and although highly speculative, this a. Use of only Gunnison sage-grouse historical range, see our response to may be operating in the small, isolated data when it exists. b. If Gunnison sage-grouse data does Peer Reviewer Comment 17 above. Gunnison sage-grouse populations. So, not exist, use greater sage-grouse data Related to our position that the species the peer reviewer suggested that to closest to Gunnison sage-grouse range in depends on sagebrush on a landscape argue that inbreeding depression due to scale for its survival, the best available Colorado or Utah. low genetic diversity is a basis for c. If greater sage-grouse data from science supports this, and it is an listing the species as endangered is not empirical principle widely accepted by adjacent populations does not exist, warranted without empirical data sage-grouse biologists and the scientific then proceed with the appropriate focused on this specific question. community. As discussed in this rule, cautions and limited inference to Gunnison sage-grouse depend on Our Response: In this final rule, we available information within the range sagebrush for their survival and have determined that listing the species of greater sage-grouse. persistence, and the historical and as threatened, not endangered, is the Another State commenter suggested current distribution of the Gunnison appropriate determination. We describe that references to greater sage-grouse be sage-grouse closely matches that of the potential negative consequences of omitted altogether. sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 9; Braun genetic deterioration associated with Our Response: We generally used the 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364, small population size and geographic above approach recommended by CPW, and references therein). Habitat isolation under Factor E (Genetic although we did not distinguish fragmentation resulting from human Risks)). We also discuss this topic and between greater sage-grouse data from development patterns is especially other relevant information further under populations closest to Gunnison sage- detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse Factor E (Small Population Size and grouse’s range. We did not explicitly because of their dependence on large Structure) in this rule. state that in the proposed rule––we expanses of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, Comments From States stated that the ‘‘best available scientific p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–1; and commercial data’’ were used. We Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 72) and more (1) Comment: The Arizona Game and also noted that we used information contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers Fish Department noted that there are no specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. records of Gunnison sage-grouse ever where available but still applied 452–453). The overall declining status existing in Arizona, and estimates of scientific management principles for of several of the satellite populations historical range in northeastern Arizona greater sage-grouse that we determined (despite translocation/augmentation are based on pre-settlement occurrence were relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse efforts) does not support the idea that of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), which has management needs and strategies. We the species is capable of persisting at largely been extirpated. Consequently, followed the same approach in this final low levels or in isolated conditions. no viable habitat remains for the rule. Refer to Factor E in this rule for more Gunnison sage-grouse in Arizona. Any (4) Comment: CPW and CDA stated discussion on this topic. future restoration efforts should focus that lek counts in the San Miguel, (38) Comment: A peer reviewer noted on the remaining core distributions in Crawford, and Cerro Summit-Cimarron- that we describe the genetic work by Colorado and Utah. Sims Mesa populations have increased Oyler-McCance et al. (1999, 2005) that Our Response: Identification of in recent years, in contrast to the illustrates the lower genetic diversity of potential pre-settlement Gunnison sage- statement in the listing proposal that Gunnison sage-grouse compared to grouse habitat in Arizona was based on population trends over the last 12 years greater sage-grouse, and the lower both historical sagebrush distribution indicate that six of the populations are genetic diversity of the small Gunnison and a 1937 observation of sage-grouse in in decline. sage-grouse populations compared to the northeastern corner of that state Our Response: We used the same the Gunnison Basin population. The (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368–369, and CPW lek survey data that these peer reviewer asserted that lower references therein). Restoration or comments refer to in our assessment of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69209

population trends from 2001 through size. (Also see Davis 2012, p. 143, response to Peer Review comment 31 2012. Our conclusion was that the six Figure 5.1, which displays the increase above). Our assessment of the current smaller populations had stable to in lek areas counted beginning around and future threats to these populations declining numbers from the first half of 1996.) Additionally, Davis (2012, pp. indicates that these trends are likely to the survey period (2001–2006) to the 137–138) and Davis et al. (in press) continue if the threats are not second half of the survey period (2007– indicate that the Gunnison Basin addressed. The best available 2012). We agree that the three population, although relatively stable, information indicates a reduction of previously mentioned populations have has declined slightly in recent years, Gunnison sage-grouse distribution since increased in the past 2–3 years, along following earlier increases. These topics Euro-American settlement in the 1800s, with Pin˜ on Mesa, as indicated in Figure are discussed further in the following with evidence of the loss of peripheral 3 in the proposed listing rule (78 FR sections of this rule: Current populations and a northward and 2492, January 11, 2013). However, these Distribution and Population Estimates eastward trend of extirpation (Schroeder populations are not at higher levels than and Trends; and Small Population Size et al. 2004, pp. 369, 371, and references in 2001–2006. It should also be noted and Structure. therein). These downward trends and that these declining trends in the (6) Comment: CPW stated that both historical losses further indicate the smaller populations have occurred the PVA described in the RCP (GSRSC high vulnerability of the satellite despite translocation efforts (see 2005) and the Garton (2005) PVA should populations to extirpation. These topics Scientific Research and Related be referenced and considered in the are discussed further in the following Conservation Efforts). Without these final rule. Another commenter stated sections of this rule: Current translocations, bird numbers likely that the Garton (2005) PVA Distribution and Population Estimates would be lower for these populations. overestimated the species’ long-term and Trends; and Small Population Size Furthermore, in this final listing rule, viability. and Structure. we analyzed population estimates over Our Response: We describe and (8) Comment: CPW stated that an a longer period, based on lek count data evaluate the RCP and Garton PVAs, as updated refinement of historical habitat from 1996–2014 (lek count protocols well as that of Davis (2012), in this final estimated by Schroeder et al. (2004) is were standardized in 1996 by CPW). rule (see Factor E). critical to an accurate assessment of Similar to our previous analysis, the (7) Comment: CPW noted that the changes in distribution, since they long-term data indicate that, despite proposed rule to list the species cites believe this study likely overestimates slight increases in the past several years, the RCP PVA regarding the risk of the historical range of Gunnison sage- the satellite populations have declined extinction for small populations less grouse. overall, with the possible exception of than 50 birds, but does not explain why Our Response: Historical range the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa several small populations have persisted estimates from Schroeder et al. (2004, population, which appears to be stable at low numbers for decades. pp. 370–371) were modified by the RCP or increasing, and Pin˜ on Mesa, with its Our Response: The Cerro Summit- (GSRSC 2005, pp. 34–35) based on more highest count since standardized lek Cimarron-Sims Mesa population has complete information on historical and counts began in 1996. This topic is had an estimated population of less than current habitat and distribution of the discussed further in the Current 50 birds for 14 of the past 16 years. The species. We are not aware of any further Distribution and Population Estimates Poncha Pass population has remained at refinements to estimates of historical and Trends section of this rule. less than 50 birds from 1999–2014, and range. Information from Braun et al. (5) Comment: CPW stated that the lek surveys found no birds in 2013. (2014) matches information presented listing proposal does not acknowledge Poncha Pass is nearing extirpation, and by Schroeder et al. (2004) and does not that male counts from recent lek surveys the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa add or detract from changes & additions are at historic high levels in the population may also be at risk––with to historical range presented in the RCP Gunnison Basin, and notes that prior to five small leks known in the Cerro (GSRSC 2005, p. 33–35). Consequently, 1996, surveys lacked a standard Summit-Cimarron subpopulations and the RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) provides protocol and may have had an only one lek, which is inactive, in the the best available information inconsistent counting effort. Sims Mesa subpopulation. The four concerning the likely historical range of Our Response: The proposed listing remaining satellite populations the species. That information indicates rule stated that the Gunnison Basin generally have population estimates of that the Gunnison sage-grouse currently population, while variable, has been more than 50 birds, but less than 500 occupies about 8.5 percent of its relatively stable over the past 13 years. birds. These four populations would be potential historical range. Further As the commenter noted, survey data expected to persist for a longer period analysis in this final rule indicates that was not standardized until 1996, of time than the two smallest approximately 88 to 93 percent of the making comparisons between current populations, but are not secure from the historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse populations and populations prior to threats described in this final rule has been lost since Euro-American 1996 difficult. If data from 1953–2014 below. Additionally, as noted in our settlement. While there is some are considered, the highest lek count response to State comment 4, several uncertainty in all of these figures, the occurred in 2006, as shown in Figure 2 smaller populations have been best available information indicates in this final listing rule. However, augmented with birds from the there has been a considerable loss of apparent increases in population size Gunnison Basin population. Without habitat and a reduction in the range and based on lek count data may be the these translocations, the numbers would distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse. result of increased survey effort in have likely been lower for these Our listing decision is based on the recent years. Davis (2012, p. 139) noted populations. current status of Gunnison sage-grouse a sharp increase in lek areas counted in As presented in this final rule, based and the current and future threats to the 1996, when the protocol for lek counts on 1996–2014 lek count data, a number species and its habitat. However, the was standardized in the Gunnison of the satellite populations are loss of historical range and decline in Basin. Therefore, the variation in the lek declining. Several population viability Gunnison sage-grouse abundance, and counts may reflect a change in survey analyses indicate a high extinction risk their causes, have contributed to the effort and not a change in population for all of the satellite populations (see species’ current status. This topic is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69210 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

discussed further in our introduction to is evident in Figure 18.1 of Wisdom et magnitude in the Gunnison Basin now, Factor A of this rule. al. (2011). The authors combined the but is expected to increase in the future. (9) Comment: CPW noted a occupied and extirpated ranges of both Residential development is a substantial discrepancy between current occupied greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage- current and future threat to the San range estimates of 4,720 square grouse for their ‘‘stronghold’’ analysis. Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims kilometers (km2) in our 2006 decision Given the much larger range of greater Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations. and 3,795 km2 in the 2013 proposed sage-grouse, with typically larger This topic is discussed further in the rule to list the species, which results in patches of contiguous sagebrush habitat, Factor A, Residential Development a loss of 925 km2 of currently occupied conclusions from the analysis are likely section of this final rule. range. more applicable to greater sage-grouse. (13) Comment: CPW disagreed with Our Response: Both estimates cite Therefore, in this final rule, we discuss the conclusion in the proposed rule that GSRSC (2005). However, the 2006 final Wisdom et al. (2011, entire) and its roads are a ‘‘major threat’’ to the listing determination used an initial conclusions, but do not further use the continued existence of Gunnison sage- estimate based on Schroeder et al. term ‘‘stronghold’’ because the term, grouse and stated that the proposed rule (2004). The 2013 estimate is a refined based on the scale of analysis, was more used speculation from Oyler-McCance estimate based on the GSRSC and CPW applicable to greater sage-grouse. This et al. (2001) that overstated the threat data. topic and study is discussed further in from roads and powerlines. (10) Comment: CPW recommended our introduction to Factor A in this rule, Our Response: In its discussion of that we rely primarily on Rogers (1964) and throughout the rule where roads, the proposed rule stated that to determine historic distribution of the applicable. ‘‘Roads within Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse, and noted three (12) Comment: CPW and others stated habitats have been shown to impede citations of Rogers (1964) in the that the proposed rule used the rate of movement of local populations between proposed rule to list the species that residential development associated with the resultant patches, with road should more precisely quote the author. the entirety of Gunnison County, avoidance presumably being a Another commenter stated that historic including the area, and is behavioral means to limit exposure to distribution estimates by Rogers (1964) not representative of development rates predation (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. are inferior to Schroeder et al. (2004). in Gunnison sage-grouse habitats. Other 330).’’ The proposed rule then gave Our Response: Rogers (1964) was commenters also noted that human several examples, with additional written prior to the identification of population growth rates have slowed in citations, of impacts due to roads Gunnison sage-grouse as a separate recent years leading to slower rates of including: increased disturbance, species, and summarized overall sage- development. Lastly, commenters corridors for predators, invasion of grouse distribution in Colorado recommended that a single source of exotic plants, and resultant avoidance (including greater sage-grouse) based on human population growth (such as by sage-grouse. The proposed rule does both qualitative and quantitative data Colorado Department of Local Affairs) not cite Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) in and reports from various sources. This be used. Other commenters suggested its discussion of powerlines. In this study is informative in that it provides that the human population is increasing. final rule, we describe impacts from a broad picture of the species’ status, Our Response: Our estimates roads and conclude that increased road distribution, and trends in Colorado regarding human population growth in use and construction will continue at over time, among other data and the Gunnison Basin in the proposed rule least through 2050, and is a current and information. As such, Rogers (1964) is to list the species were largely based on future threat to the species (see Factor considered and cited in this final rule. Colorado Water Conservation Board A). However, the study did not conduct a studies that included all of Gunnison (14) Comment: CPW and one other spatial analysis of the species’ potential County, including areas not occupied by commenter questioned the use of historic range or the loss of habitat over Gunnison sage-grouse, and were derived Aldridge et al. (2012) regarding nest site time, as was done by Schroeder et al. before the economic downturn (78 FR selection and urged caution in applying (2004, entire). Consequently, we 2495, January 11, 2013). We recognize results across the entire Gunnison concluded it is appropriate to consider that a large portion of projected human Basin, particularly the firm conclusion and evaluate this more recent, population growth for Gunnison County that habitat within 2.5 km (1.6 miles quantitative study specific to Gunnison is expected to occur outside of (mi)) of roads and residential sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 2004, Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat, developments is unsuitable for the entire), as modified by GSRSC (2005, such as in the Crested Butte area and species. CPW also presented data from pp. 34–35). We verified information within the City of Gunnison. For this a GIS analysis that it conducted. derived from Rogers (1964, entire) and final rule, we apply current data from Our Response: In the proposed rule to provided more precise citations in this the Colorado Department of Local list the species, we did not use 2.5 km final rule. Affairs to our analysis of human (1.6 mi) in any recommendations (11) Comment: CPW noted that the population growth and project regarding thresholds for nest selection; Wisdom et al. (2011) standard for residential development in Gunnison although we did cite papers by Aldridge identifying a population stronghold and other counties across the Gunnison et al. (2008 and 2011). We agree that could likely never have been met in the sage-grouse range. For each sage-grouse some recommendations from the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, even population area, we consider total modeling effort completed by Aldridge historically, due to the high elevation private lands available for development et al. (2012) are based on confusing basins and naturally fragmented nature as a proportion of total occupied habitat, probabilities regarding selection of nest of sagebrush communities in Colorado. accounting for perpetual conservation sites, in particular, the relationship Our Response: We agree that the easements that would preclude or limit between relative probability of nest distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse such development. This analysis occurrence and distance to residential habitat is naturally disconnected due to indicates that human populations are development. Figure 5f in Aldridge et the presence of unsuitable habitats such expected to continue increasing across al. (2012) indicates that the probability as forests, deserts, and canyons across the species’ range, but that residential of nest occurrence is greatest when the the landscape (Rogers 1964, p. 19). This development is a threat of a low nest is approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69211

from development. This probability information is specific to greater sage- (18) Comment: CPW noted that the decreases at both shorter and greater grouse, in which case, we regard it as proposed rule to list the species suggests distances from development; although the best available information (see our that livestock trample seedlings, and one would expect the probability of nest response to comment 3). We revise our that this constitutes competition. CPW occurrence to continue to increase with language in this final rule to clarify stated that they were unaware of any increasing distance from residential usage of the terms habitat loss, research that has demonstrated development. The variable of residential degradation, and fragmentation (see our competition between grazers and sage- density was more intuitive, with the response to peer review comment 34). grouse. One other commenter stated that likelihood of nesting decreasing with (17) Comment: CPW disagreed with Connelly et al. (2004) does not describe increasing residential density. Other the conclusion in the proposed rule to trampling of sagebrush seedlings. variables such as the proportion of list the species that grazing in Our Response: Connelly et al. (2004, sagebrush cover and road density had combination with climate change and p. 7–31) states that livestock trample more influence on nest site selection other factors is a threat to Gunnison sagebrush, and provides citations; we and were also more intuitive. For sage-grouse and questioned citations note in this final rule that Connelly et example, the probability of nesting from Gregg et al. (1994) and Connelly et al. (2004) was citing other references. In decreased abruptly with decreasing al. (2000a) regarding optimal grass the proposed rule, we surmised that sagebrush cover and with increasing height. CPW also noted a conflict livestock may compete directly with road density. In this final rule, we between critical habitat requirements of sage-grouse for rangeland resources by updated our older citation (Aldridge et grass height of 10–15 cm and consuming forbs and shrubs. However, al. 2011); we added a citation regarding aforementioned citations that as the commenter mentions, this CPW’s preliminary GIS analysis of the recommend grass height of 18 cm or question has not been researched, and frequency of successful and more. our conclusion is therefore inferred unsuccessful nests at increasing Our Response: In the proposed rule, rather than proven. In this final rule, we distances from roads (CPW 2013b); and we concluded that habitat degradation deleted specific references to we do not apply spatial zones of resulting from improper grazing competition between livestock and sage- influence to evaluate impacts of (described in Factor A in the proposed grouse. However, we present evidence residential development as is discussed rule), particularly with the interacting that indicates consumption of important in Factor A. factors of invasive weed expansion and vegetation by livestock negatively (15) Comment: CPW urged caution in climate change, is a threat to Gunnison affects sage-grouse that use those citing Braun (1995), Bui et al. (2010), sage-grouse persistence. The proposed resources, such as the reduction of forbs and Aldridge and Boyce (2007) rule also noted that livestock grazing and grasses that may affect chick regarding impacts from roads due to the may have positive effects on sage-grouse survival (see Factor A). speculative nature of authors’ (78 FR 2501, January 11, 2013). Properly (19) Comment: CPW disagreed with conclusions. managed livestock grazing is not likely the conclusion and inference that Our Response: We did not cite Braun to adversely impact Gunnison sage- browsing by big game on mountain (1995) or Bui et al. (2010) in discussions grouse. Gregg et al. (1994) described a shrubs resulted in a negative effect on of Factor A, including roads, in the study conducted on greater sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. proposed rule or in this final rule. in Oregon and speculated about Our Response: This final rule Aldridge and Boyce (2007) were cited in potential impacts from livestock includes a discussion of available discussions of residential development, grazing. In this final rule, we clarify that information regarding impacts of wild roads, and nonrenewable energy ‘‘Gregg et al. (1994, p. 165) speculated ungulate herbivory in Gunnison sage- development. Related to this comment, that the reduction of grass heights due grouse habitat, including one study when citing Aldridge and Boyce (2007), to livestock grazing in sage-grouse (Japuntich et al. 2010, pp. 7–9) that we indicate that this and other studies nesting and brood-rearing areas may documented reduced size and vigor of cited were on greater sage-grouse. negatively affect nesting success when mountain shrubs (not sagebrush), which However, as discussed in our response cover is reduced below the 18 cm (7 in.) could reduce accumulations of drifting to State comment 3 above, due to needed for predator avoidance.’’ snow, which might in turn reduce the similar life histories and habitat Connelly et al. (2000a) was not cited in availability of soil moisture for forbs requirements between these two the grazing discussion in the proposed and grasses. If all of these impacts species, we consider information rule to list, but was cited in the occurred, nesting and brood-rearing specific to greater sage-grouse as proposed rule to designate critical habitat could be affected. In this final relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse, a habitat. Seasonally specific primary rule, we conclude that the effects of practice followed by the wildlife and constituent elements described in the livestock grazing are likely being land management agencies that have proposed and final rules to designate exacerbated by intense browsing of responsibility for both species and their critical habitat include a guideline of woody species by wild ungulates in habitats. 10–15 cm (4–6 in) grass height based on portions of the Gunnison Basin and the (16) Comment: CPW and some other recommendations in the RCP (GSRSC Crawford area (see Factor A, Domestic commenters questioned the conclusions 2005, p. H–6). In this final rule, we Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory). regarding powerlines and impacts on clarify that recommendations vary for (20) Comment: CPW asserted that the Gunnison sage-grouse from raptor Gunnison sage-grouse habitat proposed rule relied on speculation by perches and habitat fragmentation. requirements and vegetation Braun (1998), Oyler-McCance et al. Our Response: The discussion of characteristics. We note that Connelly et (2001), and Stevens (2011) regarding the powerlines in the proposed rule al. (2000a, p. 977) recommended greater effects of fences on Gunnison sage- provided numerous citations regarding than 18 cm (7 in) grass height for grouse. CPW also provided additional aspects such as raptor perches, habitat breeding habitats, and that the GSRSC information regarding research it fragmentation, and the spread of (2005, p. H–6) (the basis of the critical conducted that tracked more than 1,000 invasive plants. Citations note when the habitat proposal for breeding habitats) radio-marked greater sage-grouse and studies were specific to greater sage- recommended a grass height of 10–15 documented two mortalities from grouse. In some instances, the only cm (3.9–5.9 in). collisions with fences. A follow-up

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69212 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

letter from CPW also noted four (23) Comment: CPW asserted that the final critical habitat determination for mortalities resulting from collisions Service did not acknowledge that Gunnison sage-grouse published with utility lines. One other commenter Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is highly elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. stated that fences fragment habitat. variable rather than continuous across In this final rule we also reviewed the Our Response: We cite multiple the landscape. three available PVAs for Gunnison sage- references in Factor A of this final rule Our Response: We acknowledge that grouse, which applied various that implicate the potential impacts of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is highly techniques to estimate the viability of fences on Gunnison sage-grouse. Based variable across the landscape, and we populations. Collectively, these studies on the information provided by CPW do not consider it to be continuous and population trends from 1996–2014 specific to Gunnison sage-grouse, currently or historically. We included a indicate that one or more of the satellite mortalities from collisions with fences discussion of the naturally disconnected populations may become extinct within and utility lines are likely minimal, and nature of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat the foreseeable future (see Factor E). we have included the information that in this final rule (see Factor A). (27) Comment: CPW noted that CPW provided on strike-related (24) Comment: CPW and several other drought can impact nest success, but not mortalities. We conclude that fences commenters suggested that the Service adult survival, suggesting that Gunnison may be a contributing factor in the evaluate structural habitat guidelines sage-grouse can accommodate drought species’ decline; however, we have no recommended in the RCP with data cycles. specific data on the scope of this threat reported by the BLM and Williams and Our Response: We agree that adults (see Factor A, Fences). Hild (2011). are less vulnerable to impacts from Our Response: The final rule includes (21) Comment: CPW stated that the drought. Adult survival rates of conclusions from vegetation monitoring Service does not know what the final Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison efforts in the Gunnison Basin conducted measures in the Bureau of Land Basin were not influenced by drought by Williams and Hild in 2010 and 2011. Management’s (BLM) Resource conditions in 2005 (CPW 2013c, p. 9; This topic is discussed further in the Davis 2012, p. 55). However, if a Management Plans (RMPs) will be Domestic Grazing and Wildlife drought persists through multiple concerning travel management, and that Herbivory section in Factor A of this nesting seasons, recruitment will likely the Service overstates the threat of final rule. be impacted. This topic is discussed roads. Consequently, CPW states that (25) Comment: CPW presented new further under the following sections in our conclusion that the revised RMPs information regarding small populations this final rule: Drought and Extreme are inadequate to address that threat of and inbreeding depression. Weather, Small Population Size and roads outlined by Aldridge et al. (2012) Our Response: We include and Structure, and Climate Change. was premature. consider this information in this final (28) Comment: CPW and CDA noted Our Response: We use the best rule. We note that this new information that at least 79 percent of occupied available information to reach our indicates that the San Miguel Basin habitat in the Gunnison Basin is conclusion in this final rule that roads Gunnison sage-grouse effective protected from development, including are a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse (see population size is below the level at government-owned lands, private lands Factor A, Roads). The BLM is in the which inbreeding depression has been with Conservation Easements, process of amending its RMPs and we observed to occur (Stiver et al. 2008, p. Candidate Conservation Agreements do not know how road issues will be 479), and that the authors postulated with Assurances, and/or similar legal addressed in the amended plans. Under that the observed lowered hatching agreements that preclude development the Act, we are required to assess the success rate of Gunnison sage-grouse in to the detriment of grouse. Therefore, adequacy of RMPs with respect to their study may be caused by inbreeding these agencies asserted, the Gunnison relevant threats based on the RMPs as depression. Finally, we conclude that Basin is adequately protected for the they exist at the time of this listing because the remaining Gunnison sage- conservation of the species. decision. Thus, while we conclude that grouse satellite populations are smaller Our Response: While the conservation road impacts can be reduced by than the San Miguel population, they and habitat protection efforts regulatory mechanisms, the existing are also likely small enough to induce undertaken in the Gunnison Basin are mechanisms are currently not fully inbreeding depression, and could be commendable, and help reduce the addressing the threat. We recognize the losing adaptive potential (see Factor E). impact of development on the species complexity of threats to Gunnison sage- (26) Comment: CPW and two other and its habitat, these measures vary in grouse and the limited capacity of commenters disagreed with conclusions their capacity to avoid or minimize regulatory mechanisms to address some in the proposed rule regarding impacts such as the effects of habitat of those threats. For example, impacts minimum and effective population decline. Consequently, we were not able caused by disease, small population sizes, and the amount of habitat needed to conclude that Gunnison sage-grouse size, or climate change are not easily to support a viable population. habitat is adequately protected, despite addressed by regulatory mechanisms. Our Response: We do not recommend the benefits of the various conservation However, other impacts such as current or adopt a specific number for a efforts. Conservation efforts and and future roads, hunting, grazing, or minimum viable population size, other regulatory mechanisms are evaluated in development can often be addressed than concluding that, based on the best this final rule. with adequate regulatory mechanisms available information, several of the (29) Comment: CPW, the Utah Office (22) Comment: CPW stated that the satellite populations are trending of the Governor, and several other discussion regarding vegetative toward extirpation. With their low commenters requested clarification structure guidelines incorporated into absolute and effective population sizes, regarding the interpretation and use of management plans and permit renewals the satellite populations are particularly the Significant Portion of Range (SPR) is confusing. at risk from stochastic environmental policy. Our Response: We clarify discussions and genetic factors (see Factor E, Small Our Response: On July 1, 2014, we regarding vegetative structure guidelines Population Size). We address the published a final policy interpreting the in this final rule (see Factor A, Domestic amount of habitat needed to provide for phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of its Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory). the conservation of the species in our Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 37578). In

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69213

accordance with that policy, the first that more time is needed for public as population data from 1996–2000, and step in our analysis of the status of a review. concluded that the Gunnison Basin species is to determine its status Our Response: The publication population was relatively stable and the throughout all of its range. If we deadline for the proposed rule was set six smaller populations were in decline determine that the species is in danger by a court approved settlement (78 FR 2488, January 11, 2013). This of extinction (endangered), or likely to agreement; however, the timeline for final rule incorporates additional become so in the foreseeable future this final rule was initially set according information received since publication (threatened), throughout all of its range, to the statutory requirements of the Act of the proposed rule. The basis for our we list the species as an endangered or and has been extended several times by determination in this final rule is threatened species and no SPR analysis court order. The Act requires that a final provided in the Determination section is required. In this case, we have listing rule be published within one of this rule. determined in this rule that the year of the publication of the proposed (34) Comment: The Utah Office of the Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened rule. As allowed by the Act, however, Governor and one other commenter throughout all of its range, therefore we we extended this statutory deadline by stated that a Federal listing of the did not perform an SPR analysis. 6 months due to substantial species at this time provides no (30) Comment: CPW, CDA, and the disagreement regarding the sufficiency additional protection or resources from Utah Office of the Governor asserted or accuracy of available data relevant to those already in place and that that speculation in the literature was our determination. Invoking this voluntary cooperation of private sometimes portrayed as science. statutory extension postponed the final landowners will be much more effective Our Response: Under the standards of listing decision from September 30, in improving habitat than protections the Endangered Species Act (Act), we 2013 to March 31, 2014. We also re- than what may be afforded by listing are required to base our determinations opened the public comment period and critical habitat designation. The of species status on the best available several times. In addition, due to a Utah Office of the Governor also noted information. Our first choice is government shutdown in October 2013 that a final regulation providing for a information from recent, peer-reviewed that caused us to postpone and listing will cause the State to reassess its publications that is specific to Gunnison reschedule public meetings, the court conservation efforts for this species, and sage-grouse. However, sometimes the granted our request for an additional 6 may result in reallocation of these only available information may be based weeks beyond the statutory timeline. efforts to other species. Our Response: By statute, the Service on studies of greater sage-grouse. Finally, the court granted our must list a species if it meets the Additionally scientific data are subsequent request for an additional 6 month extension to allow us to consider definition of threatened or endangered. sometimes limited, studies are the possibility that the species should There is no provision in the Act that conflicting, or results are uncertain or be listed as threatened rather than would allow us to decline to list a seemingly inconclusive. Scientific endangered, and to consider whether a species that meets the definition of information includes both empirical 4(d) rule would be appropriate. This threatened or endangered if no evidence, and expert knowledge or action extended the deadline for this additional protection would occur. opinion. In this final rule, we carefully final rule until November 12, 2014. Moreover, the Act would confer identified and qualified instances of (33) Comment: The Utah Office of the additional protection to the Gunnison speculation or hypotheses from past Governor stated that the Service’s 2010 sage-grouse that could help arrest and scientific studies and publications. warranted-but-precluded finding and reverse its decline. Once listing of the (31) Comment: CDA noted that 2013 proposed rule to list Gunnison Gunnison sage-grouse becomes agriculture in Colorado generates $40 sage-grouse under the Act differs from effective, actions authorized, funded or billion annually, with cattle anticipated the 2006 finding that concluded the carried out by Federal agencies that may to contribute approximately $3.5 billion species was not warranted for listing, affect the species will require section 7 to agricultural production in 2013. CDA without presentation of any new consultations under the Act in all areas stated that cattle production would information that would indicate a occupied by the species. Section 9 likely be seriously harmed, should the different conclusion is justified. Several prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ will further species be listed. commenters asserted that the decision protect the species from human-caused Our Response: The Act does not allow to list was due to litigation. mortality due to both direct effects and us to consider economic impacts in Our Response: Litigation resulted in a indirect effects such as continued decisions on whether to list a species, settlement agreement that established a habitat decline and harassment. We which must be made solely on the basis schedule for us to submit a proposed recognize that the voluntary cooperation of scientific and commercial rule to list the species or a finding that of private landowners has improved information related to the 5 factors in listing was not warranted by a date conservation of the species in many Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Economic certain. The litigation had nothing to do areas. However, declining population impacts may be considered in the with the ultimate decision to list, or not. trends indicate that these efforts have designation of critical habitat, and are The 2006 not-warranted, the 2010 not been able to stabilize rangewide discussed in our final critical habitat warranted-but-precluded finding, and conditions (habitat and populations) for rule. Our final critical habitat the 2013 proposed rule to list the the species. We maintain that the best determination for Gunnison sage-grouse species were based upon the best chance for conservation and ultimately is published elsewhere in today’s scientific and commercial information recovery of the species will require both Federal Register. available at that time. The 2006 finding the protections afforded by listing and (32) Comment: The Utah Office of the concluded that the rangewide critical habitat designation as well as Governor noted that the timing on the population was stable to slightly voluntary conservation measures proposed rule is based solely on the increasing (71 FR 19961–19962, April undertaken by private landowners, with need to meet a court approved 18, 2006). The 2013 proposed listing support from the States in settlement date, which did not include rule included information from new accomplishing these measures. participation by the States of Utah or studies, 8 additional years of recent (35) Comment: The Utah Office of the Colorado. Some commenters suggested survey information (2006–2013), as well Governor described efforts of the San

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69214 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Juan Local Working Group, by Federal Our Response: We are also concerned may be due to population trends rather and State agencies, private landowners, about the long-term viability of the than existing habitat conditions. and universities to address concerns Poncha Pass population, particularly in Our Response: This final rule regarding declining numbers of view of the 2013 lek count surveys, recognizes the limitations and Gunnison sage-grouse. Similarly, which did not detect any birds. CPW uncertainties associated with LHA and Colorado’s Office of the Governor translocated 17 additional birds from supporting data. Our conclusion for identified dozens of conservation efforts the Gunnison Basin in the fall of 2013, livestock grazing effects on Gunnison that have been carried out in Colorado and 10 more in spring of 2014 (CPW sage-grouse and its habitat also that they believe address Gunnison 2014e, p.7). Six males were counted in acknowledges limitations associated sage-grouse. the Poncha Pass population during the with LHA data (see Factor A, Domestic Our Response: We acknowledge and spring 2014 lek count (CPW 2014d, p.2). Grazing and Wildlife Herbivory). commend conservation efforts This population will likely require (40) Comment: One commenter undertaken in Utah and recognize their repeated augmentations to avoid recommended we clarify the impact importance in a county where more extirpation. This topic is discussed from different fence types with regard to than 90 percent of occupied habitat is further under the following sections in habitat fragmentation, increased on private lands. We also commend the this final rule: Current Distribution and predator activities, and collisions. Our Response: This final rule conservation efforts undertaken in Population Estimates and Trends; and discusses the various factors that Colorado by CPW, local jurisdictions Factor E. influence fence strike risks. We and other entities. This final rule (38) Comment: One agency noted that acknowledge that those risks vary describes many of the conservation although the proposed rule to list the depending on fence design, landscape measures, including local, State, and species repeatedly states that the effects topography, and spatial configuration. Federal laws and regulations, from grazing are inconclusive, the final In the Factor A discussion of fences, we conservation easements, the Gunnison conclusion was that habitat degradation note that in 10 years of tracking radio- Basin CCA, and enrollment in the from improperly managed grazing, collared sage-grouse in Colorado, CPW particularly with the interacting factors Colorado CCAA, that have been has documented only two fence strike of invasive weed expansion and climate undertaken to improve or protect mortalities in Gunnison sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We have change, is a threat to the species. This information suggests that direct carefully considered the projects and Several commenters recommended that mortality of Gunnison sage-grouse due programs noted by Colorado and Utah historical grazing practices be to fence strikes is low. in the development of this final rule. differentiated from improved current (41) Comment: We received a (36) Comment: The Utah Office of the grazing practices. comment requesting that the Service Governor described Gunnison sage- Our Response: The key word in our recognize that fire and fuels treatment grouse population trends in Utah and conclusion in the proposed rule is projects managed under very narrow stated that reliance on current ‘‘improperly.’’ Livestock grazing that is parameters may be a beneficial tool in population figures would be an arbitrary done in a manner consistent with local managing Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. and capricious application of facts ecological conditions, including soil The commenter also noted that impacts because adequate time has not been types, precipitation zones, vegetation from cheatgrass on fire regimes in allowed to determine if numbers will composition and drought conditions, is Colorado do not appear to be the same return to stable levels following the not likely to negatively impact as in the Great Basin, and suggests that severe winter in 2010. In contrast, CPW Gunnison sage-grouse, and is fire has a role to play in rejuvenating stated that severe winters are not a compatible with the needs and unoccupied or marginal habitats by threat to the species. conservation of the species. See creating ‘‘micro-mosaics’’ that benefit Our Response: We recognize that discussion under Factor A. The final the species during different portions of there is annual variability in population rule also notes that properly managed its life cycle. numbers for the Gunnison sage-grouse. livestock grazing may have positive Our Response: The final rule Consequently, we place more emphasis effects on sage-grouse. We also acknowledges that small fires may have on longer-term population trends over a recognize that maintenance of beneficial impacts to Gunnison sage- number of years than on population sustainable grazing practices on private grouse habitat and concludes that fire is estimates from any given year. Our rangelands can aid in recovery of the currently not a threat to the species. It analysis considers Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse by discouraging also concludes that wildfires may grouse population trends from 1996 further conversion of the species’ become a threat in the future if (when lek count protocols were habitat into habitat unsuitable to the cheatgrass continues to expand. Recent standardized) through 2013. We do not species (i.e., due to development). research indicates that prescribed fire conclude that severe winters are a threat (39) Comment: Several commenters may be inappropriate due to the direct to the species. noted that the proposed rule might have loss and fragmentation of the remaining overstated the impacts from grazing on Comments From Federal Agencies sagebrush habitat within the species’ Gunnison sage-grouse habitat as range, (Baker 2013, p. 8). We include (37) Comment: We received multiple indicated by BLM Land Health this information and citation in this comments expressing concerns Assessments (LHA). A comment stated final rule (see Factor A, Fire). regarding the long-term viability of the that available data may vary by office, (42) Comment: One commenter Poncha Pass population, noting that and the LHA is only a snapshot in time; expressed concern regarding the bird movement between Poncha Pass therefore, it cannot indicate trends. potential effects of climate change to the and the Gunnison Basin is not likely. Additionally, grazing is only one of long-term sustainability of Gunnison One commenter suggested that Poncha many causal factors on land health. The sage-grouse, particularly in the Dove Pass and other small populations may commenter also noted that failure to Creek and Dry Creek areas. be better managed as satellite meet indicators for Land Health Our Response: We too are concerned populations, rather than individual self- Standard 4 (which evaluates ecological about the potential effects of climate sustaining populations. indicators for Special Status Species) change on Gunnison sage-grouse

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69215

rangewide. The final rule concludes that (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). We lack a Federal nexus for section 7 climate change is currently not a threat also completed an environmental consultations under the Act, in which to the species, but is likely to become assessment pursuant to the National case grazing practices would not be a threat in the foreseeable future. Our Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on affected by the Act unless they were to analysis includes consideration of the proposed critical habitat designation result in ‘‘take’’ of Gunnison sage- climate change projections for the that evaluated the affected environment, grouse, as prohibited by section 9 of the western U.S. A climate change including potential economic impacts to Act. However, more than 300 Federal vulnerability assessment for the the human environment. These are grazing allotments on nearly 405,000 ha Gunnison Basin described the Gunnison discussed further in our final critical (1,000,000 ac) are located within the sage-grouse as highly vulnerable to habitat rule, published elsewhere in final critical habitat designation impacts from climate change (TNC et al. today’s Federal Register. (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 3– 2011, p. iii). This topic is discussed (45) Comment: Several commenters 1). On Federal allotments, through the further under Factor A, Climate Change suggested that the Service should work section 7 consultation process, the in this final rule. cooperatively with other Federal managing agency (BLM or USFS) may (43) Comment: The United States agencies, State wildlife agencies, farm choose to implement AUM reductions, Forest Service (USFS) suggested bureaus, and local governments to seasonal restrictions, rotational grazing, expanding the CCA from Gunnison partner with landowners on or other changes to minimize impacts or Basin to other Gunnison sage-grouse conservation efforts. One commenter avoid jeopardy to the species and any populations on Federal lands. One other asserted that the Service has no on-the- adverse modification to critical habitat. commenter expressed concern regarding ground experience with Gunnison sage- We do not intend to preclude grazing a possible expansion of the CCA to areas grouse conservation. within critical habitat, but may seek outside of the Gunnison Basin. Our Response: We encourage grazing modifications where warranted Our Response: We agree that the CCA partnerships between the Service, other to promote the conservation and could have benefitted Gunnison sage- agencies, and landowners and have recovery of the species. We discuss grouse in other populations outside of worked cooperatively in such livestock grazing under Factor A, the Gunnison Basin, and provided a partnership to further Gunnison sage- Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate means for Federal land agencies to grouse conservation. In 2005, for Herbivory in this final rule. streamline ESA section 7 requirements example, we participated in (47) Comment: Several commenters associated with their programs and development of the RCP (GSRSC 2005). expressed differing views on whether activities. Although CCAs cannot be This Plan established management energy and mineral development should implemented for listed species, guidelines throughout the range of the be further restricted. adoption of a similar plan that builds on species. In 2006, we entered into a Our Response: The Monticello-Dove the principles of the CCA is a viable CCAA for the Gunnison sage-grouse Creek and San Miguel Basin option for the satellite populations in with Colorado Division of Wildlife (now populations support numerous mineral the future. We also note the BLM is now CPW). We estimate, in of December, and fossil fuel extraction activities. One in the process of amending all field 2014 when this rule becomes effective, wind project and one potash mine are office resource management plans 40 Certificates of Inclusion (CI) will under development in the Monticello- within the range of the Gunnison sage- have been completed for private Dove Creek population. There are no grouse to increase protections for this properties, enrolling 94,391 ac in four active uranium mines in Gunnison sage- species. This effort will likely build on Gunnison sage-grouse populations, grouse habitat. Oil and gas extraction what was included in the CCA for BLM- although only roughly 81,156 ac of these occurs on both Federal and private managed lands in the Gunnison Basin. acres fall within suitable Gunnison sage- lands within the species’ range. Mineral grouse habitat. We also cooperated with and fossil fuel extraction activities on Comments From the Public Federal agencies and other stakeholders private lands without Federal mineral (44) Comment: Several commenters in the Gunnison Basin to complete a rights are unlikely to have a Federal asserted that listing the Gunnison sage- CCA to promote conservation of the nexus for section 7 consultations under grouse will adversely impact the local species in the Gunnison Basin the Act. Existing Federal regulations, economy. population on Federal lands. As stated such as BLM RMPs, and State Our Response: The Act does not allow above, our listing decision is based on regulations from the Colorado Oil and us to consider economic impacts in the best available scientific information. Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) decisions on whether to list a species, Accordingly, our focus is on well- provide some protection to the species which must be made solely on the basis supported, scientific data and and its habitat. With respect to mineral of scientific and commercial information for the species, generally at and energy development projects on information regarding the 5 factors in a broader scope than is acquired at the Federal lands or that otherwise have a Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. However, local level. Federal nexus (e.g., the project is economic impacts may be considered in (46) Comment: Several commenters authorized, funded or carried out by a the designation of critical habitat. Our expressed differing views on whether Federal agency), we may seek project final critical habitat determination for livestock grazing in Gunnison sage- modifications during ESA section 7 Gunnison sage-grouse is published grouse habitat should be restricted. consultations to benefit Gunnison sage- elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. Our Response: We determined that grouse. We consider current energy and As part of the process of completing the grazing that is inconsistent with local mineral development a low threat to the final critical habitat rule, we completed ecological conditions is a threat to the species, as discussed under Factor A, an Economic Analysis that evaluates the species, and grazing in general may Mineral Development and Renewable potential economic impacts of have inadvertent effects at a local level Energy Development, in this final rule. designating critical habitat on (Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild (48) Comment: Several commenters transportation, livestock grazing, Ungulate Herbivory). expressed differing views regarding the mineral and fossil fuel extraction, Although grazing on both public and effectiveness of predator control. residential development, recreation, private lands may affect Gunnison sage- Our Response: Predator removal agriculture, and renewable energy grouse, privately owned lands typically efforts may sometimes provide short-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69216 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

term gains in sage-grouse numbers, but individuals and groups, local climate (TNC et al. 2011, p. H–9). predator numbers quickly rebound governments, land management Prescribed burning and mechanical without continual control efforts (Hagen agencies, and State wildlife agencies treatments can be used on a small scale 2011, p. 99). The impacts of predation have developed conservation plans for to create a mosaic of small open on greater sage-grouse can increase the following Gunnison sage-grouse patches; however, care should be taken where habitat quality has been populations: Gunnison Basin, Crawford, to avoid further fragmentation of compromised by anthropogenic Dove Creek, San Miguel Basin, sagebrush habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. activities such as exurban development Monticello, Pin˜ on Mesa, and Poncha 206–207). and road development (Coates 2007, pp. Pass. As a result, all populations with (54) Comment: Some commenters 154–155; Bui 2009, p. 16; Hagen 2011, the exception of the Cerro Summit- suggested that seasonal closures of roads p. 100). This is discussed further under Cimarron-Sims Mesa population have and recreation areas should be Factor C, Predation. conservation plans. Following the implemented as appropriate. (49) Comment: Several commenters development of these local conservation Our Response: Closures have been stated that conservation efforts and plans, the RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) authorized and used by Federal agencies recovery should focus on public lands. was developed, which included and counties to protect Gunnison sage- Our Response: Conservation of the participation by the BLM, CPW, NPS, grouse habitat in several populations Gunnison sage-grouse will require NRCS, USFS, the Service, and Utah (BLM 2013c, attachment 2; Gunnison collaboration between Federal, State, Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). County Board of County Commissioners and local agencies wherever the species The RCP was intended to supplement 2013a, Appendix A; NPS 2013, p. 1; occurs. Federal agencies manage 54 local plans and provide guidance to aid USFS 2013, pp. 11 and 14). We evaluate percent of currently occupied habitat for in conservation of the Gunnison sage- these efforts in this final rule (see Factor Gunnison sage-grouse. Although there is grouse. Population targets were A, Roads, and Factor D). an abundance of public lands within the recommended for each population. (55) Comment: One commenter current range of the Gunnison sage- These planning efforts are discussed in suggested that number of leks, number grouse, Federal lands alone are further detail in Factor A of this final of birds on leks, survival rates, and insufficient to conserve the species. rule. We also discuss future other ecological parameter be monitored Therefore, conservation and recovery conservation measures for this species and used as triggers for requiring efforts limited to public lands are not below in this final rule. The Act additional conservation efforts. sufficient to ensure conservation of the requires development of a recovery plan Our Response: The local and species. in most cases for endangered and rangewide conservation plans include (50) Comment: Some commenters threatened species, which often results monitoring plans. The CPW has support or oppose development of a in establishment of a recovery team. conducted annual monitoring of these captive breeding program or (52) Comment: Some commenters parameters following a standard translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse. suggested that sagebrush habitat should protocol since 1996. Monitoring of One commenter stated that the State of be preserved and, when necessary, habitat conditions, treatment actions, Colorado does not have the funds recovered. and compliance are an integral part of necessary to conduct a long-term Our Response: Because sage-grouse the CCAA for Gunnison sage-grouse. captive breeding program. are obligate users of sagebrush, (56) Comment: Several commenters Our Response: Establishing wild preserving and recovering sagebrush stated that the Gunnison sage-grouse populations from captive-reared habitat is key to sage-grouse population in the Gunnison Basin is gallinaceous birds is very difficult, conservation. Other habitat types such stable and not at risk of extinction; expensive, and only rarely successful; a as riparian meadows and agricultural consequently, since this is a significant captive breeding program in Idaho for lands may also be important for portion of the species’ range, the species greater sage-grouse had only minimal Gunnison sage-grouse, but only if they is not endangered. One commenter success (GSRSC 2005, p. 181). The CPW are in close proximity to sagebrush- noted that the six smaller populations started a captive-rearing program in dominated habitat (75 FR 59808, did not constitute a significant portion 2009 to study whether techniques can September 28, 2010). Several Federal of the species’ range. be developed to captively rear and agencies as well as CPW and UDWR Our Response: Please see our release Gunnison sage-grouse. To date, continue to work to improve the quality response to comment 29 above. We survival of captive-reared chicks has of sagebrush communities through include an explanation of how we been low, as we cited in our proposed grazing management, fencing, re- considered and applied the concept of rule (78 FR 2518, January 11, 2013). seeding, fuels management, and other SPR in this final rule. Translocation of wild Gunnison sage- habitat improvement strategies (GSRSC (57) Comment: Several commenters grouse from Gunnison Basin to other 2005, pp. 214–219). Listing the species expressed various opinions regarding populations has had some success, and designating critical habitat will the stability of the six smaller although our understanding of further conserve Gunnison sage-grouse populations outside of Gunnison Basin. translocation contributions is limited. habitat. Our Response: The six satellite Without these translocations, current (53) Comment: Several commenters populations are small, all were generally numbers would likely be lower for these noted the importance of open water and in decline from 1996 until 2010, and populations. These topics are discussed wet meadows and some also suggested several continue to show a declining further under Scientific Research and that these habitat types should be re- trend. The San Miguel and Pin˜ on Mesa Related Conservation Efforts in this final established in some areas by removal of populations are currently the largest of rule. sagebrush. the satellite populations, with 206 and (51) Comment: Some commenters Our Response: High quality brood- 182 birds, respectively, in 2014. The suggested that a Gunnison sage-grouse rearing habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse Monticello-Dove Creek population working group or recovery team should includes mesic meadows, springs, currently has less than 100 birds total. be established. seeps, and low vegetation riparian areas, Population estimates in 2014 for what Our Response: Local working groups all dependent on adequate moisture and have been the two smallest populations, including landowners, interested consequently at risk in today’s changing Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69217

Poncha Pass, were 74 and 16, population sizes and trends, the Gunnison sage-grouse as a distinct respectively (CPW 2014a, p.1). Based on analysis in this final rule is focused on species. Due to the several lines of lek count-based population estimates, the standardized lek count data from evidence separating the two species, we some satellite populations have 1996 to 2013. We also consider other determined in our 2010 12-month increased slightly over the last several available scientific information finding that the best available years, or intermittently over time. regarding Gunnison sage-grouse information indicates that the Gunnison However, the last 19 years (1996 to populations such as demographic data sage-grouse is a valid taxonomic species 2014) of lek count data as a whole and population viability analyses (see and a listable entity under the Act (75 indicate all the satellite populations are Factor E). FR 59804, September 28, 2010). were in decline in 2010. Several of the (59) Comment: Several commenters (62) Comment: Several commenters satellite populations have increased recommended that population data stated that habitat fragmentation and since 2010. Although population prior to 2001 be evaluated. degradation are the main reasons for a estimates for Pin˜ on Mesa are currently Our Response: In the 2010 12-month steep decline in Gunnison sage-grouse higher than in any year since 1996, this finding we relied on population data abundance. One commenter asserted population has been augmented with 93 over the past decade to quantitatively that we overestimated the impact from birds from Gunnison Basin since 2010. assess recent trends (75 FR 59808, fragmentation, and another commenter The Crawford population has also been September 28, 2010). The starting point asserted that habitat has not been lost or augmented, with 73 birds over the same of 2001 was also used for trend analysis fragmented in the past 50 years. period; and while the 2014 population in the 2013 proposed rule (78 FR 2491, Our Response: Habitat loss and estimate of 157 in this population is the January 11, 2013). In this final listing fragmentation are recognized as primary highest since 2006, it is considerably rule, we analyzed population estimates causes of the decline in abundance and less than the post-1996 high of 270 in over a longer period, based on lek count distribution of sage-grouse across 1998. data from 1996–2013. Similar to our western North America (Rogers 1964, For all six satellite populations, previous analysis, the long-term data pp. 13–24; Braun 1998, entire; population estimates from 1996 to 2014 indicates that despite slight increases in Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371), and in are below population targets (based on the past several years, the satellite Gunnison sage-grouse across its former a 10-year average), set forth by the RCP populations have declined overall, with range (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. (CPW 2014d, p. 1; GSRSC 2005, pp. the possible exception of the Cerro 330; GSRSC 2005, p. 149; Wisdom et al. 255–302). The RCP population targets Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 2011, pp. 465–469). Gunnison sage- are the number of birds thought population, which appears stable to grouse depend on sagebrush for their necessary to conserve Gunnison sage- increasing at this time. survival and persistence, and the grouse in those population areas (60) Comment: Some commenters historical and current distribution of the (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). Combined, the stated that there are too many caveats in Gunnison sage-grouse closely matches satellite populations comprise about 16 the rangewide conservation plan to rely that of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 9; percent of the rangewide population of on it for distribution and abundance Braun 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, Gunnison sage-grouse and include information. p. 364, and references therein). Current approximately 37 percent of rangewide Our Response: The current and future threats described under occupied habitat. These topics are distribution of the Gunnison sage-grouse Factor A of this final rule will further discussed further in Factors A and E of is thought to be well understood, based contribute to habitat loss and decline this rule. on several decades of surveys and data. and, based on historical and current (58) Comment: Several commenters Although not conclusive, CPW aerial population trends, a continued decline stated that lek counts are not accurate. surveys during 2013 found no new leks in the abundance of Gunnison sage- Our Response: As described in this or occupied areas. Nevertheless, current grouse across its range. final rule (see Current Distribution and distribution and abundance data are (63) Comment: One commenter noted Population Estimates and Trends), lek estimates due to adverse weather, that there has been no chick survival in count data are the primary means of access, and survey error. Earlier data is the Miramonte area of the San Miguel estimating and monitoring Gunnison further compromised by the use of population. sage-grouse populations. However, sage- incomplete museum records and Our Response: Although sample size grouse populations can fluctuate widely historical accounts, as well as varying in a study of the San Miguel Basin on an annual basis, and there are methodologies and survey intensities. (Miramonte subpopulation) was small concerns about the statistical reliability Pre-settlement data is by necessity an (eight chicks were studied), no chicks of population estimates based on lek extrapolation based on species accounts survived to 30 days of age, meaning no counts (CDOW 2009b, pp. 1–3). Stiver et and the likely distribution of suitable recruitment (survival of bird from al. (2008, p. 474) concluded that lek habitat. This is the best available hatching to breeding age) occurred over counts likely underestimate population information, and forms the basis of a 4-year period (Davis 2012, p. 37). We size. Another study (Davis 2012, p. 136) historical and current distribution and provide this information in this final indicated that, based on demographic abundance information, as presented in rule (see Predation; and Davis data, lek count indices overestimate this final rule. Population Viability Analysis sections). population size. Although lek count (61) Comment: Some commenters (64) Comment: Some commenters data are available from as early as the asserted that the Gunnison sage-grouse noted that the bio-geographical 1950’s for some populations, lek count is not a separate species from greater characteristics of the upper Gunnison protocols were first standardized and sage-grouse. Basin differ markedly from the lower implemented in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. Our Response: Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison Basin. 46). Prior to 1996, lek count data are and greater sage-grouse were recognized Our Response: There is wide habitat highly variable and uncertain, and are as separate species in 2000 based on variation within and between all of the not directly comparable to recent morphological, genetic, and behavioral Gunnison sage-grouse populations. We population data (Braun 1998, p. 3; Davis differences, and geographical isolation. presume this comment is directed to the 2012, pp. 139, 143). Therefore, for the Consequently, the American idea of population redundancy in the purposes of evaluating current Ornithologist’s Union accepted the Gunnison Basin. This topic is discussed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69218 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

in Factor E, Small Population Size and continue to require maintenance, and referring to Blue Mesa Reservoir. As Structure, of this final rule. usage may increase due to increases in clarified in this final rule (see Factor A, (65) Comment: One commenter stated recreational activities or in the human Large Scale Water Development), that there is no data indicating the Dove population. We discuss roads under development of Blue Mesa Reservoir in Creek population was within the Factor A in this final rule. 1965 in the Gunnison Basin flooded an historical range of the Gunnison sage- (69) Comment: Several commenters estimated 3,700 ha (9,200 ac), or 1.5 grouse prior to introducing the species stated that grazing minimizes percent of potential habitat for to this area in 2010 and 2011. fragmentation by preventing Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Our Response: CPW began collecting development, conversion to cropland, Basin (McCall 2005, pers. comm.), and lek count data from Dove Creek in 1993, and loss of water rights. according to Gunnison County (2013a, which predates efforts to augment that Our Response: We agree that livestock p. 124), at least one known lek. Based population. Dove Creek is included in grazing operations generally result in on the size and location of Blue Mesa historical, recent, and current less habitat fragmentation than Reservoir, we presume that habitat descriptions of the species’ range alternatives such as residential connectivity and dispersal of birds (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368–371). development, conversion to cropland, between the Gunnison Basin population The 2006 not warranted finding mineral and fossil fuel extraction, or and satellite populations to the west described the Dove Creek subpopulation road construction. were impacted. as ranging from 10–358 birds from (70) Comment: Two commenters (73) Comment: One commenter noted 1995–2005 (71 FR 19957–19961, April noted that ranches are no longer being that mountain shrub habitat is used by 18, 2006). subdivided; therefore, fragmentation the Gunnison sage-grouse and therefore, (66) Comment: One commenter stated due to this factor is not occurring. mountain shrub should not be lumped that the Dove Creek population declined Our Response: Exurban development in with pin˜ on-juniper (Pinus edulis- following the 2002–2003 drought and and subdivision of ranches likely Juniperus spp.) habitat. has not yet rebounded. slowed during the recent economic Our Response: We agree that some Our Response: Drought conditions downturn. However, it still occurs, deciduous shrub communities from 1999 through about 2003 (with particularly in the Pin˜ on Mesa and (primarily Gambel oak and serviceberry) residual effects lasting through about Gunnison Basin populations, and we are used seasonally by Gunnison sage- 2005) were closely associated with expect it to continue into the future in grouse (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). See reductions in the sizes of all some areas. We discuss this issue in this discussion under Factor A, Pin˜ on- populations (CDOW 2009b, entire; CPW final rule (see Factor A, Residential Juniper Encroachment. 2013c, p. 9) (see Figures 2 and 3 in this Development). (74) Comment: Several commenters final rule) and lower nest success (CPW (71) Comment: Some commenters asserted that Gunnison sage-grouse 2013c, p. 2). To date, several of the asserted that the conclusion that large numbers were highest during a period of smaller satellite populations have not blocks of sagebrush habitat are needed higher livestock grazing, and that there rebounded from declines around that by Gunnison sage-grouse is in error is no negative correlation between time (see Figure 3 in this final rule). because it is based on greater sage- grazing intensity and Gunnison sage- (67) Comment: Some commenters grouse research. Other commenters grouse numbers. Other commenters stated that conversion to cropland has stated that not all sagebrush habitat will noted either improvement or not fragmented sagebrush habitat in the support Gunnison sage-grouse. degradation of habitat associated with past 20–30 years. Our Response: With regard to the first livestock grazing. One commenter asked Our Response: As stated in this final comment, references cited in the what we consider to be a proper grazing rule (Factor A, Agricultural Conversion), proposed and final rules regarding the regime. except in Gunnison County, the total need for large expanses of sagebrush Our Response: Excessive grazing by area of harvested cropland has declined sometimes pertain to greater sage- domestic livestock during the late 1800s over the past two decades in all counties grouse, but also include references and early 1900s, along with severe within the occupied range of Gunnison specific to Gunnison sage-grouse. drought, significantly impacted sage-grouse (USDA NASS 2010, entire). References specific to Gunnison sage- sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, Further, the majority of agricultural land grouse that discuss the need for large p. 616). Overgrazing by livestock was use in Gunnison County is in hay blocks of sagebrush habitat include cited as one of several contributing production, and this has also declined Oyler-McCance et al. (2001, pp. 327– factors in the early loss and over the past two decades (USDA NASS 330), Wisdom et al. (2011, p. 451), and deterioration of sagebrush range in the 2010, p. 1). We do not have any Baker (2013, p. 8). Regarding the second region (Rogers 1964, p. 13). Historical information to predict changes in the comment, we agree that not all accounts indicate that overgrazing of amount of land devoted to agricultural sagebrush habitat will support sagebrush range in Colorado began purposes. However, because of this Gunnison sage-grouse. Much sagebrush around 1875. Overgrazing was long-term trend in reduced land area habitat is outside the current range of apparently at its worst in the early devoted to agriculture, we do not expect the species or is in patches that are too 1900s and continued until the BLM was a significant amount of Gunnison sage- small in size and are fragmented, and organized in 1934 (Rogers 1964, p. 13). grouse habitat to be converted to some sagebrush habitat does not contain Around 1910, a gradual but marked agricultural purposes in the future. the physical and biological features decline in sage-grouse numbers and (68) Comment: Some commenters necessary to sustain the species. distribution in Colorado had begun stated that there are no new road (72) Comment: One commenter stated (Rogers 1964, pp. 20–22). This projects; therefore, roads have not that Blue Mesa Reservoir resulted in the information indicates that historical increased fragmentation. largest habitat fragmentation in livestock grazing practices and Our Response: Roads of all kinds can Gunnison County. overgrazing were a contributing factor in impact Gunnison sage-grouse through Our Response: Our proposed rule the early loss and degradation of direct loss of habitat, mortality from noted the potential impacts of sagebrush habitats and initial declines collisions, habitat fragmentation, and development of a large irrigation in sage-grouse numbers and habitat degradation. Existing roads will project, but it was not clear that we were distribution. Although current livestock

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69219

stocking rates in the range of Gunnison Our Response: Both the 2006 not (79) Comment: One commenter noted sage-grouse are lower than historical warranted determination (71 FR 19954, that very little private or public land in levels (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3), long- April 18, 2006) and the 2013 proposed Dolores County is grazed. term effects from historical overgrazing, rule to list the species (78 FR 2486, Our Response: More than 81 percent including changes in plant communities January 11, 2013) presented similar of lands in Dove Creek are privately and soils, persist today (Knick et al. observations: owned. We do not have information 2003, p. 116). In addition, widespread • Excessive grazing by domestic regarding what percentage of private use of water developments across the livestock during the late 1800s and early lands occupied by Gunnison sage- West has since increased livestock 1900s, along with severe drought, grouse in Dolores County is grazed. access to sagebrush habitats, and so significantly affected sagebrush (80) Comment: One commenter even reduced numbers of livestock still ecosystems, causing long-term impacts suggested that grazing should be pose impacts (Connelly 2004, pp. 7–33, that persist today. reduced or eliminated on public lands. 7–35, 7–92). We know that grazing can • Although we know that historical Our Response: Properly managed have negative impacts to sagebrush and livestock grazing practices and livestock grazing is not likely to impact consequently to Gunnison sage-grouse overgrazing were a contributing factor in Gunnison sage-grouse such that it at local scales. Grazing inconsistent the early loss and degradation of threatens populations or the species. with local ecological conditions is sagebrush habitats and initial declines The BLM and USFS manage grazing occurring over a large portion of the in sage-grouse numbers and allotments on their lands, and currently range of the species. Habitat degradation distribution, the correlation between consider conservation of Gunnison sage- that can result from grazing practices historical grazing and reduced sage- grouse on many of their allotments. inconsistent with local ecological grouse numbers is not exact. Allotments occur on approximately conditions, particularly with the • Habitat manipulations to improve 292,000 ha (720,000 ac) or 77 percent of interacting factors of invasive weed livestock forage, such as sagebrush occupied habitat (Industrial Economics, expansion and climate change, is a removal, can affect sage-grouse habitat. Inc. 2013, p. 3–1). Stocking rates have threat to Gunnison sage-grouse In 2006, we concluded that there was declined significantly in recent years. persistence. See Factor A, Domestic insufficient data to demonstrate that Both agencies have designated the Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory. current grazing was a rangewide threat Gunnison sage-grouse as a ‘‘Sensitive (75) Comment: Several commenters to the species. In 2013, several new Species.’’ This designation requires the stated that Gunnison sage-grouse chicks references related to grazing were BLM and the USFS to address the depend on insects in cattle manure. available for consideration (Coates 2007, species in their RMPs, and their Land Our Response: Anecdotal reports and Hagen et al. 2007, Aldridge et al. 2008, and Resource Management Plans opinion papers (Brunner 2006, p. 16; France et al. 2008, BLM 2008, BLM (LRMPs), respectively. Management Gunnison County 2013a, p. 95) have 2009a, Gunnison County Stockgrowers actions in these plans include changes suggested that cattle manure attracts and 2009, Knick et al. 2011, Pyke 2011, to seasons of use, AUM reductions, supports insect populations upon which Williams and Hild 2011, BLM 2012a). rotational grazing, and other changes to sage-grouse depend for survival, and Our conclusion in 2013 was that habitat grazing management practices. When that sage-grouse ‘‘follow’’ cattle through degradation can result from improperly the Gunnison sage-grouse is listed, pastures. However, there is no evidence managed grazing, and, particularly with actions on allotments that might affect to support this theory. Further, there are the interacting factors of invasive weed the species will require ESA section 7 no data to substantiate the idea that in expansion and climate change, is a consultations under the Act in all areas sagebrush areas not actively grazed by threat to Gunnison sage-grouse occupied by the species. Section 9 livestock, sage-grouse are limited in persistence. Climate change was not prohibitions against ‘‘take’’ will also some way (Connelly et al. 2007, p. 37). included as a factor in 2006, but in 2013 apply. This topic is discussed in Factor A of we stated that climate change is likely (81) Comment: Several commenters this final rule (see Factor A, Domestic to become an increasingly important asserted that invasive plants such as Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory.). threat to the persistence of Gunnison cheatgrass and pin˜ on-juniper are not a (76) Comment: Several commenters sage-grouse. We also noted in our 2013 proven threat to Gunnison sage-grouse; expressed differing opinions on whether proposed rule that livestock grazing can they have only been proven a threat livestock grazing reduces or increases cause local impacts, but population- with greater sage-grouse. One the risk of catastrophic fire. level impacts are unlikely. We make the commenter noted that cheatgrass has Our Response: We know that same conclusions in this final rule (see increased within the Gunnison sage- livestock grazing influences fire ecology Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild grouse range and is a major threat in the in sage-grouse habitat. However, due to Ungulate Herbivory). Gunnison Basin. the spatial complexity of fire in (78) Comment: Some commenters Our Response: Cheatgrass can shorten sagebrush ecosystems (Crawford et al. stated that wildlife herbivory needs to fire intervals in sagebrush communities. 2004, p. 7), and the numerous factors be addressed. Pin˜ on-juniper encroachment is potential that determine the effects of grazing on Our Response: In the proposed and evidence of extended fire intervals. sagebrush habitats, the effects of grazing final rules, we discuss wild ungulate Either change in fire intervals can on sage-grouse by altering fire regimes herbivory. It occurs throughout the adversely impact habitat for the likely vary widely across time and range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and Gunnison sage-grouse by reducing space. This topic is discussed in detail there are instances of overgrazing by sagebrush cover. Based on what is in Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild wild ungulates on a local level. In this known about the effects of cheatgrass Ungulate Herbivory, of this final rule. final rule, we note that the effects of and pin˜ on-juniper on greater sage- (77) Comment: Several commenters livestock grazing are likely being grouse, it is reasonable to infer their asked what has changed from 2006, exacerbated by browsing of woody expansion has similar effects on when the Service concluded that species by wild ungulates in portions of Gunnison sage-grouse. In this final rule grazing was not a threat, to 2013, when the Gunnison Basin and the Crawford we conclude that neither invasive the Service concluded that grazing was area (see Factor A, Domestic Grazing weeds nor pin˜ on-juniper encroachment a threat. and Wild Ungulate Herbivory). are substantial threats to Gunnison sage-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69220 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

grouse at this time, due to their limited encroachment has occurred at Pin˜ on Gunnison sage-grouse populations extent; however, they are potential Mesa (see Factor A, Pin˜ on-Juniper separated by long distances, the driver future threats (see Factor A, Invasive Encroachment in All Population Areas). could be climate change. Plants and Pin˜ on-Juniper We discuss the relationship between fire Our Response: This hypothesis is Encroachment). and pin˜ on-juniper encroachment in this plausible, although there is no evidence (82) Comment: Several commenters final rule (see Factor A, Fire and Pin˜ on- to support this hypothesis. This final stated that drought is causing a decline Juniper Encroachment). rule discusses the potential impacts of in Gunnison sage-grouse numbers; (86) Comment: Some commenters climate change and drought in Factors conversely, one commenter stated that noted that the historical fire rotation A (Climate change) and E (Drought), and drought is not a threat. Several was 178–357 years in Wyoming big the associated effects on Gunnison sage- commenters also stated that the sagebrush (A. t. wyomingensis) and 90– grouse. Monticello-Dove Creek area has 143 years in mountain big sagebrush; (90) Comment: Several commenters degraded Gunnison sage-grouse habitat these rotation intervals may or may not stated that predator numbers have due to climate change and drought. be changing. increased and are likely a threat to the Our Response: The proposed rule to Our Response: These time periods are Gunnison sage-grouse. list the species stated that it is too from Bukowski and Baker (2013, p. 5). Our Response: Predator populations speculative to conclude that drought The authors concluded that fire size, can increase as a result of habitat alone is a threat to the species at this rate of burning, and severity may be fragmentation and degradation, causing time; however, based on rapid species changing due to land-use changes, fire otherwise suitable habitat to become a decline in drought years, it is likely that exclusion, and invasive species such as population sink for sage-grouse. The drought exacerbates other known threats cheatgrass. Crawford et al. (2004, p. 2) best available information indicates stated that fire ecology changed and thus can negatively affect the that, as we stated in our proposed rule, dramatically with European settlement. species. Drought and associated effects predation is a current and future threat In high elevation sagebrush habitat, fire are discussed further in Factors A and to the species, particularly in the return intervals increased from 12–24 E and Cumulative Effects From Factors satellite populations Predation is years to more than 50 years, resulting in A through E of this rule. discussed further under Factor C in this (83) Comment: Several commenters invasion of conifers and a resulting loss final rule. stated that prescribed fire creates a in shrubs and herbaceous understory; at (91) Comment: Several commenters desirable habitat mosaic, but may also lower elevations, fire return intervals suggested that predator levels could be cause a short-term decline in sagebrush. decreased dramatically from 50–100 managed to relieve the threat from Our Response: In Factor A (Fire) of years to less than 10 years due to predation. the proposed and final rules we state invasion by annual grasses. TNC et al. that in mesic areas used for brood- (2011, p. 12) predicted a trend of higher Our Response: Predator removal rearing, small fires may maintain a fire frequency and severity in the efforts sometimes result in short-term suitable habitat mosaic by reducing Gunnison Basin due to climate change. population gains for sage-grouse, but shrub encroachment and encouraging (87) Comment: Two commenters predator numbers quickly rebound understory growth. However, without noted that drought has encouraged without continual control (Hagen 2011, available sagebrush cover nearby, the invasive plants. p. 99). Predation may be limiting some utility of these sites is questionable. Our Response: Drought can increase of the smaller populations of Gunnison (84) Comment: Some commenters the likelihood of some invasive plants sage-grouse, and in those cases predator asserted that climate change is not a such as cheatgrass out-competing native control efforts may be appropriate. The threat because it will not occur within perennials. The potential effects of best available information indicates the foreseeable future. drought and invasive plants on that, as we stated in our proposed rule, Our Response: Climate change is Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat are predation is a current and future threat ongoing and cumulative. The proposed further described in Factors A (Invasive to the species, particularly in the and final rules conclude that climate Plants) and E (Drought) of this final rule. satellite populations. While predation change is not a threat to the Gunnison (88) Comment: One commenter stated likely acts as a threat in localized areas sage-grouse at this time, but is likely to that climate change is adversely across the range of the species, the become a threat to the persistence of the affecting Gunnison sage-grouse, but it stability of the Gunnison Basin species over the next 40 years. The cannot be mitigated by the Service. population over the last 19 years Gunnison sage-grouse was found to be Our Response: The Service can do indicates that predation is not having a ‘‘highly vulnerable’’ to climate change little to avert climate change; however, significant impact on that population. in the Gunnison Basin (TNC et al. 2011, actions can be taken to minimize We believe, however, that the effects of p. 48). specific impacts and improve the predation are more pronounced in the (85) Comment: Some commenters resiliency of species in the face of satellite populations. Given the stability noted that fire suppression and reduced climate change. For example, the of the Gunnison Basin population, we fire frequency due to grazing have preferred Gunnison sage-grouse habitat do not believe that the magnitude of this caused pin˜ on-juniper encroachment for early brood-rearing includes riparian threat is significant at the rangewide into sagebrush habitat. areas and wet meadows near sagebrush level.While predation is a threat Our Response: Pin˜ on-juniper that provide the insects and forbs rangewide, we believe that the effects of encroachment has been attributed to the essential for chick survival. These predation are localized and more reduced role of fire, the introduction of habitat types are highly vulnerable to pronounced in the satellite populations, livestock grazing, increases in global impacts from climate change and have and therefore we do not believe that the carbon dioxide concentrations, climate been seriously degraded, but magnitude of this threat is significant change, and natural recovery from past management actions can be taken to (see Factor C, Predation). disturbance. Most Gunnison sage-grouse maintain and restore these important (92) Comment: Some commenters population areas are experiencing low habitats (TNC et al. 2011, p. H–9–10). recommended that we reevaluate our to moderate levels of pin˜ on-juniper (89) Comment: One commenter stated conclusions regarding nest depredation encroachment, although considerable that if there are similar trends in by elk (Cervus canadensis) and cattle.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69221

Our Response: The proposed and final (96) Comment: Some commenters grouse that are relevant to Gunnison rules document that livestock can stated that there is no evidence that sage-grouse management needs and trample nests, either destroying eggs or disease is currently a threat. One strategies. causing abandonment by hens. We also commenter noted that there is a low (99) Comment: One commenter cite references that list several species of abundance of the mosquito species that asserted that the threat of predation by nest predators, including elk and are known vectors of West Nile virus, raptors is exaggerated. domestic cows (see Factor C). However, and all mosquitos and Gunnison sage- Our Response: The proposed and final the best available information indicates grouse sampled by CPW tested negative. rules state that predation is the most that nest predation by livestock and elk Our Response: In the proposed rule, commonly identified cause of direct has negligible impacts on Gunnison we determined that West Nile virus is mortality for Gunnison sage-grouse sage-grouse at the population level (See a potential future threat, but it, and during all life stages and discuss Factor C, Predation). other diseases and parasitic infections, common predators of adults, juveniles, (93) Comment: Some commenters were not considered a current threat. and eggs. We also present information noted that many predators of Gunnison We received comments from the from scientific studies that demonstrate sage-grouse are protected and cannot be scientific community expressing the potential impact of raptor predation controlled. concern with this conclusion, on sage-grouse (see Factor C, Predation). (100) Comment: One commenter Our Response: Migratory birds such particularly in regard to West Nile virus, noted that in Dolores County at least as raptors are protected under the based on the following information: To one person has contracted West Nile Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. date, West Nile virus has not been virus, and a significant number of dead 703–712). Take of these species requires documented in Gunnison sage-grouse, birds have been found. a Federal permit. However, most but is present in all counties throughout the species’ range (USGS 2013, entire). Our Response: The proposed rule to mammalian predators of Gunnison sage- list the species stated that there have grouse and some birds may be Walker and Naugle (2011, p. 140) predicted that West Nile virus outbreaks been no confirmed avian mortalities controlled. Nevertheless, predator from West Nile virus in San Miguel, control efforts will likely only be in small, isolated, and genetically depauperate populations could reduce Dolores, and Hinsdale Counties (78 FR effective under special circumstances 2519, January 11, 2013). For updates in (see our response to comment 48). sage-grouse numbers below a threshold from which recovery is unlikely because the final rule, we revisited records from (94) Comment: Some commenters of limited or nonexistent demographic the Centers for Disease Control (USGS believed that raptor concentrations and genetic exchange from adjacent 2013, entire) for West Nile reports in associated with powerlines are not populations. Therefore, a West Nile Colorado and Utah. Those records evidence of increased predation on virus outbreak in any Gunnison sage- indicate that a total of 84 dead wild Gunnison sage-grouse, and that perch grouse population, except perhaps the birds (species other than Gunnison sage- deterrents are not successful over the Gunnison Basin population, could limit grouse) infected by West Nile virus have long-term. One commenter provided a the persistence of that population. This been reported from nine counties within paper that summarized studies information is discussed further in the current range of the Gunnison sage- regarding sage-grouse and powerlines Factor C of this final rule. grouse since 2002, when reporting (EDM International, Inc. 2011). (97) Comment: One commenter stated began in Colorado and Utah. In this Our Response: In the proposed and that Sovada et al. (1995) does not final rule we conclude that West Nile final rules, we present numerous peer- support the assertion that red fox and virus is a future threat to Gunnison sage- reviewed studies that have corvid populations are increasing. grouse (see Factor C). demonstrated an increase in corvids and Our Response: We removed this (101) Comment: Several commenters raptors associated with powerlines and citation from the final rule, because the stated that conservation easements, transmission lines, which we infer study is not relevant to our analysis. CCAs, and CCAAs protect Gunnison could logically lead to increased Our proposed rule, in error, stated that sage-grouse, either directly or through predation of sage-grouse. We discuss Sovada et al. (1995, p. 5) found that ‘‘red protection of sagebrush habitat. Varying these topics further under Factors A fox and corvids, which historically were estimates of lands under conservation (Powerlines) and E (Predation) in this rare in the sagebrush landscape, have easements were provided, with most final rule. increased in association with human commenters citing the properties and (95) Comment: Some commenters altered landscapes.’’ However, the acreages identified in Lohr and Gray suggested that the risk from the parasite author only speculated that abundance (2013). Other commenters provided Tryptmosoma cruzi and the encephalitis of these species had increased in estimates of lands enrolled in the virus should be investigated. sagebrush habitats over time. In this CCAA. Another commenter noted that Our Response: In Factor C of this final final rule, we discuss how 17.4 percent of all private lands in both rule we evaluate the best available anthropogenic pressures can influence occupied and unoccupied proposed information on diseases in Gunnison the diversity and density of predators critical habitat are protected through sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse, based on other studies (see Factor C). either conservation easements or including West Nile virus, an (98) Comment: One commenter stated CCAAs. Since 1995, a commenter encephalitis virus lethal to greater sage- that predation threats to Gunnison sage- reported, private landowners, local, and grouse and other gallinaceous birds. We grouse cannot be presumed to be similar State expenditures towards Gunnison also discuss other pathogens potentially to predation threats to greater sage- sage-grouse conservation exceed $31 relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse, based grouse. million. on data provided by CPW. We are not Our Response: In the proposed and Our Response: We applaud these aware of other scientific information final rules, we use the best available efforts towards Gunnison sage-grouse related to disease in Gunnison sage- scientific and commercial data. We also conservation. Continuation of grouse. To our knowledge, note that we use information specific to conservation efforts across the species’ Tryptmosoma cruzi is a disease endemic the Gunnison sage-grouse where range will be necessary for conservation to Latin America and does not pose a available but still applied scientific and recovery of the species. threat to sage-grouse. management principles for greater sage- Conservation easements and CCAAs

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69222 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

provide some level of protection for the Ungulate Herbivory), we revise our acre development and projects (see species from future development on language to state that we have more Factor D, Local Laws and Regulations). enrolled lands. In this final rule, we add limited information on the extent of (108) Comment: Some commenters information provided in Lohr and Gray grazing, management, and habitat suggested that a PECE analysis should (2013), update estimates for lands conditions on non-Federal lands. be conducted. enrolled in CCAAs and conservation Although Federal land and livestock Our Response: Our Policy for easements, and consider these grazing may be more regulated, we Evaluation of Conservation Efforts conservation efforts in our listing cannot make any generalizations about (PECE) is used by the Service when decision as appropriate (see Factors A how habitat conditions in those areas making listing decisions under the Act. and D). might compare with private lands where It established criteria for determining (102) Comment: Several commenters livestock grazing occurs. We note, when we can consider in our listing asserted that the current regulations are however, that grazing allotments determination future formalized either adequate or inadequate to address containing both Federal and private conservation efforts that have not yet threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse. lands are, in some cases, managed to been implemented, or have been Our Response: There have been major meet BLM land health standards implemented, but have not yet strides in improving regulations to through coordination and cooperation demonstrated whether they are effective protect Gunnison sage-grouse and its with grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, at the time of the listing decision. habitat. Examples include Gunnison p. 1–2). Numerous conservation actions have and Montrose County regulations for (105) Comment: Some commenters already been implemented for Gunnison land use permitting in occupied habitat. noted that as a designated ‘‘sensitive sage-grouse, and these efforts have Nonetheless, for the reasons stated in species’’ the BLM must address provided and will continue to provide Factor D of this rule, existing regulatory Gunnison sage-grouse conservation in conservation benefit to the species. mechanisms currently do not fully their Resource Management Plans and These implemented efforts are address the threat of habitat decline associated activity plans. considered in the appropriate section of caused by human development in the Our Response: We acknowledge that this rule. Additionally, there are species range. In addition, under the the commenter is correct (see Factor D, recently formalized future conservation Act, the adequacy or inadequacy of Federal Laws and Regulations). efforts that intend to provide regulatory mechanisms is just one of (106) Comment: Some commenters conservation benefits to the Gunnison several factors upon which our stated that the COGCC protects wildlife sage-grouse; some of which have not determination to list a species must be resources and their habitat. been fully implemented or shown to be based. As described in the proposed and effective. A PECE analysis was final rules, there are multiple other Our Response: The COGCC conducted by the Service for these threats contributing to the species’ implements several environmental decline rangewide. Therefore, even the regulations that provide protection to conservation efforts that are too recent most protective local regulations may be the Gunnison sage-grouse and its to have demonstrated effectiveness as of insufficient to address all threats to the habitat. These regulations generally this listing determination. This is species, or halt recent declines in many apply to both Federal and private lands, described further under Conservation of the populations, such that protection although they may conflict with Federal Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat of the species under the Act is not regulations in some cases. The COGCC Conservation. Efforts that are considered warranted. In Factor D of this final rule, classifies all Gunnison sage-grouse regulatory are considered under Factor we evaluate the best available occupied habitat as ‘‘Sensitive Wildlife D of this rule. information related to existing Habitat’’ that requires operators to: (1) (109) Comment: Two commenters regulatory mechanisms that address Consult with CPW to evaluate options stated that the BLM and USFS must threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and its for minimizing adverse habitat impacts, modify all existing leases and permit habitat (Factors A through C, and E). (2) educate employees and contractors allotments in Gunnison sage-grouse (103) Comment: Several commenters on conservation practices, (3) habitat to incorporate enforceable terms stated that the Service should discuss consolidate new facilities to minimize and conditions to protect the species. existing land use policies and regulatory disturbance, (4) control road access and Our Response: Current BLM RMPs mechanisms with local governments. limit traffic, and (5) monitor wells and USFS LRMPs provide some Our Response: The Service has been remotely when possible. The COGCC regulatory protection for the species. engaged with Federal agencies, the also designates lek areas as ‘‘Restricted Changes to grazing allotment States of Colorado and Utah, the Ute Surface Occupancy Areas’’ that requires management have occurred, consistent Mountain Ute Tribe, affected counties, operators to: (1) Comply with all with existing RMPs, over the past 10 and other interested parties throughout requirements for ‘‘Sensitive Wildlife years as permits have been revised or the listing process via letters, emails, Habitat’’ and (2) avoid all new ground- renewed. The extent to which telephone calls, meetings, and other disturbing activities if feasible. The appropriate measures to reduce or means. Verbal and written comments COGCC does not require these eliminate other threats to the species have been carefully considered and in protections in unoccupied habitat have been incorporated into planning many instances incorporated into this (COGCC 2014). We discuss COGCC documents or are being implemented, final rule. regulations in this final rule (see Factor varies across the species’ range and will (104) Comment: Some commenters D, State Laws and Regulations). likely continue to evolve as a result of noted that resources on private lands are (107) Comment: Some commenters BLM’s on-going revision of several not managed to a lesser standard than noted that parcels of 35 ac (14 ha) or RMPs in the species’ range and its resources on Federal lands. more are not exempted from State or planned landscape-level, targeted RMP Our Response: These comments may county oversight. amendments for the conservation of have been referring to our assessment of Our Response: We include this Gunnison sage-grouse on BLM- private lands in the grazing section of information in this final rule, and administered public lands in Colorado the proposed rule. In this final rule (see acknowledge that counties have and Utah (see Factor D, Federal Laws Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild regulatory controls applicable to plus-35 and Regulations).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69223

(110) Comment: Some commenters permitting or funding), the Service does are active within occupied habitat and noted that although conservation not intend to preclude mineral or fossil 18 additional active wells are easements are voluntary, they are legally fuel extraction as a result of listing or immediately adjacent to occupied binding once they have been recorded; designating critical habitat. As noted in habitat. All of these wells are in or near therefore, they may offer regulatory our response to comment 106, the the Dry Creek subpopulation. In this protection. One commenter stated that COGCC implements several final rule we consider the development voluntary conservation measures do not environmental regulations on both of leasable minerals such as oil and gas constitute adequate regulatory Federal and private lands that provide a low threat to the species (see Factor A, mechanisms if they are not enforceable some protection to the Gunnison sage- Mineral Development). and are not rangewide. grouse and occupied habitat. The BLM (117) Comment: Two commenters Our Response: We consider generally requires conservation suggested that energy companies could conservation easements to be an measures on leases it issues. We may contribute money for Gunnison sage- effective regulatory tool for the also seek project modifications during grouse conservation. conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse, section 7 consultations to benefit Our Response: Energy companies that to the extent that they permanently limit Gunnison sage-grouse. pursue development in Gunnison sage- or restrict land uses for identified (114) Comment: Some commenters grouse habitat must follow stipulations conservation values and purposes and suggested that wind energy provided in the applicable BLM RMP (if prevent long-term or permanent habitat development should be allowed to Federal minerals are involved) and loss (see Factor D, Other Regulatory proceed. comply with applicable COGCC Mechanisms: Conservation Easements). Our Response: The Endangered regulations. The annual costs associated Other conservation efforts such as the Species Act contains provisions to allow with required conservation efforts CCA and CCAA are not considered development projects to go forward represent a contribution by energy regulatory mechanisms; and are even if they are within critical habitat or companies. therefore evaluated in Factor A, could result in take of a listed species, (118) Comment: One commenter Conservation Programs and Efforts if those projects are done in accordance suggested that energy development is Related to Habitat Protection. with sections 7 and 10 of the Act. For not a threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse (111) Comment: One commenter a discussion of wind energy because: (1) There is not adequate suggested that the Land and Water development as a threat to the species, information to indicate that renewable Conservation Fund could be used to see discussion of Renewable Energy energy development is a threat, and (2) acquire Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Development in Factor A. impacts from non-renewable energy Our Response: We agree that this (115) Comment: Some commenters development are very localized. would be a reasonable expenditure for expressed concern that potash mining in Our Response: We do not consider the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat may cease renewable energy development to be a However, there is a backlog of Federal operations if the species is listed or threat to the species at this time (see land acquisition needs, estimated at critical habitat designated. RM Potash Factor A, Renewable Energy more than $30 billion, which could expressed concerns that listing may Development). As noted in our impede timely use of the Fund for this delay their project (Thorson 2013). responses to comment 116, we consider purpose. Our Response: Potash exploration is the development of non-renewable (112) Comment: One commenter planned on BLM lands within Gunnison energy (leasable minerals) a low threat asserted that conservation agreements sage-grouse unoccupied habitat in San to the species (see Factor A, Mineral are a violation of Federal and State Miguel and Dolores Counties. The BLM Development). constitutions. requires operators to adopt conservation (119) Comment: One commenter Our Response: Conservation efforts specified in the RMP for this asked if power companies will be able agreements have been successfully used area. These conservation efforts are to clear sagebrush under their power by Federal and State agencies for several required with or without listing the lines. years to improve the status of many species under the Act. When the species Our Response: The Endangered wildlife species and their habitats; we is listed and critical habitat is Species Act contains provisions to allow are not aware of any instances where designated, section 7 consultation will projects to go forward even if they are they have been found to be also be required. The amount of time within habitat, critical habitat or could unconstitutional, nor do we have any necessary to complete a section 7 result in take of a listed species, if those reason to believe that they are consultation will vary depending on the projects are done in accordance with unconstitutional. complexity of the project and the sections 7 and 10 of the Act. Listed (113) Comment: Several commenters anticipated level of impacts to the species, both within and outside of stated that oil and gas companies may species. In this final rule we consider critical habitat, are protected from take, cease operations if the Gunnison sage- the development of leasable minerals which includes harming (e.g., shooting, grouse is listed or critical habitat is such as potash a low threat to the killing, trapping, collecting) and designated for the species. Some species (see Factor A, Mineral harassing individual animals. Incidental commenters asserted that they have Development). take that may result from, but is not the been unable to lease their mineral rights (116) Comment: Two commenters purpose of, otherwise legal activities as a result of the anticipated listing of stated that oil and gas development without a Federal nexus may be allowed the species. Several commenters also threatens some Gunnison sage-grouse with a permit available from the Service noted that a large percentage of county populations in San Miguel County. under section 10 of the Act. Pursuant to revenues in Dolores and Montezuma Our Response: Approximately 13 section 7 of the Act, Federal agencies Counties are from oil and gas activities. percent of occupied habitat within the are also required to consult with the Our Response: While restrictions may San Miguel Basin population has Service regarding any action authorized, be placed on various types of authorized Federal leases for oil and gas funded, or carried out by the agency that development that are subject to development; production is currently may affect a listed species, both within consultation under section 7 of the Act occurring on approximately five percent and outside of critical habitat, to ensure (on Federal lands or with Federal of this lease area. Currently, 25 gas wells that the Federal action does not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69224 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

jeopardize the existence of any listed (122) Comment: One commenter significant, it can be evaluated with species. Sagebrush clearing under asserted that the Federal government regard to whether it is endangered or power lines would likely need to be has put an end to oil and gas drilling threatened. This analysis is different addressed, and effects minimized, throughout the range of the Gunnison from an SPR (Significant Portion of the through section 7 or 10 of the Act. sage-grouse. Range) analysis. We considered the (120) Comment: One commenter Our Response: Of approximately entire range of the Gunnison sage-grouse suggested that leks in areas of energy 22,000 ha (54,000 ac) leased by BLM in our listing evaluation and found that development be relocated. within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in it warranted listing throughout its range; Our Response: Relocating leks is Colorado, 38 percent are currently in therefore, there was no need to evaluate likely not in the best interest of the production, with 67 active wells. In individual population segments for species. Sage-grouse often will continue Utah, approximately 1,100 ha (2,700 ac) consideration as a DPS. In addition, we to return to altered breeding habitats are leased within Gunnison sage-grouse do not believe any biological evidence including leks, nesting areas, and early habitat, with none currently in warrants the listing of any DPS. brood-rearing areas due to the species’ production. On non-Federal lands there (125) Comment: Several commenters strong site fidelity, despite past nesting are five active wells in Colorado and stated that the proposed rules rely too or productivity failures (Rogers 1964, three active wells in Utah (Industrial much on the use of linguistically pp. 35–40; Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, Economics, Inc. 2013, p. 5–4). Since uncertain or vague wording to support p. 666; Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon 2000, 2005, the BLM has temporarily withheld their conclusions. p. 20; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 3–4–3– new oil and gas leases from sales Our Response: Natural sciences, 6; Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. 747). throughout occupied Gunnison sage- including wildlife biology, typically do Broad-scale characteristics within grouse habitat in Colorado. However, not deal in absolutes. Studies seldom surrounding landscapes influence leases can be sold on unoccupied evaluate all members of a species or habitat selection, and adult Gunnison habitat, and oil and gas development address all possible variables. sage-grouse exhibit a high fidelity to all continues on private lands. Consequently, conclusions often seasonal habitats, resulting in low (123) Comment: Several commenters include wording to address this adaptability to habitat changes. A study stated that voluntary conservation uncertainty. Tools such as adaptive of greater sage-grouse concluded that measures and local regulations should management can strengthen the strong site fidelity makes natural re- be fully considered. decision-making process by colonization slow and that Our Response: We agree. Local incorporating new information and anthropogenic translocations into areas regulations and voluntary conservation adjusting decisions accordingly. This with no resident populations are measures such as conservation has occurred with the Gunnison sage- unlikely to succeed (Doherty 2008, pp. easements, CCAAs, and CCAs provide grouse––as more information has 80–81). We believe that this conclusion formal protection for the Gunnison sage- become available, we have adjusted and applies to the Gunnison sage-grouse as grouse. We recognize that such efforts refined our recommendations from the well because it exhibits similar site contribute to the conservation of proposed to the final rule. fidelity characteristics. Gunnison sage-grouse. Under Factor D (126) Comment: One commenter (121) Comment: One commenter we evaluate whether threats to the stated that if a stressor is not a threat; stated that information regarding Gunnison sage-grouse are adequately the regulatory mechanisms associated impacts from energy development is addressed by existing regulatory with that stressor cannot be considered based on studies of greater sage-grouse mechanisms, including local a threat. rather than Gunnison sage-grouse. regulations, conservation easements, Our Response: We agree. For example, Our Response: There is more State regulations, and Federal if hunting is not considered a threat, information available specific to greater regulations. CCAAs and CCAs are then the regulations associated with sage-grouse due to the fact that discussed under Factor A, Conservation hunting would not be considered Gunnison sage-grouse was not Programs and Efforts Related to habitat inadequate. In other instances, it may recognized as a distinct species until Protection. not be possible to adequately address a 2000, which means only 14 years of (124) Comment: Several commenters threat through regulatory mechanisms species-specific research is potentially stated that the DPS analysis needs to be (e.g., small population size, disease, available. The greater sage-grouse also described in more detail for the seven climate change). We also recognize that has a much broader range, with several Gunnison sage-grouse populations. regulatory mechanisms may help reduce states monitoring and managing the Our Response: The term ‘‘distinct impacts of a particular threat (e.g., species. The life history and ecology of population segment’’ (DPS) is included residential development in Gunnison the two species are very similar, in the definition of species in Section County), and yet not fully address this therefore, with minimal information 3(16) of the Act, which describes a DPS or other threats to the species. available regarding impacts to Gunnison as any species of vertebrate fish or (127) Comment: Two commenters sage-grouse from energy development, it wildlife which interbreeds when asserted that tribal concerns have not is reasonable to also consider impacts to mature. We have a policy that guides been addressed. greater sage-grouse from energy our consideration of DPS issues. In Our Response: We have considered development when determining addition to full taxonomic species and tribal concerns in this final rule. The whether or not this development is a subspecies, a DPS of any vertebrate Service underwent a Government to threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse. In species is eligible for consideration for Government consultation with the Ute this final rule we do not consider purposes of listing, delisting, or Mountain Ute Tribe regarding the renewable energy development to be a reclassifying. The authority to list a DPS Species Management Plan developed for current threat to the species rangewide; is to be used sparingly and only when the tribal-owned Pinecrest Ranch. This we consider non-renewable energy the biological evidence indicates that topic is discussed in detail in Factor A development to be a threat of low such action is warranted. In order to be (Conservation Programs and Efforts) of magnitude to Gunnison sage-grouse (see considered a DPS, a population must be this final rule. Factor A, Mineral Development and both discrete and significant. If a (128) Comment: Some commenters Renewable Energy Development). population segment is discrete and asserted that initial town hall meetings

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69225

were not conducted properly because no abundance, threats, and current transportation corridors in this final public meetings were held in conservation strategies for the species. rule. We conclude that none of these Montezuma County, there was a faulty (131) Comment: Some commenters posed a threat to the species (see Factor sound system, too short of a time-frame recommended that a range management E, Pesticides and Herbicides). for the meeting, poor coordination, and school be created to address Gunnison (136) Comment: One commenter some comments were not recorded. sage-grouse and other issues. stated that Gunnison sage-grouse are in Our Response: No public meetings Our Response: In 2006, the Gunnison an extinction vortex. were held in Montezuma County County Stockgrowers’ Association, Our Response: ‘‘Extinction vortex’’ is because no critical habitat was proposed supported by a Grazing Lands a modeling term that describes the in that county, nor is the species known Conservation Initiative Grant, organized process in a declining population where to occur in that area. We apologize to a training workshop, called Range greater rates of decline occur as the anyone who experienced difficulties in Management School, for 37 participants population falls below a minimum hearing the discussions, did not feel that including private ranchers, permittees viable number and approaches adequate time was provided, or felt of Federal grazing allotments, Federal extinction. This final rule evaluates there was poor coordination between land managers, and other interested population trends across the range of the Service and local governments. In parties. We support this type of the Gunnison sage-grouse. We November, 2013, additional public educational program. determined that this species is hearings were held in Gunnison and (132) Comment: Two commenters threatened (i.e., likely to become an Montrose, Colorado; and in Monticello, suggested that a classification of endangered species within the Utah to ensure that we provided ‘‘threatened’’ is a better approach than foreseeable future throughout all of its adequate opportunity for public a classification of ‘‘endangered.’’ range). However, we do not believe that comment to occur through our hearing Our Response: Based upon the the species is at this time in an process. In addition, written comments analysis of additional data and new ‘‘extinction vortex,’’ which implies that were accepted during the reopened information received during the extinction is inevitable. comment periods. These processes are comment period, we have concluded (137) Comment: One commenter discussed in Previous Federal Actions that ‘‘threatened’’ is the appropriate stated that the number of off-highway in this final rule. determination. Our analysis and a vehicle (OHV) permits issued is not a (129) Comment: Two commenters detailed explanation for this good indication of the level of OHV use. asserted that the Service’s decision- determination are presented in this final Our Response: The proposed and final making process for listing is influenced rule (see Determination). rules note that the number of annual by the International Union for (133) Comment: One commenter OHV registrations in Colorado increased Conservation of Nature (IUCN). stated that snowmobiling does not from approximately 12,000 in 1991 to Our Response: The IUCN does not conflict with lek activities because approximately 131,000 in 2007 (see influence our decision-making process. snowmobiling season ends before lek Factor E, Recreation). This information We provided information on IUCN’s activities begin and snowmobiling is provided simply to note that OHV ranking of the species for background requires snow depths adequate to bury activity has increased. Although other only; these assessments are not factored sagebrush. factors also should be considered in into our analysis or listing Our Response: Snowmobiling was determining the level of use by OHVs, determination in this rule. We make this evaluated as a recreational activity an increase of more than an order of clarification in this final rule (see under Factor E in the proposed rule to magnitude in registrations from 1991 to Additional Special Status Information). list the species. We cited several sources 2007 indicates that the level of use (130) Comment: One commenter that identified snowmobiles as one form increased during that time period. We suggested that the RCP not be of recreation that may be of concern. In conclude that recreation does not pose considered in the listing decision this final rule we conclude that a rangewide threat to the species, because of its questionable legality and recreational activities in general are not although it has the potential to cause methodology. a threat at a rangewide or population individual or local impacts. Our Response: We believe that the level, but could impact individuals at (138) Comment: One commenter RCP used sound methods which the local level (see Factor B). stated that aircraft-wildlife strikes pose constituted the best available (134) Comment: Two commenters a risk to aviation. information at the time. The RCP suggested that overutilization for Our Response: We are not aware of specifically states that it is not a legal or scientific research may be a factor in any studies or information regulatory document (GSRSC 2005, Gunnison sage-grouse declines. demonstrating that Gunnison sage- p. 1). Accordingly, we do not consider Our Response: We describe mortality grouse collisions with aircraft have it a regulatory mechanism, but do risks from scientific research in the occurred or are a concern. consider it in Factor A as a Conservation proposed and final rules to list the (139) Comment: One commenter Program and Effort. The plan was species and conclude that the associated stated that a recovery plan is needed. developed cooperatively by the BLM, mortality rate is low (two percent) and Our Response: Recovery Plans are CPW, NPS, NRCS, USFS, the Service, is not a threat at the population or typically drafted after a species is listed and UDWR. It was intended to species level (see Factor B). and provide guidance for recovery of supplement local conservation plans (135) Comment: One commenter threatened and endangered species and and provide additional guidance to aid asserted that chemicals used in the ecosystems upon which they in conservation of the Gunnison sage- households and farming have affected depend. Section 4(f)(1) of the Act grouse. New research and monitoring Gunnison sage-grouse habitat more than requires the Service to develop and data has been collected since the plan other factors. implement these plans unless a plan was written; however, we still regard Our Response: We evaluate the effects will not promote the conservation of a this as a valuable document. In many of pesticides, contaminants associated species. Recovery plans should include: instances it provides the best available with non-renewable energy Management actions to conserve the information regarding habitat development, and accidental spills species; objective, measurable criteria requirements, distribution and associated with pipelines and for determining when a species can be

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69226 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

removed from the list; and an estimate (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2013, p. 4– design, size, location, and other factors, of the time and cost required to achieve 5). powerlines can directly affect greater recovery. We anticipate commencing a (143) Comment: One commenter sage-grouse by posing a collision and recovery planning process in the near stated that wind farms are compatible electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, pp. future. Until that time, we are including with CRP, and wildlife protection. 145–146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974) a conservation strategy (see Our Response: The compatibility of and can have indirect effects by Conservation Measures for Gunnison wind farms with CRP as they relate to decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. Sage-Grouse Recovery) in this rule that Gunnison sage-grouse, and wildlife 2002, p. 10; Walker et al. 2007a, p. will provide guidance for conservation protection would vary for each site, 2,644), increasing predation (Connelly efforts in the interim. depending on the protective measures et al. 2004, p. 13–12), fragmenting (140) Comment: Several commenters in place for wildlife, the location and habitat (Braun 1998, p. 146), and noted specific ongoing projects or number of turbines, the type of facilitating the invasion of exotic annual programs that improve Gunnison sage- vegetative cover, and other variables. plants (Knick et al. 2003, p 612; grouse habitat. (144) Comment: One commenter Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25) (see Our Response: We considered the stated that no explanation was provided Factor A, Powerlines). However, we projects and programs noted by the for why Gunnison sage-grouse are no have no information to precisely longer found in Arizona and New commenters in making our listing measure how powerlines and Mexico. determination and finalizing this rule. transmission lines vary in design or Our Response: We note in the Under Factors A and D in the proposed distribution across the range of proposed and final rules that a Gunnison sage-grouse, and how those and final rules to list the species, we description of the species’ historical describe many of the conservation effects might vary across time and distribution was provided in the 2010 space. measures including local, State and 12-month finding. In the 12-month Federal laws and regulations, (147) Comment: One commenter finding, we state that much of what was asserted that the proposed rules conservation easements, the Gunnison once Gunnison sage-grouse habitat was Basin CCA, and enrollment in the dismissed information provided by lost prior to 1958 (75 FR 59808, CPW. Colorado CCAA that have been September 28, 2010). This included undertaken to improve or protect Our Response: In the proposed and habitat loss throughout Arizona and final rules, we consider all information Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. New Mexico, as well as portions of Utah (141) Comment: Some commenters provided by CPW, and reference that and Colorado. We summarize this information as appropriate throughout suggested that the Service collaborate information in the Background and with the Colorado Farm Bureau (CFB) in the rules. Factor A sections of this final rule. (148) Comment: One commenter Gunnison sage-grouse management. (145) Comment: One commenter recommended citing Davis (2012) Our Response: We welcome input and asserted that there is no evidence of regarding nest success. participation from the CFB and other Gunnison sage-grouse movement from Our Response: In this final rule (see organizations. We received a comment Gunnison Basin to other populations. Factor E, Effective Population Size and letter from CFB that encouraged Our Response: Both the Cerro Population Viability Analyses), we continued collaboration between the Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and include a thorough discussion and Service, private landowners, local and Crawford populations are approximately evaluation of Davis’s (2012) findings, state governments, and others. We agree 2 km (1.2 mi) from the Gunnison Basin including observed differences in nest that working cooperatively with population at their nearest points, success between populations. interested parties will aid in which is well within movement (149) Comment: Several commenters conservation and recovery of the distances documented for Gunnison stated that we should not interfere in Gunnison sage-grouse. sage-grouse. Sage-grouse require a CPW’s management of Gunnison sage- (142) Comment: One commenter diversity of seasonal habitats and are grouse. stated that when landowners enroll wide-ranging; therefore, they are Our Response: We recognize the lands in the Conservation Reserve capable of making large seasonal proactive management of Gunnison Program (CRP) they often stop movements (Connelly et al. 2000a). sage-grouse by CPW and continue to maintaining ponds and wet meadows to Preliminary data in the Gunnison Basin work with this agency for the species’ the detriment of Gunnison sage-grouse. documented bird movements as great as conservation. However, our analysis in Our Response: We are not aware of 56 km (35 mi) (Phillips 2013, p. 4). Most this final rule indicates that Gunnison any information regarding the extent of populations are currently geographically sage-grouse meets the definition of a ponds and wet meadows lost following isolated, with low amounts of gene flow threatened species; therefore, we must enrollment in the CRP. We consider between populations. However, genetic list it under the Act. enrolled lands, particularly those analysis indicated that a recent migrant (150) Comment: One commenter enrolled under the CRP State Acres for came to the Crawford population from noted that historical Gunnison sage- Wildlife Enhancement initiative, to the Gunnison Basin population; grouse habitat on BLM land in the Sims improve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat historically, populations were Mesa area has been severely damaged by in most cases. The CRP is implemented connected through more contiguous sagebrush removal. by the Farm Service Agency and areas of sagebrush habitat (Oyler- Our Response: Sagebrush removal on promotes the conversion of McCance et al. 2005). Sims Mesa may have contributed to the environmentally sensitive land to long- (146) Comment: One commenter one known lek there being currently term vegetative cover. The objectives of recommended that we distinguish inactive. Sage-grouse have an obligate the program include reduction of soil between smaller distribution power relationship with sagebrush. The erosion, protection of water resources, lines and larger transmission power original distribution of sage-grouse and enhancement of wildlife habitat. lines when assessing impacts and closely followed that of sagebrush. Loss, Approximately 23,000 ha (57,000 ac) of planning mitigation. fragmentation, and degradation of this Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat Our Response: This final rule states habitat is a major threat and a primary are currently enrolled in the CRP that depending on the infrastructure reason for listing the species and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69227

designating critical habitat. If alteration proposed rules to list the Gunnison information in analyzing the five factors of sagebrush habitat continues, remnant sage-grouse and to designate critical identified in section 4(a)(1) of the populations may become extirpated. habitat for the species. We received Endangered Species Act to determine (151) Comment: One commenter numerous comments back from these whether Gunnison sage-grouse meets noted that there is not adequate data individuals; some in agreement, some the definition of an endangered or available to determine whether recent disagreements, and many suggestions threatened species. declines of Gunnison sage-grouse for improving the proposed rules. A. The Present or Threatened observed by Davis (2012) in the Substantive comments are discussed Destruction, Modification, or Gunnison Basin are short-term above in the Peer Reviewer Comment Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range population fluctuations or the beginning section. We considered all of these of a long-term decline. comments and incorporated many of In this section, we evaluate various Our Response: We agree. This concern their suggestions into this final rule. factors influencing the decline of supports the importance of continued (155) Comment: One commenter sagebrush and important sage-grouse monitoring and conservation of expressed concern that hang gliding and habitats. The term habitat decline Gunnison sage-grouse populations. This paragliding could be impacted by includes any quantitative or qualitative study is discussed and evaluated in listing. degradation of habitat by area, structure, detail in Factor E of this final rule. We Our Response: In this final rule, we function, or composition (Noss et al. believe, however, that the threat from conclude that recreational activities are 1995, pp. 2, 17). In this rule, we residential development in the not a threat at a rangewide or collectively refer to habitat loss, Gunnison Basin will increase in the population level, but could impact the degradation, and fragmentation as future. Habitat fragmentation and species at a local level (see Factor E, ‘habitat decline’. There are varying disturbance from new roads, Recreation). Nevertheless, for those interpretations of the term habitat powerlines, fences, and other projects and activities with a Federal decline, and various methods for infrastructure are also likely to increase nexus, project and activity measuring or evaluating it. In this rule, (see Factor A). Additionally, climate modifications may be requested by the we apply the following general concepts change is likely to increase the threats Service through the section 7 and definitions to our analysis. Habitat from drought and West Nile Virus in the consultation process to limit impacts on loss or destruction (such as sagebrush future (discussed further in Factors A, Gunnison sage-grouse, as necessary. conversion) includes the permanent or C, and E). Thus, these future threats (156) Comment: One commenter long-term reduction of habitat and must be considered along with the noted that most of the mineral generally occurs at smaller scales. results of the Davis (2012) study. ownership is severed from surface Habitat degradation includes the (152) Comment: One commenter ownership within the range of the reduction of habitat quality or asked if grazing will be considered Gunnison sage-grouse. characteristics and generally occurs at ‘‘take.’’ Our Response: In this final rule we smaller scales. Habitat fragmentation, or Our Response: Whether a particular note that the BLM has regulatory the breaking apart of contiguous habitat, activity will result in ‘‘take’’ is authority for oil and gas leasing on occurs at larger or landscape scales, determined on a case-by-case basis. Federal lands and on private lands with often as the result of cumulative loss Grazing practices that could result in split-estate, or Federal mineral estate and degradation of habitat over space take can be addressed through ESA (see Factor D, Federal Laws and and time. In this final rule, we provide section 7 or section 10 processes as Regulations). information indicating each of these processes has occurred across Gunnison applicable, including appropriate Summary of Factors Affecting the sage-grouse range, though those review under the terms of the Gunnison Species Basin Candidate Conservation processes may vary over time and space. Agreement. Section 4 of the Endangered Species Consequently, effects at the individual, (153) Comment: Some commenters Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its population, and species levels due to noted that all of the affected county implementing regulations at 50 CFR part habitat decline are variable and not governments have taken the following 424, set forth the procedures for adding always certain. actions: species to the Federal Lists of Habitat loss and fragmentation are • Participation in a Memorandum of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife recognized as primary causes of the Understanding, and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the decline in abundance and distribution • Signatories to the Conservation Act, we may list a species based on any of sage-grouse across western North Agreement, of the following five factors: (A) The America (Rogers 1964, pp. 13–24; Braun • Formally committed to adopting a present or threatened destruction, 1998, entire; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. Habitat Prioritization Tool, which will modification, or curtailment of its 371), and in Gunnison sage-grouse in better predict preferred habitat for the habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Colorado, Utah, and across their former species, and commercial, recreational, scientific, or range (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. • Formally committed to updating educational purposes; (C) disease or 330; GSRSC 2005, p. 149; Wisdom et al. and adopting an amended Rangewide predation; (D) the inadequacy of 2011, pp. 465–469). Gunnison sage- Conservation Plan. existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) grouse depend on sagebrush for their Our Response: We considered this other natural or manmade factors survival and persistence, and the information in this final rule (see Factor affecting the species’ continued historic and current distribution of the D, Local Laws and Regulations). existence. Listing actions may be Gunnison sage-grouse closely matches (154) Comment: Some commenters warranted based on any of the above that of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 9; asserted that many of the peer review threat factors, singly or in combination. Braun 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, comments do not support listing. Below, we carefully assess the best p. 364, and references therein). Habitat Our Response: We requested scientific and commercial information fragmentation resulting from human comments from appropriate and available regarding the past, present, development patterns is especially independent individuals with scientific and future threats to Gunnison sage- detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse expertise based on their review of the grouse. We consider all such because of their dependence on large

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69228 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

expanses of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, or 13,680,590 ac (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32– However, the authors noted that the p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–1; 35, as adapted from Schroeder et al. estimate of historic sagebrush area used Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 72) and more 2004, entire). This range included parts in their analyses was conservative, contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers of central and southwestern Colorado, possibly resulting in an underestimate 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. southeastern Utah, northwestern New of historic sagebrush losses (Boyle and 452–453). In addition, female Gunnison Mexico, and northeastern Arizona Reeder 2005, p. 3–4). Within the range and greater sage-grouse exhibit strong (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368, 370). of Gunnison sage-grouse, the principal site fidelity to nesting locations However, only a portion of this areas of sagebrush loss were in the (Connelly et al. 1988; Young 1994; Lyon historical range would have been Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, and 2000, Connelly et al. 2004, Holloran and occupied at any one time. The species’ areas near Dove Creek, Colorado. The Anderson 2005, Thompson 2012). Sage- estimated current range is 1,822 square authors point out, however, that the rate grouse often will continue to return to miles, or 1,166,075 ac, in central and of loss in the Gunnison Basin was lower altered breeding habitats (leks, nesting southwestern Colorado, and than other areas of sagebrush areas, and early brood-rearing areas), southeastern Utah (Figure 1) (GSRSC distribution in Colorado. At that time, despite any past failures in nesting or 2005, pp. 32–35, as adapted from the Gunnison Basin contained productivity (Rogers 1964, pp. 35–40; Schroeder et al. 2004, entire). Based on approximately 250,000 ha (617,000 ac) Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666; these figures, the species’ current range of sagebrush and areas of riparian aspen Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon 2000, p. 20, represents approximately 8.5 percent of forest, mixed-conifer forest, and Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 3–4 to 3–6; its historical range (GSRSC 2005, p. 32). oakbrush (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3– Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. 747). Similarly, Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 371) 3). Within the portion of the Gunnison Consequently, there may be lags in the estimated the species’ current overall Basin currently occupied by Gunnison response of sage-grouse to development range to be 10 percent of potential sage-grouse, 170,000 ha (420,000 ac) is or habitat changes, similar to those presettlement habitat (prior to Euro- composed exclusively of sagebrush observed in other sagebrush obligate American settlement in the 1800s). As vegetation types, as derived from birds (Harju et al. 2010, entire; Wiens estimated in our final rule to designate Southwest Regional Gap Analysis and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse Project (SWReGAP) landcover data The distribution of sage-grouse habitat published elsewhere in today’s Federal (multi-season satellite imagery acquired is naturally disconnected due to the Register, the species’ current potential 1999–2001) (USGS 2004, entire). presence of unsuitable habitats such as range includes an estimated 1,621,008 Sagebrush habitats within the range of forests, deserts, and canyons across the ac in southwestern Colorado and Gunnison sage-grouse are becoming landscape (Rogers 1964, p. 19). southeastern Utah, comprised of increasingly fragmented as a result of However, the onset of Euro-American 923,314 ac (57 percent) of occupied various changes in land uses and the settlement in the 1800s resulted in habitat and 697,694 ac (43 percent) of expansion in the density and significant human alterations to unoccupied habitat. Based on these distribution of invasive plant species sagebrush ecosystems throughout North figures, the current potential range of (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, pp. 329– America, primarily as a result of 1,621,008 ac represents approximately 330; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 372). urbanization, agricultural conversion, 12 percent of the potential historic range Based on spatial modeling, a variety of and irrigation projects (West and Young of 13,680,640 ac. The estimates above human developments including roads, energy development, residential 2000, pp. 263–265; Miller et al. 2011, p. indicate that approximately 88 to 93 147). Areas in Colorado that supported development, and other factors known percent of the historical range of basin big sagebrush were among the first to cause habitat decline were correlated Gunnison sage-grouse has been lost sagebrush community types converted with historical loss of range and since Euro-American settlement. We to agriculture because their soils and extirpation of Gunnison and greater acknowledge that these estimates are topography are well-suited for sage-grouse (Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. uncertain and imprecise. Nevertheless, agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). 465–468). This model indicated that no the best available information indicates Decreases in the abundance of sage- ‘‘strongholds’’ (secure areas where the a reduction of Gunnison sage-grouse grouse paralleled the loss of range risk of extirpation appears low) of distribution since Euro-American (Braun 1998, pp. 2–3), and a gradual but occupied range are evident for settlement in the 1800s, with evidence marked decrease in sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse (Wisdom et al., distribution and numbers in Colorado of the loss of peripheral populations and 2011, p. 469). Landscapes containing had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, a northward and eastward trend of large and contiguous sagebrush patches pp. 20–22). Our listing decision is based extirpation (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. and sagebrush patches in close on the current status of Gunnison sage- 369, 371, and references therein). This proximity had an increased likelihood grouse and the current and future contraction in the birds’ range indicates of sage-grouse persistence (Wisdom et threats to the species and its habitat. the vulnerability of all the populations al. 2011, p. 462). However, the loss of historical range to extirpation. In this final rule, we discuss Wisdom and decline in abundance, and the In southwestern Colorado, between et al. (2011, entire) and its conclusions, associated causes of those declines, 1958 and 1993, an estimated 20 percent but do not use the term ‘‘stronghold.’’ have contributed to the species’ current (155,673 ha (384,676 ac)) of sagebrush Nevertheless, consistent with Wisdom precarious status. Further, historical was lost, and 37 percent of sagebrush et al. (2011, entire) and numerous other information can be evaluated to help plots examined were fragmented (Oyler- studies noted above, we maintain that forecast how populations and the McCance et al. 2001, p. 326). Another the persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse species may respond to current and study estimated that approximately is dependent on large and contiguous future threats. 342,000 ha (845,000 ac) of sagebrush, or sagebrush habitats, that human Based on historical records, museum 13 percent of the pre-Euro-American development and disturbance contribute specimens, and potential sagebrush settlement sagebrush extent, were lost in to the decline of this needed habitat, habitat distribution, the potential Colorado, which included both greater and that such impacts negatively affect historic range of Gunnison sage-grouse sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse the survival and persistence of was estimated to be 21,376 square miles, habitat (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3–3). Gunnison sage-grouse.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69229

The degree to which habitat or limiting seasonal habitats, such as adverse effects on Gunnison sage-grouse fragmentation prevents a species’ areas used during moderate to severe populations. Gunnison sage-grouse movement across the landscape winters, or in lekking, nesting, or brood- depend on sagebrush for their survival depends, in part, on that species’ ability rearing habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. 161). and persistence, and the historical and to move large distances and thereby The loss of leks or the decline of current distribution of the Gunnison adjust to changes on the landscape. nesting or brood-rearing habitats can sage-grouse closely matches that of Sage-grouse are wide-ranging and have serious consequences for sage- sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 9; Braun capable of making large seasonal grouse population viability by reducing 1987, p. 1; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364, movements, because they require a reproductive success and recruitment and references therein). Approximately diversity of seasonal habitats (Connelly (survival of young to breeding age). 88 to 93 percent of the species’ former et al. 2000a, pp. 968–969, and Limitations in the quality and quantity range has been lost since the 1800s (see references therein). Movements of of nesting and early brood-rearing discussion above), and much of the Gunnison sage-grouse as great as 56 km habitats, in particular, are especially remaining habitat is degraded or (35 mi) have been documented in the important because Gunnison sage- fragmented (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, Gunnison Basin (Phillips 2013, p. 4). In grouse population dynamics are most p. 326; Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, pp. contrast, the maximum recorded sensitive during these life-history stages 329–330; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 372; movement distance of Gunnison sage- (GSRSC 2005, p. G–15). Juvenile Wisdom et al., 2011, p. 469). Future grouse in the Monticello population is recruitment is one of the most important habitat loss will have greater impacts in 8.2 km (5.1 mi), associated with winter demographic factors influencing or seasonally important habitats and in movement (Ward 2007, p. 15). Prather limiting sage-grouse population growth smaller populations where available (2010, p. 70) noted that such behavior rates and viability (Connelly et al. 2004, habitat is already limited (GSRSC 2005, may be due to the presence of large p. 3–11, GSRSC 2005, p. 173). In a p. 161). As described later in this areas of pin˜ on-juniper (i.e., less suitable recent demographic and population section, many of the factors that result habitats) which bracket currently viability study of Gunnison sage-grouse, in habitat decline may be amplified by occupied habitat in the Monticello juvenile survival was found to be the the effects of climate change, thereby population area. most influential vital rate in the influencing long-term population Population dynamics of greater sage- Gunnison Basin population, which is trends. The following sections examine grouse in currently a relatively stable population factors that can result in or contribute to functioned at much smaller scales than (Davis 2012). habitat decline to evaluate whether expected for a species capable of Brood-rearing habitat must provide they, individually and cumulatively, moving large distances (Thompson adequate cover adjacent to areas rich in threaten Gunnison sage-grouse. 2012, p. 256). The majority of juvenile forbs and insects to assure chick dispersal was intra-population survival during this period (Connelly et Residential Development movement (within one breeding al. 2000a, p. 971; Connelly et al. 2004, In our proposed rule to list Gunnison population), with only one inter- p. 4–11). Late brood-rearing habitats sage-grouse as endangered (78 FR 2486, population movement (between separate (also referred to as summer-fall habitats) January 11, 2013), we determined breeding populations) observed during may include riparian areas, wet habitat loss and fragmentation from one study (Thompson 2012, p. 169). As meadows, and irrigated fields that residential development to be a a result, juvenile recruitment into home provide an abundance of forbs and principal threat to Gunnison sage-grouse breeding ranges ranged between 98 and insects for hens and chicks (Schroeder conservation. We received numerous 100 percent (Thompson 2012, p. 170). et al. 1999, p. 4; Connelly et al. 2000a, comments and new information from Based on observed bird dispersal in that p. 980). In northwest Colorado, the scientific community, government study, gene flow and connectivity can dispersal, migration, and settlement agencies, and other entities related to likely be maintained for populations patterns of juvenile greater sage- residential development in the range of within 5 to 10 km (most dispersals were grouse—factors important to population Gunnison sage-grouse. Many of the less than 10 km) and possibly as far as persistence—were more influenced by comments we received suggested that 20 km (the maximum dispersal distance limitations associated with local our initial analysis incorrectly applied of one of the subpopulations studied) in traditional breeding (lek) and brood- scientific and other information related greater sage-grouse (Thompson 2012, p. rearing areas than by landscape-level to residential development and its 285–286). The populations of greater vegetation structure and composition effects, likely overestimating its threat to sage-grouse studied were within areas (i.e., the spatial distribution and the species, particularly in relation to where birds are known for moving configuration of vegetation types) the Gunnison Basin area. between populations. (Thompson 2012, pp. 317, 341). The In light of these comments, in this Because individual movement same study recommended restoration, final rule, we reevaluate the threat of patterns likely vary by population and creation, and protection of early and late residential development to Gunnison area, their susceptibility to habitat loss brood-rearing habitats to increase chick sage-grouse. First, we evaluate scientific and degradation may also differ. We survival rates (Thompson 2012, p. 135). information related to effects of expect that where habitat is already The importance of brood-rearing habitat residential and infrastructural more limited (quantity and quality) and for juvenile survival, recruitment, and development on sage-grouse and isolated, such as in the six satellite hence, population viability of sage- sagebrush habitats in general, including populations, habitat loss and decline grouse is evident. These key habitats are studies specific to Gunnison sage-grouse will have more serious consequences in particularly susceptible to drought (see where available. Second, we discuss terms of population fitness and survival. Factor E, Drought) and predicted human population growth and Where habitat is already severely climate change effects (The Nature residential development trends and limited or degraded, or where sage- Conservancy 2011, p. 11) (see Climate projections across the broader Rocky grouse populations are small, any loss of Change in this Factor A analysis). Mountain region. Finally, we assess the habitat may impact those populations. As presented above, habitat decline, impact of current and future human In addition, habitat loss impacts are including loss, fragmentation, and population growth and residential expected to be greater in important and/ degradation of quality, has known development rangewide and within the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69230 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

individual Gunnison sage-grouse Basin Candidate Conservation 2004, p. 4–1; Connelly et al. 2011a, p. populations. As in the proposed listing Agreement (CCA), and implementation 72) and more contiguous sagebrush rule, much of our analysis here is of future conservation easements and habitats (Rogers 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et focused on the current and potential similar conservation efforts will, upon al. 2011, pp. 452–453). Greater sage- future effects of residential development effective implementation, likely reduce, grouse range retraction was linked to and habitat loss in the Gunnison Basin, but not necessarily preclude, impacts patterns of remaining sagebrush habitat since it contains the vast majority of from residential development. However, and loss due to factors including human occupied habitat and Gunnison sage- as described in more detail in population growth and the peripherality grouse. Conservation Programs and Efforts of populations (Aldridge et al. 2008). The level of habitat loss due to Related to Habitat Conservation in this Infrastructure such as roads and power residential development varies widely Factor A analysis and in Local Laws and lines associated with residential across the seven populations of Regulations in the Factor D analysis, development (urban and exurban) Gunnison sage-grouse. Federal land currently available data and information further contribute to habitat decline and ownership of occupied habitat in some indicates that these conservation efforts other impacts such as increased risk of populations reduces the potential do not fully address this and other predation. Those specific effects are impact of residential development, threats, or are too uncertain with respect discussed elsewhere in this rule, but we which largely occurs on private lands. to their implementation and recognize the cumulative effects of Conversely, portions of occupied habitat effectiveness for us to forecast or development and related infrastructure in private ownership may predispose evaluate how all of these efforts will increase the level of impact on some sage-grouse populations to greater individually or collectively influence Gunnison sage-grouse. impacts due to higher levels of future residential development in the Aldridge developed a landscape-scale development (GSRSC 2005, p. 160). As species’ range, the resultant habitat spatial model predicting Gunnison sage- described in the following sections, decline, and related impacts on grouse nesting probability based on current and future human population Gunnison sage-grouse. nesting data from the western portion of growth rates and patterns also vary We base our analysis of residential the Gunnison Basin (Aldridge et al. widely across the species’ range. development primarily on the following 2012, entire). The study extrapolated the Concentration of residential growth in available information: (1) Current and model to the entire Gunnison Basin to or near municipal and other areas future human population growth rates predict the likelihood of Gunnison sage- outside of occupied or suitable habitat in and around occupied habitat as an grouse nesting throughout the area will likely avoid or minimize impacts, indicator of residential development; (2) (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 403). Results of while rural and exurban development in total available private land area and the model indicated that Gunnison sage- occupied habitat will likely increase conservation easement protection grouse select nest sites in landscapes impacts on the species. (prohibited or restricted residential with a low density of residential Other factors may also affect the development) in the context of total development (<1 percent in a 1.5 km impact of residential development on occupied habitat; and (3) the current [0.9 mi] radii) (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. Gunnison sage-grouse populations or and potential loss of occupied and 400). Nest site selection by Gunnison habitat. These factors include, but are unoccupied habitats as a result of sage-grouse decreased near residential not limited to, the extent and density of residential development, and its direct developments, out to approximately 2.5 already developed land and existing and indirect effects on Gunnison sage- km (1.6 mi) from any given residential infrastructure, changes in future grouse individuals and populations. development (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. patterns of residential growth, new or Broadly, we consider private lands in 400). Since early brood-rearing habitat is additional development of occupied habitat without conservation often in close proximity to nest sites infrastructure (e.g., roads, powerlines, easement as being at higher risk of (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971), impacts irrigation) associated with human residential development, relative to to nesting habitat likely also affect population growth, the site-specific those lands currently under nearby brood-rearing habitat (however, quality or quantity of suitable habitat on conservation easement (see Other individual females with broods may affected lands, resiliency or sensitivity Regulatory Mechanisms: Conservation move large distances (Connelly 1982, as of the affected sage-grouse population or Easements in the Factor D analysis). cited in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971)). group of birds, and indirect effects of Applying the best available information, Similar to the above findings (and development such as functional habitat these factors depict the intensity and those referenced in Aldridge et al. loss due to weed invasion, noise immediacy of impacts due to residential 2008), based on spatial modeling of disturbance, and other anthropogenic development, and the exposure and anthropogenic factors and nest and stressors. Functional habitat loss results anticipated response of Gunnison sage- brood habitat selection, Aldridge (2005, from disturbance that changes a grouse to that impact. entire) found that nesting greater-sage habitat’s successional state or reduces or grouse and broods also tended to avoid removes one or more habitat functions Effects of Residential Development urban development areas and other or values; presents physical barriers that Residential development is likely human developments such as roads or preclude use of otherwise suitable areas; contributing to habitat decline in parts cropland, potentially due to predator or introduces activities that prevent of the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. It avoidance behavior. As discussed animals from using suitable habitat due was estimated that 3 to 5 percent of all elsewhere in this rule, there are to behavioral avoidance. sage-grouse historical habitat in numerous other studies indicating that In evaluating the impact that Colorado has been negatively affected the expansion of roads and other human residential development has on the by town and urban development (Braun development in occupied habitat can species, we acknowledge that 1998, p. 7). Habitat fragmentation negatively affect sage-grouse (see, e.g., enrollment in the Candidate resulting from human development Roads below.) Conservation Agreement with patterns is especially detrimental to The RCP (GSRSC 2005, pp. 160–161) Assurances (CCAA) for Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse because of their hypothesized that residential density in grouse, local regulatory mechanisms, dependence on large areas of sagebrush excess of one housing unit per 1.3 km2 Federal efforts such as the Gunnison (Patterson 1952, p. 48; Connelly et al. (0.5 mi2) could cause declines in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69231

Gunnison sage-grouse populations. anthropogenic stressors occur, and that The resulting pattern of residential However, because the analyses that these indirect effects act cumulatively development in the rural Rocky formed the basis for this hypothesis with the direct loss of occupied and Mountains is less associated with were preliminary and did not take into unoccupied habitats to fragment native existing town sites or existing account potential lags in the response of sagebrush habitats and increase threats, subdivisions, and is increasingly Gunnison sage-grouse to development for example, through an increase in the exurban in nature (Theobald et al. 1996, (Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666), number and types of predators (see pp. 408, 415; Theobald 2001, p. 546). the threshold at which impacts are Factor C, Predation). The impact of Exurban development is described as expected could be higher or lower residential development is also low-density growth outside of urban (GSRSC 2005, p. F–3). The resulting increased by the additional disturbance and suburban areas (Clark et al. 2009, p. impacts are expected to occur in nearly footprint and the area of species’ 178; Theobald 2004, p. 140) with less all seasonal habitats, including avoidance of other associated than one housing unit per 1 ha (2.5 ac) moderate to severe winter use areas, infrastructure such as roads, powerlines, (Theobald 2003, p. 1627; Theobald nesting and brood-rearing areas, and and fences. Because we have no specific 2004, p. 139). Also, the pattern is one leks (GSRSC 2005, p. 161). information about the level of these of increased residential lot size and the Based on preliminary analysis of impacts, we have evaluated them diffuse scattering of residential lots in radio telemetry, a CPW researcher qualitatively, but we focus the previously rural areas with a premium reported that Gunnison sage-grouse do remainder of our analysis on the direct placed on adjacency to federal lands not totally avoid residences, and that effects of residential development. and isolated open spaces (Riebsame et some farmyards and areas with low Human Population Growth in the Rocky al. 1996, p. 396, 398; Theobald et al. housing density are used by individual Mountains 1996, pp. 413, 417; Theobald 2001, p. birds (Phillips 2013, p. 8). Further 546; Brown et al. 2005, p. 1858). information about this study was Human population growth in the rural Residential subdivision associated with provided during the public comment Rocky Mountains is driven by the exurban development causes landscape period by CPW, including preliminary availability of natural amenities, fragmentation (Gosnell and Travis 2005, results of the distances for successful recreational opportunities, aesthetically p. 196) primarily through the and unsuccessful nests to the nearest desirable settings and views, and accumulation of roads, buildings, road in Gunnison and Saguache perceived remoteness (Riebsame et al. (Theobald et al.1996, p. 410; Mitchell et Counties (CPW 2013b, pp. 8–9). CPW 1996, p. 396, 402; Theobald et al. 1996, al. 2002, p. 3) and other infrastructure has not provided us with these data, p. 408; Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. such as power lines (GSRSC 2005, p. however, or a map of the reported 192–197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6; 146). locations. We are also uncertain as to Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1899–1901). The what percentage of roads in the study increase in residential and commercial Human Population Growth Across the may have been closed to protect nesting development associated with expanding Range of Gunnison Sage-Grouse human populations is different from Gunnison sage-grouse, which may The GSRSC (2005, p. 146) identified influence nest survival. Further, this historical land use patterns in the rural Rocky Mountains (Theobald 2001, p. current and potential issues affecting preliminary analysis of CPW’s telemetry Gunnison sage-grouse populations, data has not been peer reviewed. While 548). The allocation of land for resource-based activities such as based on conservation status this information may suggest that information, local working group plans, individual Gunnison sage-grouse within agriculture and livestock production is decreasing as the relative economic and similar documents. Residential the Gunnison Basin vary in their development, and associated habitat response to development, the importance of these activities diminishes (Theobald et al. 1996, p. loss or degradation, urban development, preliminary nature of the study doesn’t roads, utility corridors, and fences were allow us to draw any definite 413; Sammons 1998, p. 32; Gosnell and Travis 2005, pp. 191–192). Currently, all identified as current or potential conclusions. issues in each of the seven populations. Residential development can cause agribusiness occupations constitute habitat decline both by the direct loss of approximately 3 percent of the total job Human population growth is occupied habitat and by indirect effects base in Gunnison County (Colorado occurring throughout much of the range (e.g., off-site or functional habitat loss, Department of Local Affairs (CDOLA) of Gunnison sage-grouse. The human habitat degradation, loss of unoccupied 2009b, p. 4). Recent conversion of farm population in all Colorado counties habitat). We consider both in the and ranch lands to housing within the range of Gunnison sage- analysis that follows, though we assess development has been significant in grouse has increased by approximately direct loss from a quantitative Colorado (Odell and Knight 2001, p. 57.8 percent in the last several decades, perspective and indirect effects more 1144). Many large private ranches in the since 1985 (Table 2). During the same qualitatively. Rocky Mountains, including the period, human population growth in Gunnison Basin, are being subdivided Utah counties in Gunnison sage-grouse Indirect Effects of Residential into both high-density subdivisions and range increased by about 24.5 percent Development larger, scattered ranchettes with lots (Table 3), less than that of Colorado As stated above, we know that typically greater than 14 ha (35 ac), counties. Residential development in indirect effects of development such as which encompass a large, isolated house the Gunnison sage-grouse range is functional habitat loss due to weed (Riebsame et al. 1996, p. 399; Theobald expected to increase to meet the invasion, noise disturbance, and other et al. 1996, p. 408). demand of growing human populations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69232 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 2—HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH IN COLORADO COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 1985 TO 2012 [Colorado Department of Local Affairs (CDOLA) 2012, entire]

Human 1985 Human 2012 Human population County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a growth from population population 1985 to 2012 (%)

Gunnison ...... Gunnison Basin ...... 10,390 15,475 48.9 Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa Ouray ...... Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 2,130 4,530 112.7 San Miguel—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only San Miguel ...... Monticello-Dove Creek ...... 3,189 7,580 137.7 San Miguel Hinsdale ...... Gunnison Basin—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only 472 810 71.6 Saguache ...... Gunnison Basin ...... 4,400 6,304 43.3 Poncha Pass Mesa ...... Pin˜on Mesa ...... 88,0121 147,855 68.0 Montrose ...... Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 24,389 40,732 67.0 San Miguel Montezuma ...... Monticello-Dove Creek—Overlap with unoccupied habi- 19,283 25,437 31.9 tat only. Delta ...... Crawford ...... 23,466 30,436 29.7 Dolores ...... Monticello-Dove Creek ...... 1,548 1,994 28.8 Chaffee ...... Poncha Pass ...... 12,349 18,151 47.0

Total ...... 189,637 299,304 57.8 a Based on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise.

TABLE 3—HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH IN UTAH COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 1985 TO 2011 [Demographic and Economic Analysis (DEA) 2011, entire]

Human 1985 Human 2011 Human population County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a growth from population population 1985 to 2011 (%)

San Juan ...... Dove Creek-Monticello ...... 12,300 14,954 21.6 Grand ...... Pin˜on Mesa—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only ...... 7,200 9,322 29.5

Total ...... 19,500 24,276 24.5 a Based on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise.

These trends are expected to continue population in Colorado is forecasted to the cities of Moab and Grand Junction, into the future (GSRSC 2005, p. 150– grow by about 60 percent, with most of respectively. Also, we recognize that in 153). The year 2050 projected human this growth (and total number of some counties, what appears to be population for the entire Gunnison persons) occurring in Mesa, Montrose, significant growth from the baseline River Basin (a watershed area spanning and Delta Counties (Table 4). Similar to may actually be minimal in terms of multiple counties), which encompasses the past, future human population total persons added to the population the majority of Gunnison sage-grouse growth in Utah counties in Gunnison (for example, see Hinsdale County in occupied habitat across all population sage-grouse range is expected to be low, Table 4). In response to public areas, is expected to be 2.3 times (233 approximately 14 percent by the year comments regarding human population percent) greater than the 2005 2040, lower than Colorado counties. In growth figures for Gunnison County population, with Mesa and Montrose some counties, the population growth is provided in our proposed listing rule Counties being the most populous in projected to occur mainly in urban (78 FR 2486, January 11, 2013), we that area (Colorado Water Conservation areas. For example, in Grand County, discuss future human population Board (CWCB) 2009, pp. 15, 53). Across Utah, and Mesa County, Colorado, growth for Gunnison County in detail in the six satellite populations, the human significant growth is expected within the following section.

TABLE 4—HUMAN POPULATION FORECAST IN COLORADO COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2013 TO 2040 [CDOLA 2011, entire]

Human 2013 (current) 2040 human population County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a human population growth from population forecast 2013 to 2040 (%)

Gunnison ...... Gunnison Basin ...... 15,982 22,107 38.3

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69233

TABLE 4—HUMAN POPULATION FORECAST IN COLORADO COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2013 TO 2040—Continued [CDOLA 2011, entire]

Human 2013 (current) 2040 human population County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a human population growth from population forecast 2013 to 2040 (%)

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa. Ouray ...... Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 4,662 6,108 31.0 San Miguel—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only. San Miguel ...... San Miguel ...... 8,148 16,426 101.6 Monticello-Dove Creek. Hinsdale ...... Gunnison Basin—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only 853 1,378 61.6 Saguache ...... Gunnison Basin ...... 6,478 9,133 41.0 Poncha Pass. Mesa ...... Pin˜on Mesa ...... 150,123 226,263 50.7 Montrose ...... Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 41,751 75,048 79.8 San Miguel. Montezuma ...... Monticello-Dove Creek-Overlap with unoccupied habitat 26,481 42,947 62.2 only. Delta ...... Crawford ...... 31,741 59,142 86.3 Dolores ...... Monticello-Dove Creek ...... 2,097 3,313 57.9 Chaffee ...... Poncha Pass ...... 18,726 30,282 61.7

Rangewide Total ...... 307,042 492,147 60.3 a Based on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise.

TABLE 5—HUMAN POPULATION FORECAST IN UTAH COUNTIES IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, 2013 TO 2040 [DEA 2012, entire].

Human 2010 human 2040 human population County Overlap with Gunnison sage-grouse population a population growth from population forecast 2013 to 2040 (%)

San Juan ...... Dove Creek-Monticello ...... 14,746 15,191 3.0 Grand ...... Pin˜on Mesa—Overlap with unoccupied habitat only ...... 9,225 12,147 31.7

Rangewide Total ...... 23,971 27,338 14.0 a Based on county overlap with occupied habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 54–102) unless noted otherwise.

In addition to past and projected more vulnerable to residential total private land area, and conservation human population growth, the impact of development and associated impacts easement protection in occupied residential development on Gunnison (GSRSC 2005, p. 160). Within all habitats. As noted above, we focused sage-grouse depends on total private Gunnison sage-grouse populations, the our analysis on the potential for direct land area in occupied habitat available area of private land under conservation habitat loss in occupied habitats, where for development. Substantial Federal easement (which generally prohibits negative impacts are more likely to land ownership of occupied habitat in subdivision and restricts other occur. We qualitatively ranked past and the Crawford, Gunnison Basin, Poncha residential or agricultural development forecasted human population growth for Pass, and portions of the San Miguel to defined areas) will help ameliorate area counties in Colorado (based on Basin populations helps reduce the impacts from human population growth Tables 2 and 4) and Utah (based on threat of residential development in and residential development that might Tables 3 and 5), considering both these areas. Conversely, large portions otherwise occur (see Factor D percent growth and total number of of occupied habitat in the Dove Creek- discussion, Other Regulatory persons. Below, we apply information Monticello, Pin˜ on Mesa, Cerro Summit- Mechanisms: Conservation Easements). from Table 6 to determine the impact of Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and some portions Below, Table 6 synthesizes future residential development to individual of the San Miguel populations are in human population growth rates in Gunnison sage-grouse populations and private ownership, making those areas Gunnison sage-grouse population areas, to the species rangewide.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69234 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 6—HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH RATES AND CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIED HABITAT

Human population Private land in Private land in occupied Private land in occupied growth rates a occupied habitat habitat under conservation habitat not under Percentage of easement b conservation easement total occupied Total occupied habitat at Gunnison sage- habitat Percentage of Percentage of higher risk of grouse population Past: Forecast: 1985 to 2013 to (acres) Acres % private land in private land in residential Acres occupied Acres occupied development c 2012 2040 habitat habitat (%) (%) (%)

San Miguel Basin ...... M M 101,750 49,492 49 6,961 14.1 42,531 85.9 41.8 Monticello-Dove Creek ...... L L 112,543 100,773 90 5,482 5.4 95,291 84.6 84.7 Pin˜on Mesa ...... H H 44,678 31,313 70 15,317 48.9 15,996 51.1 35.8 Cerro Summit-Cim- arron-Sims Mesa ... H H 37,161 28,218 76 3,484 12.3 24,734 87.7 66.6 Crawford ...... L M 35,015 8,481 24 2,005 23.6 6,476 76.4 18.5 Poncha Pass ...... L L 27,747 7,893 28 0 0.0 7,893 100.0 28.4 Gunnison Basin ...... L L 592,168 178,855 30 40,769 22.8 138,086 77.2 23.3

Rangewide Total ...... 951,062 405,025 43 74,018 18.3 331,007 81.7 34.8 a Based on a qualitative assessment of past and forecast human population growth for area counties in Colorado (Tables 2 and 4) and Utah (Tables 3 and 5), con- sidering percent growth and total number of persons: H—High; M—Moderate; L—Low. b Lohr and Gray (2013, entire). c Calculated by dividing acres of ‘‘private land in occupied habitat not under conservation easement’’ by ‘‘total occupied habitat.’’

Based on the factors presented in and is forecast through the year 2040; habitat may impact those populations Table 6 above, residential development and private land comprises about 76 (GSRSC 2005, p. 161). Due to the pattern is likely to have the greatest impact on percent of total occupied habitat, of of residential development, already the San Miguel and Cerro Summit- which 12 percent is under conservation limited sagebrush habitat in the area Cimarron-Sims Mesa populations of easement. This means that (about 20,000 acres), and critically low Gunnison sage-grouse. In the San approximately 67 percent of total population numbers (zero birds counted Miguel Basin population, moderate occupied habitat in the Cerro Summit- in 2013; Figure 3), residential human population growth has occurred Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area is development is a current and future and is projected through the year 2040; at higher risk of residential development threat to the Poncha Pass population of and private land comprises about 49 (Table 6). Scattered residential Gunnison sage-grouse. percent of total occupied habitat, of development has recently occurred For the remaining four Gunnison which 14 percent is under conservation along the periphery of occupied habitat sage-grouse populations, we find that easement. This means that in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims current residential development may approximately 42 percent of total Mesa population (CDOW 2009b, p. 45). impact individual birds or areas of occupied habitat in the San Miguel Already limited habitat (Table 6) and habitat, but is a threat of low magnitude population area is at higher risk of low population numbers (Figure 3) at the population level at the present residential development (Table 6). The indicate the Cerro Summit-Cimarron- time. In these areas, past or projected rate of residential development in the Sims Mesa population may not have the human population growth rates are very San Miguel Basin population area resilience (see Small Population Size low, indicating that residential increased between 2005 and 2008 but and Structure) to sustain substantial development will be limited slowed in 2009 (CDOW 2009b, p. 135). habitat losses. Therefore, residential (Monticello-Dove Creek); or private land However, a 429-ha (1,057-ac) parcel development is a current and future available for residential development north of Miramonte Reservoir is threat to Gunnison sage-grouse in the (considering Federal land ownership currently being developed. The CPW Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and conservation easement protection) reports that potential impacts to population. is limited (Pin˜ on Mesa and Crawford). Gunnison sage-grouse resulting from Although past and future human For these three populations, we also this development may be reduced by population growth in the Poncha Pass believe that the threat of residential placing a portion of the property into a population is estimated to be low, and development will remain low in the conservation easement and the the proportion of land at higher risk of future. With respect to the Gunnison relocation of a proposed major road to residential development is low (about Basin population, however, as described avoid occupied habitat (CDOW 2009b, 28 percent) (see Table 6), other in more detail below, over half of the p. 136). A downward trend in the San information indicates that residential 23.3 percent of total occupied habitat Miguel population over the last decade development is nevertheless a threat to that is at higher risk of residential or more (Figure 3) indicates it may not the Poncha Pass population. Residential development (see Table 6) is high have the resilience (see Small subdivision continues to be priority habitat, because it includes Population Size and Structure) to concentrated in the northern part of the seasonally important habitat for the sustain substantial habitat losses. Poncha Pass population area where species. The potential loss or Therefore, residential development is a Gunnison sage-grouse occur most, and degradation of even relatively smaller current and future threat to Gunnison CPW considers this to be the highest portions of habitat due to future sage-grouse in the San Miguel Basin priority threat to this population residential development is a concern, population. (CDOW 2009b, p. 124). As noted earlier, especially if important seasonal habitats Likewise, in the Cerro Summit- where habitat is already severely are affected, so we believe that threats Cimarron-Sims Mesa area, considerable limited, or where sage-grouse related to residential development will human population growth has occurred populations are small, any loss of be higher in the future in the Gunnison

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69235

Basin (see Reevaluation of Residential or areas of habitat in the Gunnison near Crested Butte, outside of occupied Development in the Gunnison Basin). Basin population area. habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse The analysis above is focused on the (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 69–70). Current Impacts of Residential threat of residential development in Furthermore, the majority of existing Development occupied habitats for Gunnison sage- development in the lower Gunnison grouse. However, it is reasonable to Approximately 239,640 ha (592,168 Basin is concentrated near the City of assume that residential development ac) of occupied habitat occur in the Gunnison, outside of occupied habitat will also occur in important but Gunnison Basin. Of this, approximately or in more marginalized habitat currently unoccupied habitats. These 161,336 ha (398,669 ac) (67 percent) are (Gunnison County 2013c, p. 5). habitats may now or in the future on Federal lands; 5,906 ha (14,595 ac) Gunnison County building permit data provide dispersal corridors for birds (2 percent) are State land; and 72,380 ha indicate that since 1980, over 70 percent between occupied habitat, (178,855 ac) (30 percent) are private of all county building permits have been subpopulations, or populations; or land (Table 1). In this rule, our located within subdivisions that are provide areas for range migration or evaluation of residential development in already served by water and sewer expansion. The threat of habitat loss or the Gunnison Basin is based largely on services (urban service areas). If degradation due to residential human demographic information for building permits for the City of development in the San Miguel and Gunnison County, where nearly three- Gunnison are included, over 80 percent Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa quarters (approximately 71 percent) of of all new development since 1980 has populations will likely reduce habitat the Gunnison Basin population of occurred in urban service areas connectivity between satellite Gunnison sage-grouse occurs (the (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 68). Urban populations and potential connectivity remainder occurs in Saguache County). service areas (utilities, trash, etc.) in between the Gunnison Basin population Based on the available information, we Gunnison County may include small and satellite populations to the west. expect that the rate of future residential areas of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, The GSRSC (2005, p. 167) identified development in the Saguache County but are generally less suitable than more habitat areas in the San Miguel portion of the Gunnison Basin will be rural areas; therefore, human population that provide potential similar to that of Gunnison County. development and activities in such linkages with the Dove Creek- Approximately 30 percent of Gunnison areas are likely to have less impact to Monticello population to the west, sage-grouse occupied habitat in the Gunnison sage-grouse. Pin˜ on Mesa population to the north, and Gunnison Basin occurs on private lands. Available data nonetheless indicates Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa When evaluating Gunnison County human developments in occupied population to the east. Potential overall (including both Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in linkages in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron- grouse habitat and non-habitat areas), Gunnison County occur and have Sims Mesa population were also our analysis found that the cumulative increased over time. We conducted a identified that may provide connectivity number of human developments GIS analysis of parcel ownership data to with the San Miguel population to the (including housing, infrastructure, and evaluate the spatial and temporal west, Crawford population to the improvements to existing development) pattern of past human development northeast, and Gunnison Basin increased considerably since the early (including infrastructure) within population to the east. Genetic evidence 1970s. The number of new occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat indicates maintaining or enhancing developments averaged approximately in the Gunnison Basin population area. habitat connectivity between 70 per year from the late 1800s to 1969, Our analyses were limited to the portion populations is important for Gunnison increasing to approximately 450 per of occupied habitat in Gunnison County sage-grouse survival into the future (See year from 1970 to 2008 (USFWS 2010a, because parcel data was available only detailed discussion in Factor E analysis, pp. 1–5). Furthermore, there has been an for Gunnison County and not Saguache Small Population Size and Structure). increasing trend toward development County. Approximately 18 percent of away from major roadways (primary and the land area within the range of Reevaluation of Residential secondary paved roads) into areas of Gunnison sage-grouse in Gunnison Development in the Gunnison Basin occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat County has a residential density greater Population Area that had previously undergone very than one housing unit per 1.3 km2 (0.5 In our proposed rule to list Gunnison limited development (USFWS 2010b, p. mi2) (USFWS 2010b, p. 8). The GSRSC sage-grouse as endangered, we 7). Between 1889 and 1968, (2005, pp. 160–161) hypothesized that concluded that residential development approximately 51 human developments residential density in excess of one was a principal threat to the species as were located more than 1.6 km (1 mi) housing unit per 1.3 km2 (0.5 mi2) could a whole. That analysis was focused on from a major road in currently occupied cause declines in Gunnison sage-grouse the potential impacts of residential Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Between populations, though there are development in the Gunnison Basin 1969 and 2008, this number increased to limitations with this assumption (see population area, since the vast majority approximately 476 developments discussion above). Based on this of occupied habitat and birds occur (USFWS 2010b, p. 7). estimate, current human residential there. As noted above, based on However, the majority of residential densities in the Gunnison Basin numerous public comments and new development in Gunnison County is population area are such that they may information we received on the outside of Gunnison-sage grouse be having an impact on Gunnison sage- proposed rule, we have reevaluated the occupied habitat. About 26 percent of grouse in at least 18 percent of the threat of residential development to the housing units in Gunnison County occupied area. species, both in the individual occur within Gunnison sage-grouse In our proposed rule to list Gunnison populations and rangewide. In this occupied habitat (Gunnison County sage-grouse as endangered, we also section, we describe in greater detail the 2013a, Appendix G, p. 9). Although applied a 1.5 km (.93 mi) ‘‘zone of basis for our conclusions regarding the significant development has occurred in influence’’ to residential development effects of residential development, both the past, residential growth in Gunnison in Gunnison County (based on Aldridge at the present time and in the County has been influenced heavily by et al. 2012, p. 400), in an effort to foreseeable future, on individual birds development in the East River Valley evaluate how the current level of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69236 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

residential development may be expect to see some evidence of this in also increase. Based on new information impacting habitat and limiting the these population trends. This is so even received since the proposed rule, Gunnison Basin population of sage- recognizing that, as a consequence of however, we believe that the rate of grouse (for more details, see 78 FR 2486, their site fidelity to seasonal habitats increase may be less than what we January 11, 2013). That analysis led us (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489), determined in the proposed rule. to conclude that within occupied measurable population effects may lag Projections for human population Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in behind negative changes in habitat growth in Gunnison County range from Gunnison County, 49 percent of the (Harju et al. 2010, entire; Wiens and about 0.75 percent to 2.15 percent land area within the range of Gunnison Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). As a result, we annually, depending on the source sage-grouse had at least one housing believe that our use of Aldridge et. al (Table 7). The current (2013) estimated unit within a radius of 1.5 km (0.9 mi). 2012, as described above, significantly human population of Gunnison County We found that this level of residential overestimated the impact that current is 15,982 (CDOLA 2011, entire). By development strongly decreased the levels of residential development in 2050, the human population in likelihood of Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison County are having on the Gunnison County is projected to be using these areas as nesting habitat. species. 20,877 to 37,828 people (Table 7). In our Based on this analysis, we determined Based on this reevaluation, we proposed rule to list Gunnison sage- that residential development, conclude that current development in grouse as endangered (78 FR 2486, particularly in the Gunnison Basin, was the Gunnison Basin population area is January 11, 2013), we applied the currently a principal threat to the a threat of low magnitude to the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s species. This conclusion was critical to persistence of this Gunnison sage-grouse (CWCB) middle-growth scenario of 1.7 our proposal to list the species as population. Despite past residential percent annual growth for Gunnison endangered. development in the Gunnison Basin, the Since the listing proposal, we have Gunnison Basin population of Gunnison County (CWCB 2009, p. 53). We now received significant comments and new sage-grouse has remained relatively recognize this figure may overestimate information regarding this conclusion, stable over the past 19 years, based on actual growth in the area due to that and particularly our application of the lek count data and population estimates study’s broader geographic focus Aldridge et al. 2012 study, to find that (Figure 2). The Gunnison Basin (Colorado watersheds) and purpose (to human development is currently population is currently large and forecast water use and demands). The negatively affecting the species’ relatively stable and appears to be Colorado State Demographer (CDOLA utilization of 49 percent of occupied resilient (see further discussion under 2011, entire) estimated an average habitat in Gunnison County. As noted Small Population Size and Structure annual growth rate of 1.2 percent for by various commentators, this section). Therefore, this population has Gunnison County, with approximately conclusion is at odds with the current been able to sustain the negative effects 22,107 people by the year 2040, or status of the Gunnison Basin of development at current levels. approximately 38 percent greater than population, which, as described above, the 2013 population. Coincidentally, is and has been relatively stable for the Future Impacts of Residential these projections are near the average of last 19 years, based on lek count data. Development the range of projected growth rates from If residential development was currently Residential development in occupied the various sources (Table 7), and negatively impacting such a significant habitat in the Gunnison Basin will represent a reliable estimate of expected percentage of occupied habitat in the increase in the future, which means the future growth in the Gunnison Basin Gunnison Basin population, we would impacts from such development will area.

TABLE 7—HUMAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR GUNNISON COUNTY

Average annual Source/ Source growth rate Population projection citation

Colorado Water Conservation Board ... 1.06%—low scenario ...... By the year 2050: ...... CWCB 2009, p. 53. 1.70%—middle scenario ...... 23,314—low scenario 2.15%—high scenario ...... 31,086—middle scenario 37,828—high scenario Colorado State Demographer ...... 1.2% ...... By the year 2040: ...... CDOLA 2011, en- 22,107 tire. Gunnison County ...... 1% ...... By the year 2050: ...... Gunnison County 20,877 2013a, p. 69. Gunnison City Council ...... 0.75% ...... n/a ...... City of Gunnison 2013, p. 4.

Future population growth in the future. The precise rate of human addition, if future residential Saguache County portion of the population growth in Gunnison or development follows past patterns, Gunnison Basin is projected to be 1.5 Saguache Counties, however, is not the much of this future development in percent per year, with an estimated determinative factor in assessing Gunnison County will occur outside of population of 9,133 by the year 2040, or whether the Gunnison Basin population Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and approximately 41 percent greater than of Gunnison sage-grouse will persist within existing urban or otherwise the 2013 population (Table 4 above). into the future. As discussed below, developed areas. Nonetheless, even All population projections from Table future residential development in under this development pattern, 4 and Table 7 above indicate the density occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin approximately 26 percent of future and distribution of human residences in is constrained by the relatively limited residential development in Gunnison the Gunnison Basin will increase in the area of developable private lands. In County would occur in occupied

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69237

Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Gunnison high conservation importance. As noted Cumulative Effects From Factors A County 2013a, Appendix G, p. 9). earlier, the GSRSC (2005, p.161) through E). Although we cannot forecast Of the 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) of suggested that the greatest impacts from what those impacts might look like, we occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin, permanent habitat loss are expected in anticipate that such impacts on Federal approximately 72,380 ha (178,855 ac) seasonal habitats most important to lands will be addressed, to some degree, (30 percent) are on private lands (Table Gunnison sage-grouse, such as areas through Federal programs and policies 6). Approximately 16,499 ha (40,769 ac) used during moderate to severe winters such as the Gunnison Basin CCA (see (22.8 percent) of these private lands, or or in lekking, nesting, or brood-rearing Conservation Programs and Efforts 6.9 percent of occupied habitat in the habitats. These areas are quantified Related to Habitat Conservation in this Gunnison Basin population area, are within the Tier 1 habitats of the Habitat Factor A analysis). currently under conservation easement Prioritization Tool described above, and In summary, the threat to Gunnison where development is prohibited or constitute approximately 69,000 acres. sage-grouse as a result of current restricted to protect conservation values, Forty-five percent of the leks in the residential development is less than we including values for Gunnison sage- Gunnison Basin population area occur previously thought as discussed above. grouse on some properties (Gunnison on private lands (see discussion above While individual birds may be affected, County 2013b, p. 21; Lohr and Gray in the Current Distribution and current residential development is a 2013, p. 54). (Refer to Factor D analysis, Population Estimates and Trends threat of low magnitude to Gunnison Other Regulatory Mechanisms: section), and any impacts within 4 miles Basin birds at the population level. Conservation Easements for a detailed of these leks could affect nesting and Approximately 23.3 percent of the discussion.) Approximately 55,881 ha brood-rearing activities. 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) of total (138,086ac) (77.2 percent) of private Additional residential development in occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin lands are not currently under those high value habitats could result in is at higher risk of development (i.e., are conservation easement and, thus, are at increased impacts on Gunnison sage- not protected by conservation easement) higher risk of residential development. grouse in the Gunnison Basin. Lesser in the future, relative to lands where This constitutes 23.3 percent of the impacts would be expected in Tier 2 development is precluded, prohibited, entire occupied range in the Gunnison habitats, and from indirect effects of or restricted (under State or Federal Basin. Therefore, about 23.3 percent of development in unoccupied habitats. ownership or conservation easement). the 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) of total These impacts, particularly to the Approximately 50 percent of these occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin seasonally important habitats, are a developable lands are in priority is at higher risk of residential concern, and we expect impacts, and habitats, and their potential loss or development (relative to lands not the level of threat posed by residential degradation in the future would be a protected under conservation easement). development, to increase in the future, concern for the Gunnison Basin Over half of this at risk occupied although at a somewhat lower rate than population. In addition, indirect and habitat currently consists of high what we described in the proposed cumulative effects of infrastructure priority habitat for the species. Based on listing rule. associated with residential development the habitat recommendations in the Although exurban development will will increase the impacts of future RCP, the Gunnison Basin Sage-Grouse likely increase as in other parts of the residential development. Based on these Strategic Committee developed a rural west, if past residential growth reasons, we find that residential Habitat Prioritization Tool (Gunnison patterns in Gunnison County continue, development is currently a threat of low County 2013a, Appendix G; see detailed we can expect the majority of residential magnitude to the Gunnison Basin description under Local Laws and development to occur outside of population of Gunnison sage-grouse, but Regulations, Gunnison County), which occupied habitat and near that it is an increasing threat in the identifies sage-grouse habitat and then municipalities and existing future. discounts the value of the habitat based infrastructure. Nevertheless, under these on distance to structures, roads, and past residential growth patterns, we Summary of Residential Development power lines. The Habitat Prioritization would still expect approximately 26 Residential development is likely Tool determined that, of private lands in percent of residential growth in the contributing to habitat loss and occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin future to occur in occupied habitat. degradation throughout the range of not under conservation easement, over While we recognize that current Gunnison sage-grouse. Habitat half are Tier 1 habitat, or high value conservation efforts, including fragmentation resulting from human habitat (e.g., lekking, nesting, brood- conservation easements, enforcement of development patterns is especially rearing, or wintering habitat); the current county land use regulations, and detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse remaining habitat is classified as Tier 2, CCAA implementation are likely to help because of their dependence on large or lower value habitat (Cochran 2013, reduce (but not necessarily preclude) areas of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. pers. comm.) that is closer to structures, the effects of past and future residential 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–1; roads, and power lines. This tool does development on Gunnison sage-grouse Connelly et al. 2011a, p. 72) and more not quantify or map unoccupied and its habitat in the Gunnison Basin, contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers habitats. Based on this figure, of the we find that such efforts will not fully 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 55,881 ha (138,086 ac) or 23.3 percent address this and other threats (see 452–453). Infrastructure such as roads of total occupied habitat in the Factor A, Conservation Programs and and power lines associated with Gunnison Basin at higher risk of Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation, residential development (urban and residential development (as discussed and Factor D, Regulatory Mechanisms). exurban) likely further contribute to below), 28,033 ha (69,270 ac) of those In addition, future residential habitat loss and other impacts such as are Tier 1, or priority habitat. development of private lands will likely increased risk of predation, particularly The GSRSC (2005, p. 161) cautioned demand new or additional in the satellite populations. Residential that, in the Gunnison Basin population, infrastructure on adjacent properties development, and associated habitat any habitat loss from residential such as Federally administered lands, loss or degradation, urban development, development should be avoided or which may cause additional impacts to roads, utility corridors, and fences have mitigated because of this population’s Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (see all been identified as current or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69238 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

potential issues in each of the seven remaining Gunnison sage-grouse indirect influences such as noise populations (GSRSC 2005, p. 146). populations may impact individual (Forman and Alexander 1998, pp. 207– Increasing rural and exurban birds or areas of habitat, but is currently 231). Greater sage-grouse mortality development in sagebrush habitats will a threat of low magnitude at the resulting from collisions with vehicles continue impacting Gunnison sage- population level. Residential does occur, but mortalities are typically grouse. development will continue into the not monitored or recorded (Patterson Human population growth is future in these areas and, as discussed 1952, p. 81). Therefore, it is difficult to occurring throughout much of the range above, such development in areas of determine the influence of road-related of Gunnison sage-grouse. The human important seasonal habitats would be a mortalities on sage-grouse populations. population in all Colorado counties concern in these populations. We have no information on the within the range of Gunnison sage- Rangewide, approximately 34.8 frequency or number of mortalities of grouse has increased by approximately percent of occupied Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse due to roads or 57.8 percent in the last several decades, grouse habitat is at higher risk of vehicles, but because of similarities in since 1985 (Table 2). During the same residential development (Table 6), their habitat and habitat use, we expect period, human population growth in relative to lands not under conservation effects to be similar to those observed in Utah counties in Gunnison sage-grouse easement or Federal or State ownership. greater sage-grouse (described below). range increased by about 24.5 percent As described above, human population Roads have been shown to fragment (Table 3), much less than that of growth is occurring throughout much of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, with road Colorado counties. Population increases the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, avoidance by birds presumably to limit are expected to continue into the future although the rate and pattern of exposure to human activity and (GSRSC 2005, p. 150–153). Across the residential development varies widely predation (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. six satellite populations, the human by sage-grouse population. These trends 330). The probability of Gunnison sage- population in Colorado is forecasted to are expected to continue into the future, grouse habitat occupancy (presence grow by about 60 percent, with most of resulting in further residential based on pellet surveys or sage-grouse this growth (and total number of development, associated infrastructure, observation) was positively correlated persons) occurring in Mesa, Montrose, and habitat loss in parts of the species’ with distance from roads and habitat and Delta Counties (Table 4). range. patch size (Oyler-McCance et al. 1999, Residential development is expected to The threat of habitat loss or p. 29). increase to meet the demand of these degradation due to residential The presence of roads increases growing human populations. Projected development in the San Miguel and human access and resulting disturbance human population growth rates in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa effects in remote areas (Forman and Gunnison Basin population are populations will likely reduce habitat Alexander 1998, p. 221; Forman 2000, considered low relative to other connectivity between satellite p. 35; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–6 to populations. However, residential populations and, potential connectivity 7–25). In addition, roads can provide development in the Gunnison Basin, between the Gunnison Basin population corridors for predators to move into including development in occupied and satellite populations to the west. previously unoccupied areas. Some habitat, is expected to continue into the The GSRSC (2005, p. 167) identified mammalian species known to prey on future and potentially impact the habitat areas in the San Miguel sage-grouse, such as red fox (Vulpes species and its habitat. population that provide potential vulpes), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and Our analysis was focused on the linkages with the Dove Creek- striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), direct loss of occupied habitat due to Monticello population to the west, have greatly increased their distribution residential development, in which Pin˜ on Mesa population to the north, and by dispersing along roads (Forman and negative impacts on the species are Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa Alexander 1998, p. 212; Forman 2000, more quantifiable. Indirect effects (e.g., population to the east. Potential p. 33; Frey and Conover 2006, pp. 1114– off-site or functional habitat loss, loss of linkages in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron- 1115). Corvids (Family Corvidae: Crows, unoccupied habitat) of habitat decline Sims Mesa population were also ravens, magpies, etc.) also use linear due to residential development are also identified that may provide connectivity features such as primary and secondary expected, however, and are evaluated with the San Miguel population to the roads as travel routes (Bui 2009, p. 31), qualitatively in the above analysis. west, Crawford population to the expanding their movements into Residential growth rates and patterns northeast, and Gunnison Basin previously unused regions (Knight and vary widely across the range of population to the east. Genetic evidence Kawashima 1993, p. 268; Connelly et al. Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on these indicates maintaining or enhancing 2004, p. 12–3). Corvids are significant considerations, our framework for habitat connectivity between sage-grouse nest predators and were assessing the threat of residential populations is important for Gunnison responsible for more than 50 percent of development was based primarily on sage-grouse survival into the future (See nest predations in Nevada (Coates 2007, human population growth rates (current discussion in Factor E analysis, Small pp. 26–30). See Factor C below for and projected), the availability of Population Size and Structure). Based further discussion of predation. developable private lands, the on the above information, we find The expansion of road networks also ameliorating effects of conservation residential development to be a threat to contributes to exotic plant invasions via efforts, and other information (see Table Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, both introduced road fill, vehicle transport, 6 and discussions above). Our now and into the future. and road maintenance activities evaluation found that residential (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; development is a substantial threat to Roads Forman 2000, p. 32; Gelbard and Belnap the San Miguel, Cerro Summit- Impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse from 2003, p. 426; Knick et al. 2003, p. 619; Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and Poncha Pass roads may include direct habitat loss, Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25). Invasive populations of Gunnison sage-grouse, direct mortality, barriers to migration species are not limited to roadsides, but both now and in the future. Based on corridors or seasonal habitats, also encroach into surrounding habitats the best available information, current facilitation of predation and spread of (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; residential development in the invasive vegetative species, and other Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and Belnap

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69239

2003, p. 427). Upgrading unpaved four- mating displays, and thereby female sage-grouse and their habitat (BLM wheel-drive roads to paved roads attendance, younger males will not be 2009a, p. 36). In Colorado, the number resulted in increased cover of invasive drawn to the lek and eventually leks of annual off-highway vehicle (OHV) plant species within the interior of will become inactive (Amstrup and registrations has increased dramatically adjacent plant communities (Gelbard Phillips 1977, p. 26; Braun 1986, pp. from 12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 in 2007 and Belnap 2003, p. 426). This effect 229–230). (BLM 2009a, p. 37). Four wheel drive, was associated with road construction In a study on the Pinedale Anticline OHV, motorcycle, specialty vehicle, and and maintenance activities and vehicle in Wyoming, greater sage-grouse hens mountain bike use is expected to traffic, and not with differences in site that bred on leks within 3 km (1.9 mi) increase in the future based on characteristics. The incursion of of roads associated with oil and gas increased human population in invasive and exotic plants into native development traveled twice as far to Colorado and within the range of sagebrush systems can negatively affect nest as did hens that bred on leks Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous off- Gunnison sage-grouse through habitat greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) from roads. road routes and access points to habitat losses and conversions (see Invasive Nest initiation rates for hens bred on used by Gunnison sage-grouse Plants). leks close to roads also were lower (65 combined with increasing capabilities Gunnison sage-grouse may avoid road versus 89 percent), affecting population for mechanized travel and increased areas because of noise, visual recruitment (33 versus 44 percent) human population further contribute to disturbance, pollutants, and predators (Lyon 2000, p. 33; Lyon and Anderson habitat decline. 2003, pp. 489–490). Roads may be the moving along a road, which further primary impact of oil and gas Roads in the Gunnison Basin reduces the amount of available habitat. development to sage-grouse, due to their Population Area An unpublished study by Western State persistence and continued use even Colorado University and CPW in the Currently, 1,349 km (838 mi) of roads after drilling and production have Gunnison Basin found that accessible to 2-wheel-drive passenger ceased (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. anthropogenic noise was significantly cars occur in occupied Gunnison sage- 490). Lek abandonment patterns higher at leks closer to roads and human grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin on suggested that daily vehicular traffic activity centers than leks farther from all land ownerships. Four-wheel-drive along road networks for oil wells can those sources (Piquette et al. 2013, pp. vehicle roads, as well as motorcycle, impact greater sage-grouse breeding mountain bike, horse, and hiking trails 7–8). Leks with higher noise levels were activities (Braun et al. 2002, p. 5). associated with lower Gunnison sage- are heavily distributed throughout the Similar data are not available for range of Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM grouse male counts and attendance Gunnison sage-grouse, so we do not (Piquette et al. 2013, pp. 10–11). The 2009a, pp. 27, 55, 86), which further know how the species responds to roads increases the overall density of roads landscape-scale spatial model and traffic associated with energy predicting Gunnison sage-grouse nest and their direct and indirect effects on development, though we expect effects Gunnison sage-grouse. User-created site selection showed strong avoidance would be similar to those observed in roads and trails have increased since of areas with high road densities of greater sage-grouse. 2004 (BLM 2009a, p. 33), although we roads classed 1 through 4 (primary One study showed that road density paved highways through primitive roads was not an important factor affecting do not know the scope of this increase. with 2-wheel drive sedan clearance) greater sage-grouse persistence or On BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin, within 6.4 km (4 mi) of nest sites rangewide patterns in sage-grouse approximately 2,050 km (1,274 mi) of (Aldridge et al. 2012 p. 397). Nest sites extirpation (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. roads are currently within 6.4 km (4 mi) also decreased with increased proximity 992). However, the authors did not of Gunnison sage-grouse leks (BLM to primary and secondary paved consider the intensity of human use of 2010a, p. 147). This distance is thought highways (roads classes 1 and 2) roads in their modeling efforts. They to be important, because eighty-seven (Aldridge et al. 2012, p. 401). Male also indicated that their analyses may percent of all Gunnison sage-grouse greater sage-grouse lek attendance was have been influenced by inaccuracies in nests were located less than 6.4 km shown to decline within 3 km (1.9 mi) spatial road data sets, particularly for (4 mi) from the lek of capture (Apa of a deep seam natural gas well haul secondary roads (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 2004, p. 21). However, the BLM road where traffic volume exceeded one 992). Spatial modeling of historic range proposed to reduce the roads on its vehicle per day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). where greater and Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison Basin lands from 2,050 km Surface coal mining activity and have been extirpated had a 25 percent (1,274 mi) to 1,157 km (719 mi) (BLM associated vehicle traffic on haul roads higher density of roads than occupied 2010a, p. 147), including in the North Park of Colorado was range (Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 467). implementation of other conservation correlated with a 94 percent reduction Wisdom et al.’s (2011, entire) greater measures from the Gunnison Basin in the number of displaying greater and Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide Candidate Conservation Agreement sage-grouse males over a 5-year period analysis supports the findings of (CCA) (BLM 2013b, entire) (see on leks situated within 2 km (1.24 mi) numerous local studies showing that Conservation Programs and Efforts of roads (Remington and Braun 1991). roads can have both direct and indirect Related to Habitat Conservation below). Peak male greater sage-grouse impacts on sage-grouse distribution and The NPS completed a Motorized attendance at leks experimentally individual fitness (reproduction and Vehicle Access Plan and Environmental treated with noise from natural gas survival) (e.g., Lyon and Anderson 2003 Assessment for the Curecanti National drilling and roads decreased 29 percent p. 490, Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. Recreation Area (NPS 2010, 78 FR and 73 percent, respectively, relative to 520). 72028). As of January 2014, roads open paired control (no treatment) areas Recreational activities including off- to the public within Gunnison sage- (Blickley et al. 2012, p. 467). Male sage- highway vehicles (OHV), all-terrain grouse habitat (occupied and grouse depend on acoustical signals to vehicles, motorcycles, mountain bikes, unoccupied) were reduced from 91.1 km attract females to leks (Gibson and and other mechanized methods of travel (56.6 mi) to 39.6 km (24.6 mi) Bradbury 1985, p. 82; Gratson 1993, p. have also been recognized as a potential (Stahlnecker 2014, pers. com) (also 692). If noise from roads interferes with direct and indirect threat to Gunnison discussed below).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69240 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is based on telemetry and nesting data not have information on the total length implementing their 2010 Travel collected from 2005 to 2010. Roads of roads within the Monticello-Dove Management Plan to benefit Gunnison included highways and county roads in Creek, Pin˜ on Mesa, or Poncha Pass sage-grouse. Approximately 66 km (41 Gunnison and Saguache counties. The Gunnison sage-grouse populations. mi) of road have recently been study did not evaluate ‘‘primitive’’ However, several maps provided by the decommissioned on USFS lands in the roads as the Aldridge et al. 2012 study BLM show that roads are widespread Gunnison Basin. An additional 40–56 did, making this analysis more and common throughout these km (25–35 mi) of roads were proposed conservative. A GIS analysis of the population areas (BLM 2009a, pp. 27, for decommissioning by the USFS in distance frequencies of the 185 nests did 55, 86). 2013. The BLM, USFS, CPW, and not indicate an avoidance of roads by In the Crawford population area, Gunnison County currently close 36 sage-grouse, in contrast to the findings Montrose County seasonally closes C77 roads at 47 closure points to all of other authors cited above (see Road from March 15 through May 15 to motorized traffic from March 15 to May discussion above). Rather, CPW believes protect Gunnison sage-grouse during the 15 to minimize impacts to Gunnison the data showed a correlation between breeding season (Gunnison County sage-grouse during the breeding season. a decline in the number of nests and 2013, App. 1.G.40). Likewise, Saguache Six USFS closures extend to June 15 to increasing distance from roads. County seasonally closes three roads in protect nesting Gunnison sage-grouse. Approximately 45 percent of studied the Poncha Pass population, and one These closures limit motorized access to nests were within 300 m (984 ft) of a road in the Gunnison Basin population all known leks and adjacent habitats on road, and 70 percent were within 500 m area (Gunnison County 2013, App. public lands in the Gunnison Basin (1,640 ft). Nest frequency declined 1.I.49). San Miguel County vacated, (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 78, 127). around distances greater than 500 m reclaimed, and relocated a county road The USFS implements winter and (1,640 ft) from roads. However, road in the San Miguel Basin to protect a lek spring travel closures for motorized and density was not described and the in the Miramonte area (Gunnison mechanized activities in the Flat Top distance to nests may be a reflection of County 2013, App. 1.K.67). San Miguel Mountain and Almont Triangle areas, road density rather than site selection. County also restricts road traffic speed which includes a total of more than We are also uncertain as to what year-round to 10 miles per hour or less 11,000 ha (27,000 ac). While road percentage of these roads may have been on another road in the Miramonte area closures may be violated in a small closed to protect nesting Gunnison sage- (Gunnison County 2013, App. 1.K.67.b). number of situations, we expect these grouse, which may influence nest An Ouray County resolution (Resolution seasonal closures are having a beneficial survival. The CPW acknowledged, Number 2013–022, entire), adopted on effect on Gunnison sage-grouse in the moreover, that their analysis was not May 28, 2013, provides that seasonal majority of the Gunnison Basin area peer reviewed, and did not account for restrictions (March 15 until May 15) be through avoidance or minimization of factors such as age (yearling vs. adult), implemented for roads (not belonging to impacts during sensitive periods. re-nesting (however, only 3.2 percent of adjacent property owners or their Using GIS and a spatial dataset of females studied re-nested), or time (i.e., guests), and appropriate terms and roads in the Gunnison Basin, we the same female observed across years) conditions be applied during this same evaluated the potential effects of roads (CPW 2013b, pp. 8–9). CPW also time period at construction sites within to Gunnison sage-grouse and their recognized that its report of nesting 0.6 miles of a lek to minimize and avoid habitat. To account for secondary effects success in relation to roads only impacts on breeding and brood-rearing from invasive weed spread from roads addressed one aspect of potential threats habitat. This affects portions of the San (see discussion below in Invasive to Gunnison sage-grouse from roads, Miguel and Cerro Summit-Cimarron- Plants), we applied a 0.7-km (0.4-mi) and did not address additional threats Sims Mesa populations. We expect ‘‘zone of influence’’ (Bradley and from roads such as impacts on these seasonal closures and restrictions Mustard 2006, p. 1146) to all roads in suitability of brood-rearing and seasonal are benefitting Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin. These analyses habitat components, changes in lekking important portions of these populations indicate that approximately 85 percent behavior, noise impacts, depredation through avoidance and minimization of of occupied habitat in the Gunnison risks and chick and adult mortality impacts during sensitive periods. Basin has an increased likelihood of (CPW 2013b, p.9). While the CPW study However, we believe that roads are current or future road-related invasive may indicate that Gunnison sage-grouse having negative impacts at some level weed invasion, although the extent and in the Gunnison Basin are not totally on all Gunnison sage-grouse severity of weed invasion would vary by avoiding roads, the best available populations. road and area. It is likely that all scientific information on the effects of Summary of Roads occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin roads on sage-grouse and their habitats may be negatively affected in some way nevertheless indicates that roads are As described above in the Residential by the direct or indirect impacts of likely having a negative impact on Development section, the human roads (see the discussion below). In Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison population is increasing throughout the addition, available information Basin population, though the extent and range of Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOLA indicates that noise from roads and magnitude of those impacts are 2009a, pp. 2–3; CWCB 2009, p. 15), and other human activity centers such as the unknown. data indicates this trend will continue. airport may be negatively impacting Gunnison sage-grouse are dependent on Gunnison sage-grouse reproduction in Roads in All Other Population Areas large landscapes to meet their life the Gunnison Basin by reducing male Approximately 140 km (87 mi), 243 history needs (GSRSC 2005, pp. 26–30) sage-grouse attendance at nearby leks km (151 mi), and 217 km (135 mi) of and contiguous sagebrush habitat (Piquette et al. 2013, entire). roads (all road classes) occur on BLM (Rogers 1964, p. 19; Wisdom et al. 2011, The CPW (2013b, pp. 8–9) calculated lands within the Cerro Summit- pp. 452–453). The collective influences the distance from roads (highways and Cimarron-Sims Mesa, Crawford, and of fragmentation and disturbance from county roads) for 185 separate San Miguel Basin population areas, roads reduce the amount of effective successful and unsuccessful sage-grouse respectively, all of which are managed habitat to the extent that they are nests in the Gunnison Basin population, by the BLM (BLM 2009a, p. 71). We do avoided by sage-grouse (Aldridge et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69241

2012, p. 402; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, and nesting perch for many species of Gunnison sage-grouse (USGS 2010, p. p. 520; Knick et al. 2011, pp. 212–219 raptors and corvids, known predators of 1), and golden eagles were found to be and references therein; CPW 2013, pp. Gunnison sage-grouse (Steenhof et al. the dominant species recorded perching 8–9). Given the current and future 1993, p. 27; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. on power poles in Utah in Gunnison human demographic and economic 974; Manville 2002, p. 7; Vander Haegen sage-grouse habitat (Prather and trends discussed above under the et al. 2002, p. 503) (see Factor C, Messmer 2009, p. 12). An increase in Residential Development Section, we Predation). Power poles increase a the abundance of golden eagles conclude that increased road use and raptor’s range of vision, allow for greater associated with power lines within increased road construction associated speed during attacks on prey, and serve occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitats with residential development will as territorial markers (Steenhof et al. would be expected to increase predation continue to increase. Seasonal closures 1993, p. 275; Manville 2002, p. 7), rates (see Factor C, Predation, for further are likely providing benefits to thereby increasing the likelihood of discussion). Gunnison sage-grouse in portions of its predation where sage-grouse occur. Greater sage-grouse leks within 0.4 range and during sensitive periods. Raptors may actively seek out power km (0.25 mi) of new powerlines Nevertheless, habitat decline associated poles where natural perches are limited. constructed for coalbed methane with roads, as described above, is a For example, within 1 year of development in the Powder River Basin current and future threat to Gunnison construction of a 596-km (370-mi) of Wyoming had significantly lower sage-grouse rangewide. transmission line in southern Idaho and recruitment compared to leks further from these lines, presumably resulting Powerlines Oregon, raptors and common ravens began nesting on the supporting poles from increased raptor predation (Braun Depending on the infrastructure (Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 275). Within 10 et al. 2002, p. 10). Connelly et al. (2004, design, size, location, and site-specific years of construction, 133 pairs of p. 7–26) assumed a 5- to 6.9-km (3.1- to factors, powerlines can directly affect raptors and ravens were nesting along 4.3-mi) radius buffer around the greater sage-grouse by posing a collision this stretch (Steenhof et al. 1993, p. perches, based on the average foraging and electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, 275). Raven counts increased by distance of these corvids and raptors, pp. 145–146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. approximately 200 percent along the and estimated that the area potentially 974) and can have indirect effects by Falcon-Gondor transmission line influenced by additional perches decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. corridor in Nevada within 5 years of provided by powerlines was 672,644 to 2 2 2002, p. 10, Walker et al. 2007a, p. construction (Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2). 837,390 km (259,641 to 323,317 mi ), 2,644), increasing predation (Connelly Howe et al. (2014) found (1) the average or 32 to 40 percent of their assessment et al. 2004, p. 13–12), fragmenting distance to a transmission line from area. The impact on a given area would habitat (Braun 1998, p. 146), and selected raven nest sites was depend on local densities of corvids and facilitating the invasion of exotic annual approximately 2.5 times closer than raptors (see discussion in Factor C, plants (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612; from random sites, and (2) areas Predation). Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–25). In 10 Powerlines may negatively impact comprised of nonnative vegetation next years of tracking and studying over sage-grouse habitats even if raptors are to sagebrush were more likely to be used 1,000 radio-collared sage-grouse in not present. The use of otherwise by ravens (p.42), suggesting that ravens Colorado, CPW has documented only suitable habitat by sage-grouse near selected nest sites (1) closer to three powerline strike-related powerlines increased as distance from transmission lines, and (2) in close mortalities (two confirmed cases, and the powerline increased for up to 600 m proximity to land cover edges and areas one suspected case) of Gunnison sage- (660 yd) (Braun 1998, p. 8), indicating where land cover edges adjoined one grouse; and one powerline strike-related sage-grouse avoidance of powerlines. mortality of greater sage-grouse (CPW another. A post hoc analysis revealed Based on those unpublished data, Braun 2013b, p. 11; Phillips and Griffin 2013, that ravens were most likely to nest near (1998, p. 8) reported that the presence pers. comm.). In contrast, powerline edges of adjoining big sagebrush and of powerlines may limit Gunnison and collisions in southeastern Idaho land cover types that were associated greater sage-grouse use within 1 km (0.6 accounted for 33 percent of juvenile with direct human disturbance or fire mi) in otherwise suitable habitat. mortality of greater sage-grouse in low- (Howe et al., p. 43). It is reasonable to Greater sage-grouse tended to avoid elevation areas (Beck et al. 2006, p. assume an increase in the abundance of using brood-rearing habitats within 4.7 1,075). Based on spatial modeling, corvids within occupied Gunnison sage- km (2.9 mi) of wind energy transmission proximity to powerlines is positively grouse habitats can lead to increased lines in Wyoming (LeBeau 2012, p. 27). correlated with Gunnison and greater predation (see Factor C, Predation, for Electromagnetic fields emitted by sage-grouse extirpation and loss of range further discussion). power and transmission lines can alter (Wisdom et al. 2011, pp. 467–468). Due As with corvids, eagles can also the behavior, physiology, endocrine to the potential spread of invasive increase following power line systems and immune function in birds, species and predators as a result of installation. Golden eagle (Aquila with negative consequences on powerline construction and chryrsaetos) predation on sage-grouse reproduction and development (Fernie maintenance, the most substantial on leks increased from 26 to 73 percent and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). Birds are impact of powerlines on Gunnison sage- of the total predation after completion of diverse in their sensitivities to grouse likely comes from indirect a transmission line within 200 meters electromagnetic field exposures, with effects, rather than from direct (m) (220 yards (yd)) of an active sage- domestic chickens being very sensitive. mortality. The effects of powerlines to grouse lek in northeastern Utah (Ellis Many raptor species are less affected Gunnison sage-grouse are expected to be 1985, p. 10). The lek was eventually (Fernie and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). similar to those observed in greater sage- abandoned, and Ellis (1985, p. 10) Based on spatial modeling, sage-grouse grouse due to similar life histories and concluded that the presence of the extirpation appears to be correlated to behavior. powerline resulted in changes in sage- the presence of powerlines (Wisdom et In areas where vegetation is low and grouse dispersal patterns and caused al. 2011, p. 467). However, no studies the terrain relatively flat, power poles fragmentation of the habitat. Golden have been conducted specifically on the provide an attractive hunting, roosting, eagles are found throughout the range of effects of electromagnetic fields on sage-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

grouse. Therefore, we do not know how collisions with taller utility lines were (i.e., an unconfirmed mortality) (Phillips electromagnetic fields may impact documented during a demographic and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.) Gunnison sage-grouse. study (Davis 2012, entire) in the Summary of Powerlines In addition, linear corridors through Gunnison Basin, but none of those birds sagebrush habitats can facilitate the were killed as a result (Phillips 2013, p. Human populations are projected to spread of invasive species, such as 4). There have been no documented increase to varying degrees in and near cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (Gelbard strike-related mortalities of Gunnison most Gunnison sage-grouse populations and Belnap 2003, pp. 424–426; Knick et sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin (see Residential Development al. 2003, p. 620; Connelly et al. 2004, p. (Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.). discussion above). As a result, we 1–2). However, we were unable to find Conservation measures from the expect an associated increase in any information regarding the amount of Gunnison Basin CCA (BLM 2013b, distribution powerlines to meet this invasive species incursion associated entire) are expected to reduce impacts demand. Powerlines are likely with powerlines within Gunnison sage- from some future power line projects negatively affecting Gunnison sage- grouse habitat. and activities on Federal lands in the grouse as they contribute to habitat Gunnison Basin (see Conservation decline and facilitation of predators of Powerlines in the Gunnison Basin Gunnison sage-grouse. Given the current Population Area Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation). demographic and economic trends On approximately 121,000 ha described in the Residential (300,000 ac) of BLM land in the Powerlines in All Other Population Development Section above, we Gunnison Basin, 36 rights-of-way for Areas conclude that existing powerlines and power facilities, power lines, and anticipated distribution of powerlines transmission lines have resulted in the A transmission line runs through the associated with residential and other direct loss of 350 ha (858 ac) of Dry Creek Basin group in the San development will continue to increase. occupied habitat (Borthwick 2005a, Miguel Basin population, and the Direct and indirect impacts resulting pers. comm.; Borthwick 2005b, pers. Beaver Mesa group has two from powerlines are a current and future comm.). In the Curecanti National transmission lines. None of the threat to Gunnison sage-grouse Recreation Area, Gunnison County transmission lines in the San Miguel persistence rangewide. Electric Association has a right of way Basin have raptor proofing, nor do most for 63 km (39 mi) of overhead power distribution lines (Ferguson 2005, pers. Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate lines, and Western Area Power comm.), so their use by raptors and Herbivory Administration (WAPA) has a 31-km (19 corvids as perch sites for hunting and At least 87 percent of occupied mi) right of way for transmission lines. use for nest sites is not discouraged. In Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on Federal As discussed above, the impacts of the winter of 2012, one Gunnison sage- lands is currently grazed by domestic these lines likely extend beyond their grouse individual in the San Miguel livestock (USFWS 2010c, entire). We actual footprint. Based on the average population died due to a powerline lack information on the proportion of foraging distance of corvids and raptors, strike (Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on private Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7–26) assumed comm.). One major electric transmission lands that is currently grazed, but it is a 5- to 6.9-km (3.1- to 4.3-mi) radius line runs east-west in the northern reasonable to expect that the proportion buffer around the perches, and portion of the current range of the of grazed area is similar to that on estimated that the area potentially Monticello population (San Juan County Federal lands because livestock grazing influenced by additional perches Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group is the most widespread type of land use provided by powerlines was 672,644 to 2005, p. 17). There have been no across the sagebrush biome (Connelly et 837,390 km 2 (259,641 to 323,317 mi 2), documented strike-related mortalities of al. 2004), and almost all sagebrush areas or 32 to 40 percent of their assessment Gunnison sage-grouse in the Dove Creek are managed for livestock grazing (Knick area. We performed a similar GIS or Pin˜ on Mesa population areas et al. 2003). Livestock grazing can have analysis of large transmission line (Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.), negative or positive impacts on sage- location in relation to overall habitat and because of their limited extent in grouse, depending on the timing and area and Gunnison sage-grouse lek occupied habitat, powerlines do not intensity of grazing and the habitat type locations in the Gunnison Basin appear to be a threat to the Pin˜ on Mesa or attribute of interest (Crawford et al. population area to obtain an estimate of population. One transmission line 2004, p. 2). Excessive grazing by the potential effects in the Basin. These parallels Highway 92 in the Crawford domestic livestock during the late 1800s analyses indicate that 68 percent of the population and distribution lines run and early 1900s, along with severe Gunnison Basin population area is from there to homes on the periphery of drought, significantly impacted within 6.9 km (4.3 mi) of an electrical the current range (Ferguson 2005, pers. sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, transmission line and is potentially comm.). Several transmission and utility p. 616). Overgrazing by livestock was influenced by avian predators using the lines intersect occupied habitat in the cited as one of several contributing additional perches provided by Poncha Pass area and may be negatively factors in the early loss and transmission lines. This area within 6.9 impacting an already small population deterioration of sagebrush range in the km (4.3 mi) of an electrical transmission and limited available habitat. A bird region (Rogers 1964, p. 13). Historical line contains 65 of 109 active leks (60 translocated from the Gunnison Basin to accounts indicate that overgrazing of percent) in the Gunnison Basin the Poncha Pass area in 2013 was found sagebrush range in Colorado began population. While we recognize that dead under the large transmission line around 1875. Overgrazing was powerlines will not entirely preclude on the west side of Highway 285; apparently at its worst in the early the use of adjacent habitats by Gunnison necropsy results indicated collision was 1900’s and continued until the BLM was sage-grouse, these results suggest that a likely cause of death (Phillips and organized in 1934 (Rogers 1964, p. 13). increased predation risks associated Griffin 2013, pers. comm.; Nehring Around 1910, a gradual but marked with transmission lines could affect a 2013b, pers. comm.). During the same decline in sage-grouse numbers and substantial portion of the Gunnison year, one radio collar was found under distribution in Colorado had begun Basin population. Four sage-grouse a powerline, but no bird was observed (Rogers 1964, pp. 20–22). Though there

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69243

is no evidence of direct correlation, this Despite the obvious impacts of and predator control at the time may information suggests that historical grazing on plant communities within have contributed to relatively high livestock grazing practices and the range of the species, the GSRSC nesting success (Lupis 2005, entire); overgrazing were a contributing factor in (2005, p. 114) could not find a direct inference from this study is therefore the early loss and degradation of correlation between historical grazing limited. Based on measurements of sagebrush habitats and initial declines and reduced Gunnison sage-grouse cattle foraging rates on bunchgrasses in sage-grouse numbers and numbers. Impacts from livestock grazing both between and under sagebrush distribution. Although current livestock on individual birds and site-specific canopies, the probability of foraging on stocking rates in the range of Gunnison habitat conditions may have impacts at under-canopy bunchgrasses depends on sage-grouse are lower than historical the population level as well, given the sagebrush size and shape. Consequently, levels (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 3), long- widespread nature of grazing. However, the effects of grazing on nesting habitats term effects from historical overgrazing, no studies have documented the might be site-specific (France et al. including changes in plant communities impacts (positive or negative) of grazing 2008, pp. 392–393). Effects of grazing on and soils, persist today (Knick et al. at the population level. nesting habitats are dependent on the 2003, p. 116). Sage-grouse need significant grass and timing as well as duration and intensity In addition, widespread use of water shrub cover for protection from of grazing. Grazing on grasses and forbs developments in connection with predators, particularly during nesting during nesting and early brood rearing livestock grazing across the West has season, and females will preferentially seasons could impact food sources for since increased livestock access to choose nesting sites based on these young broods, as well as alter the sagebrush habitats, and so even reduced qualities (Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). desired herbaceous plant community. numbers of livestock still pose impacts However, specific recommendations on Grazing on grasses and forbs in late-fall (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–33, 7–35, 7– vegetation characteristics and habitat or winter could reduce residual 92). However, in some cases, small scale requirements for sage-grouse vary. Nest vegetation important for hiding cover water development may benefit the success in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for nesting hens the following spring. In species. For instance, in the recent past, was positively correlated with greater addition, grazing on shrubs, especially landowners in San Juan County, Utah, grass and forb heights; and shrub sagebrush, during winter months may in the range of the Monticello density and cover (Young 1994, p. 38). cause impacts to both hiding/thermal population of Gunnison sage-grouse did In contrast, nest site vegetation cover as well as the primary food characteristics did not have a strong not have automatic control valves on resource for Gunnison sage-grouse. influence on nest success between the Livestock grazing can also impact fire water developments for livestock Gunnison Basin and San Miguel return intervals, which in turn can affect watering. This resulted in overflow populations, where temporal factors had Gunnison sage-grouse habitat quality. creating seasonal wet meadow and the greatest influence (Davis 2012, pp. 1, Fire ecology in the sagebrush steppe mesic habitats often used by Gunnison 10). It is thought that, in Colorado, ecosystem has changed dramatically sage-grouse and broods. The recent use sagebrush canopy cover conceals nests with European settlement. In high of more advanced watering devices and more than grass (GSRSC 2005, p. 73). In elevation sagebrush habitat, fire return shutoff valves has resulted in the loss of Oregon, grass height at greater sage- intervals have increased from 12–24 many of these created wet meadow grouse nests was taller at successful years to more than 50 years, resulting in sites, potentially contributing to sage- nests than at unsuccessful nests the dominance of woody vegetation grouse declines in the area (Prather (specific grass species that tend to be (typically juniper and/or pin˜ on pine) 2010, p. 27). Water developments are taller than others were also positively and the decline of important shrubs and also a potential source of West Nile associated with successful nests) (Gregg herbaceous understories. At lower virus, a serious risk factor to sage-grouse 1991, p. 2). Gregg et al. (1994, p. 165) elevations, fire return intervals have populations. Unless they are designed speculated that a reduction of grass decreased dramatically from 50–100 and managed specifically to benefit heights due to livestock grazing in sage- years to less than 10 years due to Gunnison sage-grouse, we conclude that grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas invasion by annual grasses resulting in the negative effects of water would negatively affect nesting success the loss of native perennial shrubs, development outweigh the positives whenever cover is reduced below the 18 forbs, and grasses (Crawford et al. 2004, (see Factor C discussion, Disease). cm (7 in.) needed for predator p. 8). By changing vegetative structure Although livestock grazing and avoidance. Maintaining average grass and composition, livestock grazing can associated land treatments have likely height greater than 18 cm (7 in.) was contribute to either condition (an altered plant composition, increased recommended by Connelly et al. 2000a, increase in woody vegetation or topsoil loss, and increased spread of p. 977). However, guideline standards invasive annual grasses) (Beck and exotic plants, the impacts on Gunnison from Connelly et al. (2000a, entire) are Mitchell 2000, pp. 995–996, and sage-grouse populations are not clear. derived primarily from research and references therein), increasing the risk Few studies have directly addressed the publications from the Great Basin and of larger, more severe, or more frequent effect of livestock grazing on sage-grouse northwest, where bunch grasses wildfires (also see Pin˜ on-Juniper (Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998–1000; predominate (GSRSC 2005, p. 73). Encroachment and Invasive Plants Wamboldt et al. 2002, p. 7; Crawford et The RCP (GSRSC 2005, p. H–6) sections in this rule). On the other hand, al. 2004, p. 11), and little direct provided structural habitat guidelines livestock grazing may reduce experimental evidence links grazing for Gunnison sage-grouse and herbaceous fuel accumulation and practices to Gunnison sage-grouse recommends a grass height of 10 to 15 continuity and, consequently, the risk of population levels (Braun 1987, pp. 136– cm (3.9–5.9 in.) in breeding habitats. wildfires in sagebrush habitats (Davies 137, Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7–9). Lupis (2005, entire) found that despite et al. 2010, p. 662). Rowland (2004, pp. 17–18) conducted a reduced grass and forb cover, all (100 We know that livestock grazing literature review and found no percent) Gunnison sage-grouse nests influences fire ecology in sage-grouse experimental research that demonstrates monitored in the Monticello population habitat. However, due to the spatial grazing alone is responsible for were successful. However, sample size complexity of fire in sagebrush reduction in sage-grouse numbers. for the study was limited to three nests, ecosystems (Crawford et al. 2004, p.7),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and the numerous factors determining effects depends on location, grazing communities (Knick et al. 2011, pp. the effects of grazing on sagebrush practices, and site-specific factors. 229–232). The ability to restore or habitats (as described above), the effects Livestock can trample sage-grouse rehabilitate areas depends on the of grazing on sage-grouse by altering fire nests and nesting habitat. Although the condition of the area relative to the ecology likely vary widely across time effect of trampling at a population level ability of a site to support a specific and space. Grazing by livestock, is unknown, outright nest destruction plant community (Knick et al. 2011, pp. especially if done in a manner not has been documented, and the presence 229–232). For example, if an area has a consistent with local ecological of livestock can cause sage-grouse to balanced mix of shrubs and native conditions, including soil types, abandon their nests (Rasmussen and understory vegetation, a change in precipitation zones, vegetation Griner 1938, p. 863; Patterson 1952, p. grazing management can restore the composition and drought conditions, 111; Call and Maser 1985, p. 17; habitat to its potential historical species can reduce the suitability of breeding Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309; composition (Pyke 2011, pp. 536–538). and brood-rearing habitat, negatively Beck and Mitchell 2000, p. 994; Coates Wambolt and Payne (1986, p. 318) affecting sage-grouse populations (Braun 2007, p. 28). Sage-grouse have been found that resting areas from grazing 1987, p. 137; Dobkin 1995, p. 18; documented to abandon nests following had a better perennial grass response Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 231; Beck partial nest predation by cows (Coates than other treatments. Active restoration and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998–1000; 2007, p. 28). In general, all recorded is likely required where native USFWS 2013e, p. 45). Livestock and encounters between livestock and understory vegetation is much reduced wild ungulate numbers must be grouse nests resulted in hens flushing (Pyke 2011, pp. 536–540). But, if an area managed at levels that allow native from nests, which could expose the eggs has soil loss or invasive species, sagebrush vegetative communities to to predation. Visual predators like returning the site to the native historical minimally achieve Proper Functioning ravens likely use hen movements to plant community may be impossible Conditions for riparian areas or locate sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007, p. (Daubenmire 1970, p. 82; Knick et al. Rangeland Health Standards for uplands 33). Livestock also may trample 2011, pp. 230–231; Pyke 2011, p. 539). (USFWS 2013e, p. 45). Domestic sagebrush seedlings, thereby removing a Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 990) did not livestock grazing reduces water source of future sage-grouse food and find any relationship between sage- infiltration rates and the cover of cover (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–31, grouse persistence and livestock herbaceous plants and litter, compacts and references therein). Trampling of densities. However, the authors noted the soil, and increases soil erosion soil by livestock can reduce or eliminate that livestock numbers do not (Braun 1998, p. 147; Dobkin et al. 1998, biological soil crusts making these areas necessarily correlate with range p. 213). These impacts change the susceptible to cheatgrass invasion (Mack condition. They concluded that the proportion of shrub, grass, and forb 1981, pp. 148–149; Young and Allen intensity, duration, and distribution of components in the affected area, and 1997, p. 531). livestock grazing are more influential on Livestock grazing may also have facilitate invasion of exotic plant rangeland condition than the density of positive effects on sage-grouse under species that do not provide suitable livestock (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990). some habitat conditions. Sage-grouse habitat for sage-grouse (Mack and Currently, little direct evidence links use grazed meadows significantly more Thompson 1982, p. 761; Miller and grazing practices to population levels of during late summer than ungrazed Eddleman 2000, p. 19; Knick et al. 2011, Gunnison or greater sage-grouse. meadows because grazing had Although grazing has not been pp. 228–232). stimulated the regrowth of forbs (Evans examined at large spatial scales, as Cattle feed mostly on grasses, but will 1986, p. 67). Greater sage-grouse sought discussed above, we do know that make seasonal use of forbs and shrub out and used openings in meadows grazing that is incompatible with local species like sagebrush (Vallentine 1990, created by cattle grazing in northern ecological conditions and that does not p. 226), the primary source of nutrition Nevada (Klebenow 1981, p. 121). Also, allow native sagebrush vegetative for sage-grouse. Within the range of both sheep and goats have been used to communities to minimally achieve Gunnison sage-grouse, sheep use of control invasive weeds (Mosley 1996 in Proper Functioning Conditions for sagebrush habitats occurs primarily Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7–49; Merritt riparian areas or Rangeland Health during the winter and spring months, et al. 2001, p. 4; Olsen and Wallander Standards for uplands can have negative depending on elevation. Sheep feed 2001, p. 30) and woody plant impacts to individuals, nests, breeding primarily on sagebrush and other encroachment (Riggs and Urness 1989, productivity, and sagebrush and, shrubs. A sage-grouse hen’s nutritional p. 358) in sage-grouse habitat. Anecdotal consequently, to sage-grouse at local condition affects nest initiation rate, reports and opinion papers (Brunner scales (USFWS 2013e, p. 44). However, clutch size, and subsequent 2006, p. 16; Gunnison County 2013a, p. how these impacts operate at large reproductive success (Barnett and 95) have suggested that cattle manure spatial scales and thus on population Crawford 1994, p. 117; Coggins 1998, p. attracts and supports insect populations levels is currently unknown. 30). Grazing management practices that upon which sage-grouse depend for are inconsistent with local ecological survival, and that sage-grouse ‘‘follow’’ Livestock Grazing Allotments and conditions in mesic sites result in a cattle through pastures. However, there Habitat Monitoring reduction of forbs and grasses available is no empirical evidence to support this Our analysis of grazing is focused on to sage-grouse chicks, thereby affecting theory. Further, there are no data to BLM lands because nearly all of the chick survival (Aldridge and Brigham substantiate the idea that in areas not information available to us regarding 2003, p. 30). Chick survival is one of the actively grazed by livestock, sage-grouse current grazing management within the most important factors in maintaining are limited in some way (Connelly et al. range of Gunnison sage-grouse was Gunnison sage-grouse population 2007, p. 37). provided by the BLM. Similar viability (GSRSC 2005, p. 173). We Sagebrush plant communities are not information was provided by the USFS, conclude that livestock utilization of adapted to domestic grazing but was more limited since the USFS forage resources has the potential to disturbance. Grazing changed the has less occupied habitat in grazing negatively impact Gunnison sage- functioning of systems into less allotments and has a different habitat grouse, though the magnitude of those resilient, and in some cases, altered monitoring approach than BLM (see

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69245

discussion below). A summary of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is domestic livestock grazing management provided in Table 8. on BLM and USFS lands in occupied

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT AND ALLOTMENT DATA ON BLM a AND USFS b LANDS IN OCCUPIED HABITAT FOR EACH OF THE GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE (GUSG) POPULATIONS [From BLM (2013b, p. 3–1) and USFWS (2010c), compilation of data provided by BLM and USFS]

USFS BLM

Population Number of active Number of Active BLM allotments with BLM allotments assessed Assessed BLM allotments USFS allotments active BLM GUSG c objectives under LHA d meeting LHA objective allotments (standard 4)

Gunnison ...... 34 ...... 62 62 100% 62 100% 20 32% San Miguel Basin .. no data ...... 12 11 92% 10 83% g 4 40% Dove Creek ...... n/a e ...... 3 0 0% 3 100% h Unknown ...... Monticello ...... n/a e ...... 6 6 100% 5 83% 4 80% Pin˜on Mesa ...... no data ...... 15 8 53% 4 27% 4 100% Cerro Summit-Cim- n/a e ...... 6 1 17% 6 100% i 1 17% arron-Sims Mesa. Crawford f ...... n/a e ...... 8 8 100% 8 100% j 7 88% Poncha Pass ...... no data ...... 8 8 100% 8 100% 8 100%

Total ...... 34 ...... 124 83 67% 101 81% 48 48% a Bureau of Land Management. b United States Forest Service. c Gunnison sage-grouse. d Land Health Assessments. e No United States Forest land in occupied habitat in this population area. f Includes allotments on National Park Service lands but managed by the Bureau of Land Management. g BLM did not evaluate land health specific to GUSG Habitat Objectives in 8 of the 12 active allotments in the San Miguel Basin population area. h BLM did not evaluate land health specific to GUSG Habitat Objectives in any of the 3 active allotments in the Dove Creek population area. i BLM did not evaluate land health specific to GUSG Habitat Objectives in 5 of the 6 active allotments in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area; however, general land health standards were met on BLM lands in this area. j BLM found that 6 allotments (75 percent) were ‘‘meeting with problems’’ for GUSG Habitat Objectives. Generally these allotments were found to be low for some aspect of vegetation characteristics for breeding habitat recommended in GSRSC (2005 H–6).

Some of the available information on have more limited information on the CPW using standardized vegetation domestic livestock grazing and its extent of grazing, management, and transects and rangeland health relationship to habitat conditions on habitat conditions in those areas. assessments and, despite recent drought Federal lands is in the form of BLM’s However, substantial portions of sage- conditions and ongoing land uses, no Land Health Assessment (LHA) data. grouse habitat on private land in the significant deviations from baseline The purpose of LHAs is to determine Gunnison Basin, Crawford, San Miguel, habitat conditions were observed (CPW the status of resource conditions within and Pin˜ on Mesa population areas are 2014a, p. 1). All enrolled properties a specified geographic area at a specific enrolled in the CCAA (see Conservation continue to be in compliance with the time. The LHA process incorporates Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat terms of their Certificate of Inclusion land health standards that define Conservation below in this Factor A (CI) (CPW 2014a, p. 1). This information minimum resource conditions that must section). Based on the RCP conservation suggests that the current level of be achieved and maintained. Further objective of securing and maintaining 90 livestock grazing and operations on discussion on the LHA process is percent of seasonally important habitat those lands is compatible with provided in the following section. (severe winter, nesting, and late brood- Gunnison sage-grouse habitat needs. The USFS does not apply the LHA rearing habitats) for the Gunnison sage- Although Federal land and livestock process, but monitors allotment trends grouse in each population area (GSRSC grazing may be more regulated than through a combination of procedures 2005, pp. 223–224), the CCAA identifies private lands grazing, we cannot make including seasonal inspections, targets for private land protection for any generalizations about how habitat permanent photo points, and inventory each population area, including private conditions in those areas might compare and mapping of plant community lands not already considered as with private lands where livestock conditions and changes over time (USFS protected under a conservation grazing occurs. Grazing allotments 2010). The majority of Gunnison sage- easement (USFWS 2006, pp. 11–12). containing both Federal and private grouse occupied habitat in USFS grazing Roughly 91 percent of the Gunnison lands are, in some cases, managed to allotments is located in the Gunnison Basin population area target, 95 percent meet land health standards through Basin population area (Table 8 of Factor of the Crawford population area target, coordination and cooperation with A (Livestock Grazing Allotments and 46 percent of the San Miguel population grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, p. 1–2). Habitat Monitoring)), and grazing area target, and 217 percent of the Pin˜ on Furthermore, many livestock operations information from USFS as it relates to Mesa population area target on private within the range of Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse is therefore lands are enrolled in the CCAA (Table grouse are employing innovative grazing limited to this area (USFWS 2010c, p2). 10). Except for properties recently strategies and conservation actions Although grazing also occurs on lands enrolled in the program, all enrolled (BLM 2012a, pp. 1–2; Gunnison County owned or managed by other entities, we private lands have been monitored by Stockgrowers 2009, entire) in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

collaboration with the BLM and Forest stocking rates or utilization, changes in required to determine to what extent Service. seasons of use, reductions in duration of livestock grazing is a causal factor. BLM Land Health Assessment use, implementation of resting or Livestock Grazing in the Gunnison Basin Standards deferred rotation grazing systems, or Population Area change in livestock class. Under BLM LHA standards are based on the Instruction Memoranda WO–IM–2010– The BLM manages approximately 51 recognized characteristics of healthy 071, CO–IM–2010–028 and CO–IM– percent of the area currently occupied ecosystems and include considerations 2013–033 (see further discussion in by Gunnison sage-grouse in the of upland soils, riparian systems, plant Factor D on Instruction Memoranda), Gunnison Basin. Nearly all (98 percent) of this area is actively grazed USFWS and animal communities, habitat BLM must consider Gunnison sage- conditions and populations of special 2010c, p. 1). The USFS manages grouse habitat needs and objectives status species, and water quality (BLM livestock grazing on approximately 14 when analyzing grazing management 1997, pp. 6–7). Each LHA standard, percent of the occupied portion of the and permit renewals (BLM 2013a, such as the condition and health of Gunnison Basin population area. soils, riparian areas, or plant Attachment 1–10). Therefore, this information on livestock communities, has varying degrees of We recognize that LHAs are largely grazing is pertinent to approximately 65 applicability to basic Gunnison sage- qualitative and other factors such as percent of occupied habitat in the grouse habitat needs. The LHA standard impacts from invasive species, drought, Gunnison Basin. most applicable to Gunnison sage- OHV use, or the lingering effects of In 2013, of 62 active BLM grazing grouse is LHA Standard 4, which is historical overgrazing, may influence allotments in the Gunnison Basin specific to special status species (BLM the outcome of LHA determinations. population, all had incorporated 1997, p. 7). Special status species Furthermore, BLM’s application of LHA Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives include Federally threatened, standards, methodologies used, and data as described above and completed endangered, proposed, and candidate interpretation varies widely by Field LHAs. LHA Standard 4 was met in 32 species; recently delisted (5 years or Office and State (Veblen et al. 2011, p. percent of these allotments in 2013 less) species; and BLM sensitive species. 3; BLM 2013c, p. 1–3), and the (Table 8 of Factor A (Livestock Grazing BLM sensitive species are those that potentially subjective nature of the Allotments and Habitat Monitoring); require special management methodology is evident in the BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). In 2012, on actively consideration to promote their information on each populations grazed BLM lands in the Gunnison conservation and reduce the likelihood presented below. Therefore, the Basin, approximately 8 percent was and need for future listing under the relationship between LHA ‘‘meeting’’, 17 percent was ‘‘moving Act; they are designated by the BLM determinations and the effects of towards’’, and 63 percent was ‘‘not State Director(s) (BLM 2008). Gunnison domestic livestock grazing on Gunnison meeting’’ Standard 4; while 11 percent sage-grouse was designated as a BLM sage-grouse is very imprecise. We also was of ‘‘unknown’’ status (BLM 2012a, pp. 2–3). sensitive species in 2000, when it was recognize that if an allotment does not recognized as a separate species from Although 2013 data shows that 68 fully meet LHA Standard 4, it does not percent of allotments may not be greater sage-grouse (BLM 2009a, p. 7). mean the habitat is degraded or Therefore, Gunnison sage-grouse is meeting LHA Standard 4, the data show unsuitable for Gunnison sage-grouse; that 32 percent of allotments were managed by the BLM as a special status and a ‘‘not meeting’’ ranking is not species. meeting this standard, which is an always attributable to livestock grazing In addition to requiring stable and improvement over the 8 percent increasing populations and suitable (BLM 2013c, p. 1–2). For instance, some indicated by the 2012 data. Nonetheless, habitat for special status species, the vacant allotments (not grazed by recognizing the limitations of LHA specific indicators for LHA Standard 4 livestock) are not currently meeting methodology and data as discussed include the presence of: minimal LHA Standard 4 (BLM 2013c, p. 1–3), above, the information above suggests noxious weeds, sustainably reproducing meaning current grazing practices are that there may be reduced habitat native plant and animal communities, not a causal factor for that ranking. A conditions on BLM land in the mixed age classes sufficient to sustain ‘‘not meeting’’ determination could also Gunnison Basin. The cause of these recruitment and mortality fluctuations, be based primarily on the declining conditions may or may not be directly habitat connectivity, photosynthetic status of a special status species’ related to grazing management practices activity throughout the growing season, population, including species other than that were inconsistent with local diverse and resilient plant and animal Gunnison sage-grouse. Finally, LHAs ecological conditions, either in the past communities in balance with habitat are typically only conducted every 10 or at present, but the overall trend is for potential, plant litter accumulation, and years, triggered by changes in improving conditions with respect to several plant communities in a variety management such as grazing permit LHA Standard 4. The BLM has also of successional stages and patterns renewal and similar actions and, implemented a CCA for Gunnison Basin (BLM 1997, p. 7). BLM deems an therefore, do not directly indicate (BLM 2013b, entire), which has specific allotment that meets LHA Standard 4 to rangeland trend (BLM 2013c, p. 1–3). measures for livestock grazing within all meet or exceed a minimum resource However, the fact that some grazing occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin condition for those species considered allotments or areas within grazing to help improve Gunnison sage-grouse for that area. allotments are not meeting LHA habitat quality (BLM 2013b, Attachment If livestock grazing is found to be a objectives indicates that habitat 5–4) (see Conservation Programs and causal factor for not meeting LHA conditions may be degraded for Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation standards, including LHA Standard 4, Gunnison sage-grouse in parts of its later in this Factor A analysis). BLM implements changes to grazing range, and that domestic livestock In 2007 and 2008, the BLM Gunnison management to address those issues and grazing may be contributing to these Field Office conducted Gunnison sage- to move toward achieving desired conditions in some instances. A more grouse habitat assessments in two major resource conditions. Examples of thorough examination of each allotment occupied habitat locations in the adjustments include reduction of not meeting LHA Standard 4 would be Gunnison Basin population, quantifying

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69247

vegetation structural characteristics and is actively grazed, overall exposure to livestock grazing in these areas was not plant species diversity. Data were Federal grazing management is higher in described, nor did the study compare collected and compared to Gunnison the Gunnison Basin than elsewhere. un-grazed to grazed areas. Further, sage-grouse Structural Habitat This raises concerns about the long-term transect locations were prioritized and Guidelines in the 2005 Rangewide habitat impacts of grazing management selected in important breeding areas Conservation Plan (RCP) (GSRSC, 2005, on BLM land, and supports the need for used by radio-collared Gunnison sage- Appendix H) during optimal growing BLM to continue to monitor and grouse, potentially biasing study results. conditions in these two major occupied improve LHA trends and grazing Therefore, the relationship between areas. Of 97 transects, guidelines were allotment management. livestock grazing and habitat conditions met in 45 percent for sagebrush cover; BLM reviews and renews grazing is unknown under this study, and there 30 percent for grass cover; 25 percent for permits at 10 year intervals. Since at is limited ability to infer conditions in forb cover; 75 percent for sagebrush least 2010 BLM has modified grazing other portions of the Gunnison Basin height; 81 percent for grass height; and permit terms and conditions in areas not prioritized for sampling. 39 percent for forb height (BLM 2009a, determined to be ‘‘not meeting’’ LHA Livestock Grazing in All Other pp. 31–32). This information suggests standards through the permit renewal Population Areas that habitat conditions in those areas process. Examples of new permit terms generally fell short of standards for or conditions required by the BLM The BLM manages approximately 36 Gunnison sage-grouse, particularly in include implementation of rotational percent of the area currently occupied relation to grass cover, forb cover, and grazing systems, deferment or by Gunnison sage-grouse in the San forb height. However, it is not known elimination of grazing in certain Miguel Basin, and approximately 79 whether those conditions were pastures, reduced grazing duration, percent of this area is actively grazed. attributable to livestock grazing or other changes in season of use, reduced Grazing also occurs on lands owned or factors such as big game forage use or stocking rates, fencing livestock out of managed by other entities within the weather patterns. riparian areas, or incorporating specific San Miguel Basin, but we have no Livestock grazing has also negatively habitat objectives for Gunnison sage- information on the extent of grazing in impacted several Gunnison sage-grouse grouse or other special status species these areas. Within the occupied range treatments (projects aimed at improving (BLM 2012a, pp. 1–2). It is anticipated in the San Miguel population, no active habitat condition) in the Gunnison that these changes will minimize further BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009a, p. 34). Although impacts to habitat and, if continued in sage-grouse habitat objectives these areas are generally rested from the future through Instruction incorporated into the allotment domestic livestock grazing for 2 years Memoranda or Resource Management management plans or Records of after treatment, several have been Plan Amendments (see Factor D Decision for permit renewals (USFWS heavily used by cattle shortly after the discussion), improve degraded habitats 2010c, p. 9). In 2013, 10 (83 percent) of treatment and the effectiveness of the for Gunnison sage-grouse in the 12 active allotments in the San Miguel treatments decreased (BLM 2009a, p. Gunnison Basin. Likewise, conservation population area had LHAs completed in 34), which reduced the potential measures from the CCA (BLM 2013b, the last 15 years; however, BLM only benefits of the treatments. entire) should continue to reduce evaluated land health specific to As noted earlier, the USFS does not impacts from livestock grazing and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives use the LHA process, but monitors operations on Federal lands in the in four (33 percent) of these 12 allotment trends through a combination Gunnison Basin (see Conservation allotments. Of the four allotments of procedures including seasonal Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat evaluated, all were found to be meeting inspections, permanent photo points, Conservation later in this Factor A LHA Standard 4. LHA data are not and inventory and mapping of plant analysis for more details). available for conditions in the community conditions and changes over Some data indicate habitat conditions remaining 8 allotments where Gunnison time (USFS 2010, entire). Three (9 within a part of occupied habitat in the sage-grouse habitat objectives were not percent) of the 34 USFS allotments in Gunnison Basin may be favorable to considered (Table 8 of Factor A Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat Gunnison sage-grouse (Williams and (Livestock Grazing Allotments and in the Gunnison Basin population area Hild 2011, entire). Detailed vegetation Habitat Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 3– have incorporated habitat objectives in monitoring was conducted on six study 1). Therefore, for the four allotments in their grazing plans. However, we have sites, across the Gunnison Basin during the San Miguel population area for no specific data that evaluate allotment 2010 and 2011 in order to determine which we have information, it appears conditions as they relate to these baseline habitat conditions for a that grazing is managed in a manner objectives. Overall, the USFS reports potential future study of the effects of consistent with land health standards that its grazing allotments in the manipulating livestock grazing on and habitat requirements for Gunnison Gunnison Basin population area appear Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Williams sage-grouse. to be improving in forb and grass cover and Hild 2011, entire). Transects were More than 81 percent of the area but are declining in sagebrush cover conducted on private, BLM, USFS, and occupied by the Dove Creek group is (USFS 2010, entire). CPW land. Despite lower than average privately owned. The BLM manages 11 All of this information indicates that precipitation in 2010, and wide percent of the occupied habitat, and 41 grazing management may be a factor in variability of habitat conditions across percent of this area is actively grazed. degraded habitat conditions for the study area, most vegetation Within the occupied range in the Dove Gunnison sage-grouse in parts of the measurements were within the Creek group of the Monticello-Dove Gunnison Basin. Given that there are far structural habitat guidelines for Creek population, there are three active more acres of occupied Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse from the 2005 BLM grazing allotments, and none of grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin Rangewide Conservation Plan (GSRSC b these have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that are actively grazed than in other 2005, pp. H–6–H–8). However, objectives incorporated into the populations, and over 50 percent of land measuring livestock grazing effects was allotment management plans or Records (295,000 ac) in the Gunnison Basin is not an objective of the study (Phillips of Decision for permit renewals (Table under BLM management, most of which 2013, p. 4). The extent of past or current 8 of Factor A (Livestock Grazing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Allotments and Habitat Monitoring); exhibited temporary avoidance of information, it appears that grazing is USFWS 2010c, p. 3; BLM 2013c, p. 3– grazed fields during and after grazing being managed in a manner consistent 1). In 2013, all three active allotments in (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960), with land health standards and habitat occupied habitat had completed LHAs. although one hen with a brood requirements for Gunnison sage-grouse. However, because Gunnison sage-grouse continued to use a grazed CRP field and Lands administered by the BLM and habitat objectives were not considered successfully fledged her brood. NPS comprise over 75 percent of in these assessments, habitat conditions The BLM manages 28 percent of occupied habitat in the Crawford for Gunnison sage-grouse are unknown occupied habitat in the Pin˜ on Mesa population, and 96 percent of this area (BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). Gunnison sage- population area, and approximately 97 is actively grazed. Grazing allotments on grouse are not specifically considered in percent of this area is grazed. Over 50 NPS lands in this area are administered grazing management plans or permits in percent of occupied habitat in this by the BLM. In 2013, of eight active this area. Due to the lack of data specific population area is privately owned, and allotments in the Crawford population, to Gunnison sage-grouse, it is unknown while grazing certainly occurs on these all had incorporated Gunnison sage- how livestock grazing may be lands, we have no information on its grouse habitat objectives and completed influencing the species or its habitat in extent. Within the occupied range in the LHAs. Seven (88 percent) of these eight the Dove Creek population area. Pin˜ on Mesa population, 8 of 15 (53 allotments were found to be meeting More than 95 percent of the area percent) active BLM grazing allotments LHA Standard 4, however 6 of those occupied by the Monticello population have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat allotments were defined as ‘‘meeting is privately owned. The BLM manages objectives incorporated into the with problems’’ (generally these 4 percent of the occupied habitat, and allotment management plans or Records allotments were found to be low for 83 percent of this area is grazed. Within of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS some aspect of vegetation characteristics the occupied range in the Monticello 2010c, p. 5). In 2013, four of these for breeding habitat recommended in population, all 6 active BLM grazing allotments (27 percent) had completed GSRSC) (Table 8 of Factor A (Livestock allotments have Gunnison sage-grouse LHAs. Of the four allotments in which Grazing Allotments and Habitat habitat objectives incorporated into the LHAs were completed, all (100 percent) Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). Based allotment management plans or Records were found to be meeting LHA Standard on this information, it appears that of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS 4 (Table 8 of Factor A (Livestock grazing may be managed in a manner 2010c, p. 6). In 2009 (the most recent Grazing Allotments and Habitat consistent with Gunnison sage-grouse information received from BLM on this Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. 3–1). conservation in the majority of the topic), 88 percent of the area of Therefore, for the small portion of the Crawford population area. occupied habitat in active allotments Pin˜ on Mesa population area for which had a recently completed LHA. we have information, it appears that The BLM manages nearly half of Approximately 60 percent of the area in grazing is managed in a manner occupied habitat in the Poncha Pass occupied habitat in active allotments consistent with Gunnison sage-grouse population area, and approximately 98 was found by the BLM to meet LHA habitat requirements. percent of this area is actively grazed. Standard 4. Given the small amount of Over 76 percent of the area occupied Within the occupied range in the land managed by the BLM in this area, by the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Poncha Pass population, all eight active most of which is meeting Standard 4, Mesa population is privately owned. BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison this information suggests that grazing on The BLM manages only 13 percent of sage-grouse habitat objectives the majority of the small percentage of the occupied habitat, of which 83 incorporated into the allotment lands managed by the BLM in the percent is grazed. Within the occupied management plans or Records of Monticello population area is likely range in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron- Decision for permit renewals (USFWS managed in a manner consistent with Sims Mesa population, 1 of 6 active 2010c, p. 4). In 2013, all active land health standards and habitat BLM grazing allotments have Gunnison allotments in occupied habitat had requirements for Gunnison sage-grouse. sage-grouse habitat objectives completed LHAs, and all were meeting The majority of occupied habitat in incorporated into the allotment LHA objectives. Based on this the Monticello population is in private management plans or Records of information it appears that grazing is ownership and is actively grazed by Decision for permit renewals (USFWS managed in a manner consistent with cattle. Sheep historically grazed this 2010c, p. 7). In 2013, of six active Gunnison sage-grouse conservation on area as well (Messmer 2013, p. 16). A allotments, all had completed LHAs; BLM land in the Poncha Pass significant portion of the agricultural however, BLM only evaluated land population area. lands in Monticello population are health specific to Gunnison sage-grouse Wild Ungulate Herbivory in All enrolled in the Conservation Reserve habitat objectives in one (17 percent) of Population Areas Program (CRP), and much of these lands these six allotments. That single are used by Gunnison sage-grouse allotment was found to be meeting LHA Overgrazing by deer and elk may (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Ward Standard 4. However, general land cause local degradation of habitats by 2007, p. 15). CRP land has provided a health standards (not specific to removal of forage and residual hiding considerable amount of brood-rearing Gunnison sage-grouse) were met on and nesting cover. Hobbs et al. (1996, habitat in the Monticello group because BLM lands in this area, although such pp. 210–213) documented a decline in of its forb component. Grazing of CRP conditions may or may not meet the available perennial grasses as elk land in Utah occurred in 2002 under needs of Gunnison sage-grouse. LHA densities increased. Such grazing could emergency Farm Bill provisions due to data specific to Gunnison sage-grouse negatively impact nesting cover for sage- drought and removed at least some of habitat objectives are not available for grouse. The winter range of deer and elk the grass and forb habitat component, the remaining five allotments (Table 8 of overlaps the year-round range of the thus likely negatively affecting Factor A (Livestock Grazing Allotments Gunnison sage-grouse. Excessive but Gunnison sage-grouse chick survival and Habitat Monitoring); BLM 2013c, p. localized deer and elk grazing has been (see NRCS and Private Land 3–1). However, for the small portion of documented in the Gunnison Basin Conservation Efforts). Radio-collared the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa (BLM 2005a, pp. 17–18; Jones 2005, males and non-brood-rearing females population area for which we have pers. comm.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69249

Grazing by deer and elk occurs in all As described above, the relationship throughout the range of Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse population areas. between LHA determinations and the grouse for as long as it is economically Although we have no information effects of domestic livestock grazing on viable. Since the winter range of deer indicating that competition for Gunnison sage-grouse is imprecise, and and elk overlaps the year-round range of resources is limiting Gunnison sage- the application of LHA methods varies Gunnison sage-grouse and there is grouse in the Gunnison Basin, BLM widely across the species’ range. The documentation of isolated localized observed that certain mountain shrubs best available information suggests that excessive grazing by deer and elk as were being browsed heavily by wild LHA objectives important to Gunnison discussed above, effects of domestic ungulates (BLM 2009a, p. 34). sage-grouse are not being met across livestock grazing are likely intensified Subsequent results of monitoring in parts of the species’ range and that by browsing of woody species by wild mountain shrub communities indicated livestock grazing is likely contributing ungulates in portions of the Gunnison that drought and big game were having to those conditions in some instances. Basin and the Crawford area, and large impacts on the survivability and Reduced habitat quality in those areas, potentially other populations. Habitat size of mountain mahogany as reflected in LHA data, is likely degradation that can result from grazing (Cercocarpus utahensis), bitterbrush negatively impacting Gunnison sage- in a manner incompatible with local (Purshia tridentata), and serviceberry grouse in some of the populations, ecological conditions, particularly with (Amelanchier alnifolia) in the Gunnison including the Gunnison Basin. In the interacting factors of invasive weed Basin (Japuntich et al. 2010, pp. 7–9). summary, for BLM allotments, 67 expansion and climate change, is a The authors speculated that observed percent have Gunnison sage-grouse current and future threat to Gunnison reductions in shrub size and vigor will habitat objectives, and 39 percent are sage-grouse persistence. reduce drifting snow accumulation meeting LHA Standard 4 (Table 8 of Fences resulting in decreased moisture Factor A (Livestock Grazing Allotments availability to grasses and forbs during and Habitat Monitoring)). Effects of fencing on sage-grouse the spring melt. Reduced grass and forb Numerous public comments on our include direct mortality through growth could negatively impact proposed rule to list Gunnison sage- collisions, creation of raptor and corvid Gunnison sage-grouse nesting and early grouse as endangered (78 FR 2486, perch sites, the potential creation of brood-rearing habitat. It is also thought January 11, 2013) suggested that because predator corridors along fences that elk numbers and their seasonal the Gunnison Basin population is large (particularly if a road is maintained next occurrence in the Crawford population and stable (but see additional discussion to the fence), incursion of exotic species may be contributing to habitat impacts regarding this assumption in Factor E along the fencing corridor, and habitat and direct disturbance of Gunnison (Small Population Size and Structure)), decline (Call and Maser 1985, p. 22; sage-grouse (BLM 2013c, p. 4–9). current livestock grazing practices are Braun 1998, p. 145; Connelly et al. not having adverse effects on this 2000a, p. 974; Beck et al. 2003, p. 211; Summary of Domestic Grazing and Wild population. While we agree that, Knick et al. 2003, p. 612; Connelly et al. Ungulate Herbivory relative to the satellite populations, the 2004, p. 1–2). However, fences can also Livestock management and domestic Gunnison Basin population is large and benefit Gunnison sage-grouse by grazing have the potential to degrade lek count data indicate it is currently facilitating the management of livestock Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Grazing stable, there are no data to demonstrate forage use and distribution to achieve incompatible with local ecological whether livestock grazing is limiting the desired habitat objectives (GSRSC 2005, conditions, as described above, can population. The best available data pp. 211–213). adversely impact nesting and brood- suggests that livestock grazing that is Sage-grouse frequently fly low and rearing habitat by decreasing vegetation done in a manner inconsistent with fast across sagebrush flats, and fences available for concealment from local ecological conditions is likely can create a collision hazard resulting in predators. Grazing incompatible with negatively impacting localized areas of direct mortality (Call and Maser 1985, p. local ecological conditions also has been habitat and individual birds in the 22; Christiansen 2009, pp. 1–2). Not all shown to compact soils, decrease Gunnison Basin and in other fences present the same mortality risk to herbaceous abundance, increase populations. sage-grouse. Mortality risk appears to be erosion, and increase the probability of We know that grazing incompatible dependent on a combination of factors invasion of exotic plant species (GSRSC with local ecological conditions can including design of fencing, landscape 2005, p. 173). have negative impacts to sagebrush and topography, and spatial relationship The impacts of livestock operations consequently to Gunnison sage-grouse with seasonal habitats (Christiansen on Gunnison sage-grouse depend upon at local scales. Impacts to sagebrush 2009, pp. 1–2). This variability in fence stocking levels and season of use. We plant communities as a result of grazing mortality rate and the lack of systematic recognize that not all livestock grazing are occurring on a large portion of the fence monitoring make it difficult to results in habitat degradation, and many range of the species. As described in determine the magnitude of direct strike livestock operations within the range of more detail below, conservation mortality impacts to sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse are employing measures from the Gunnison Basin CCA populations; however, in some cases the innovative grazing strategies and (BLM 2013b, entire) should continue to level of mortality is likely significant to conservation actions (BLM 2012a, pp. reduce impacts from livestock grazing localized areas within populations. 1–2; Gunnison County Stockgrowers and operations on Federal lands in the Greater sage-grouse fence collisions 2009, entire) in collaboration with the Gunnison Basin. Likewise, conservation during the breeding season in Idaho BLM and Forest Service. As discussed measures from the CCAA Program have were found to be relatively common and above, habitat conditions are likely minimized impacts from livestock widespread, with collisions being favorable to Gunnison sage-grouse in grazing and operations on private lands influenced by the technical attributes of part of the Gunnison Basin (Williams across the range of Gunnison sage- the fences, fence length and density, and Hild 2011, entire), although the grouse (see Conservation Programs and topography, and distance to nearest relationship of livestock grazing to Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation active sage-grouse lek (Stevens 2011, pp. habitat conditions in those areas is later in this Factor A discussion). We 102–107; Stevens et al. 2012a; p. 300; unknown. expect livestock grazing to continue Stevens et al. 2012b, p. 1377). Stevens

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

et al. (2012a; p. 299) found 41 of 60 greater sage-grouse nest predations in favorable rainfall and climatic recorded collisions (73 percent) in Nevada (Coates 2007, pp. 26–30). conditions (Blomberg et al. 2012). spring of 2010 were less than 500m from Greater sage-grouse avoidance of habitat Reduced adult survival, reproduction, a lek and only 1 collision > 500m from adjacent to fences, presumably to and recruitment at the local levels may, a lek, indicating that fences near leks minimize the risk of predation, in turn, negatively impact sage-grouse containing certain topographic effectively results in habitat populations. properties may pose an increased risk to fragmentation even if the actual habitat Along with replacing or removing sage-grouse. is not removed (Braun 1998, p. 145). vegetation essential to sage-grouse, Although we expect the impacts of Because of similarities in behavior and invasive plants negatively impact fences to Gunnison sage-grouse are habitat use, the response of Gunnison existing sage-grouse habitat. They can similar to those observed in greater sage- sage-grouse should be similar to that create long-term changes in ecosystem grouse, studies on fence strike-related observed in greater sage-grouse. processes, such as fire-cycles (see mortality in Gunnison sage-grouse are discussion below under Fire in this more limited. In 10 years of tracking and Summary of Fences Factor A analysis) and other disturbance studying over 1,000 radio-collared sage- Fences contribute to habitat decline regimes that persist even after an grouse in Colorado, CPW has and increase the potential for loss of invasive plant is removed (Zouhar et al. documented only two strike-related individual grouse through collisions or 2008, p. 33). A variety of nonnative mortalities in Gunnison sage-grouse due enhanced predation. Fences can also annuals and perennials are invasive to to fences (one confirmed case in Poncha benefit Gunnison sage-grouse by sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al. Pass attributed to bird release methods; facilitating better management of 2004, pp. 7–107 and 7–108; Zouhar et and one unconfirmed case in the livestock grazing forage use and al. 2008, p 144). Cheatgrass is Gunnison Basin); and only two strike- distribution in sagebrush habitats. considered most invasive in Wyoming related mortalities in greater sage-grouse Despite some fence removal, we expect big sagebrush communities (Connelly et due to fences (CPW 2013b, p. 11; that the majority of existing fences will al. 2004, p. 5–9). Other invasive plants Phillips and Griffin 2013, pers. comm.). remain on the landscape indefinitely. In found within the range of Gunnison This information suggests that, in the smaller Gunnison sage-grouse sage-grouse that are reported to take Colorado, direct mortality of sage-grouse populations, fencing cumulatively over large areas include: spotted due to fence strikes is minimal, affects the ability of the species to knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), although without a more thorough persist. We also recognize that fences Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens), study, the anecdotal information may be are located throughout all Gunnison oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), misleading. sage-grouse populations and are, yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), and Although the effects of direct strike therefore, contributing to the decline of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) mortality on populations are not fully remaining habitat and are a potential (BLM 2009a, p. 28, 36; Gunnison analyzed, fences are generally source of mortality within all Watershed Weed Commission (GWWC) widespread across the landscape. At populations. For these reasons, fences 2009, pp. 4–6). least 1,540 km (960 mi) of fence are on are likely a contributing factor to the Although not yet reported to affect BLM lands within the Gunnison Basin decline of Gunnison sage-grouse large expanses in the range of Gunnison (Borthwick 2005b, pers. comm.; BLM populations, both directly and sage-grouse, the following weeds are 2005a, 2005e) and an unquantified indirectly, and are therefore a current also known to occur in the species’ amount of fence is located on land and future threat to the species. range and have successfully invaded owned or managed by other large expanses of native wildlife Invasive Plants landowners. Many miles of historic habitats in other parts of western North fence occurs on NPS lands, some of For the purposes of this rule, we America: diffuse knapweed (Centaurea which may be affecting Gunnison sage- define invasive plants as those that are diffusa), whitetop (Cardaria draba), grouse. As of 2013, the NPS has not native to an ecosystem and that have jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica), removed 1.6 km (1 mi) of unnecessary a negative impact on Gunnison sage- and yellow starthistle (Centaurea fencing, and will continue inventorying grouse habitat. Invasive plants alter solstitialis). Other invasive plant species efforts for additional removal where native plant community structure and present within the range of Gunnison fencing is not needed. The NPS is also composition, productivity, nutrient sage-grouse that are problematic yet less constructing 8.8 km (5.5 mi) of fence to cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek 1990, likely to overtake large areas include: prevent cattle grazing on a retired p. 7) and may cause declines in native Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk portion of an allotment. The fence is plant populations through competitive thistle (Carduus nutans), bull thistle built to CPW suggested wildlife-friendly exclusion and niche displacement, (Cirsium vulgare), houndstongue specifications with raptor perch among other mechanisms (Mooney and (Cynoglossum officinale), black henbane deterrents and marked fence wires. Cleland 2001, p. 5446). Invasive plants (Hyoscyamus niger), common tansy Fences are present within all other reduce and can eliminate vegetation that (Tanacetum vulgare), and absinth Gunnison sage-grouse population areas sage-grouse use for food and cover, and wormwood (A. biennis) (BLM 2009a, p. as well, but we have no quantitative generally do not provide quality sage- 28, 36; GWWC 2009, pp. 4–6). information on the amount or types of grouse habitat. Sage-grouse depend on a Cheatgrass impacts sagebrush fencing in these areas. variety of native forbs and the insects ecosystems by potentially shortening Fence posts create perching places for associated with them for chick survival, fire intervals from several decades, to as raptors and corvids, which may increase and on sagebrush, which is used low as 3 to 5 years (depending on the ability of these birds to prey on sage- exclusively throughout the winter for sagebrush plant community type and grouse (Braun 1998, p. 145; Oyler- food and cover. In eastern Nevada, leks site productivity), perpetuating its own McCance et al. 2001, p. 330; Connelly et with post-fire invasive grasses showed persistence and intensifying the role of al. 2004, p. 13–12). This impact is reduced lek recruitment and reduced fire (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). Another potentially significant for sage-grouse annual survival of male greater sage- study found that cheatgrass presence reproduction because corvids were grouse as compared to leks surrounded can shorten fire intervals to less than 10 responsible for more than 50 percent of by native sagebrush habitats, despite years resulting in the elimination of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69251

shrub cover and reducing the and has been identified as an impact to locations (Bradley and Mustard 2006, p. availability and quality of forb cover sage-grouse habitat in that population 1146) as well as summer, annual, and (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–5). Elevated (GSRSC 2005, p. 78). spring precipitation, and winter carbon dioxide levels associated with Cheatgrass infestation within a temperature (Bradley 2009, p. 196). climate change may increase the particular area can range from a small Although we lack the information to competitive advantage (via increased number of individuals scattered make a detailed determination on the growth and reproduction rates) of exotic sparsely throughout a site, to complete actual extent or rate of increase, given annual grasses, such as cheatgrass, in or near-complete understory domination its invasive nature, it appears that higher elevation areas, such as in of a site. Cheatgrass has increased cheatgrass and its negative influence on Gunnison sage-grouse range, where its throughout the Gunnison Basin in the Gunnison sage-grouse will increase in current distribution is limited (Miller et last decade and is becoming the Gunnison Basin in the future due to al. 2011, pp. 181–183). Decreased increasingly detrimental to sagebrush future human disturbances, potential summer precipitation reduces the community types (BLM 2009a, p. 7). exacerbation from climate change competitive advantage of summer Currently in the Gunnison Basin, interactions, and the lack of success to perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush cheatgrass attains site dominance most date with control efforts at broad scales. cover, and subsequently increases the often along roadways; however, other Based on experience from other areas in likelihood of cheatgrass invasion highly disturbed areas have similar sagebrush ecosystems concerning the (Bradley 2009, pp. 202–204; Prevey et cheatgrass densities. In the Gunnison rapid spread of cheatgrass and the al. 2009, p. 11). Future decreased Basin, cheatgrass is currently present in shortened fire return intervals that can summer precipitation could increase the almost every grazing allotment in result, the spread of cheatgrass within susceptibility of sagebrush areas in Utah Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat; Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and the and Colorado to cheatgrass invasion and other invasive plant species, such negative effects to Gunnison sage-grouse (Bradley 2009, p. 204). as Canada thistle, black henbane, populations will likely increase over A variety of restoration and spotted knapweed, Russian knapweed, time. rehabilitation techniques are used to kochia (Kochia scoparia), bull thistle, treat invasive plants, but they can be musk thistle, oxeye daisy, yellow Invasive Plants in All Other Population costly and are mostly unproven and toadflax and field bindweed, are found Areas experimental at a large scale. No broad- in riparian areas and roadsides (BLM Cheatgrass is present throughout scale cheatgrass eradication method has 2009a, p. 7). much of the San Miguel Basin yet been developed. Habitat treatments Weed control efforts in the Gunnison population area (BLM 2005c, p. 6), but that either disturb the soil surface or Basin vary by area and agency or is most abundant in the Dry Creek Basin deposit a layer of litter increase organization. NPS weed control efforts area (CDOW 2005, p. 101), which have been successful at reducing weeds cheatgrass establishment in the comprises 62 percent of the San Miguel (undesirable plant species, typically Gunnison Basin when a cheatgrass seed Basin population. It is also present in including exotic or introduced species) source is present (Sokolow 2005, p. 51). the five Gunnison sage-grouse in targeted areas. Gunnison County, the Rehabilitation and restoration subpopulations east of Dry Creek Basin, Gunnison Basin Weed Commission, and techniques for sagebrush habitats are although at much lower densities that other partners aggressively treat and mostly unproven and experimental, do not currently pose a serious threat to control weeds on all lands in the raising further concerns about soil Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOW 2005, p. disturbance and removal of any Gunnison Basin. From 2006 to 2012, a 101). remaining sage-brush habitats. (Pyke total of 517 ha (1,280 ac) of land was 2011, p. 543). Therefore, researchers treated for weeds in and near occupied Invasive species are present at low recommend using habitat treatment habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse levels in the Monticello group (San Juan tools, such as brush mowers, with (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 105), County GSGWG 2005, p. 20). However, caution and suggest that treated sites however it is unclear what portion of there is no evidence that they are should be monitored for increases in habitat this represents. Gunnison affecting the population. cheatgrass emergence (Sokolow 2005, p. County also recently adopted best Cheatgrass dominates 10–15 percent 49). management practices for weeds of the sagebrush understory in the identified in the Gunnison Basin CCA current range of the Pin˜ on Mesa Invasive Plants in the Gunnison Basin (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 78). Other population (Lambeth 2005, pers. Population Area measures related to weed control by comm.). It occurs in the lower elevation Quantifying the total amount of Gunnison County include reclamation areas below Pin˜ on Mesa that were Gunnison sage-grouse habitat impacted standards and inspections (Gunnison formerly Gunnison sage-grouse range. by invasive plants is difficult due to County 2013a, p. 106), educational Cheatgrass invaded two small differing sampling methodologies, programs and consultations (Gunnison prescribed burn areas in or near incomplete sampling, inconsistencies in County 2013a, p. 107). While beneficial occupied habitat conducted in 1989 and species sampled, and varying and necessary, such control efforts are 1998 (BLM 2005d, p. 6), and continues interpretations of what constitutes an likely inadequate to address the threat to be a concern with new ground- infestation (Miller et al., 2011, pp. 155– of invasive plants, particularly in the disturbing projects. Within the Pin˜ on 156). Cheatgrass has invaded areas in face of climate change and drought Mesa population, 520 ha (1,284 ac) of the Gunnison sage-grouse range, which are likely to intensify the BLM lands are currently mapped with supplanting sagebrush habitat in some proliferation of these species in the cheatgrass as the dominant species areas (BLM 2009a, p. 60). However, we range of Gunnison sage-grouse. (BLM 2009a, p. 3). This is not a do not have a reliable estimate of the Although disturbed areas most often comprehensive inventory of cheatgrass amount of area occupied by cheatgrass contain the highest cheatgrass densities, occurrence, as it only includes areas in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. cheatgrass can readily spread into less where cheatgrass dominates the plant While not ubiquitous, cheatgrass is disturbed and even undisturbed habitat. community and does not include areas found at numerous locations throughout A strong indicator for future cheatgrass where the species is present at lower the Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009a, p. 60) invasion is the proximity to current densities.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Invasive plants, especially cheatgrass, where burned habitat is beneficial (via 1994, p. 298; Fischer et al. 1996a, p. occur primarily along roads, other prescribed fire or wildfire), these gains 196; Crawford 1999, p. 7; Wrobleski disturbed areas, and isolated areas of are lost if alternative sagebrush habitat 1999, p. 31; Nelle et al. 2000, p. 588; untreated vegetation in the Crawford is not readily available (Woodward Paysen et al. 2000, p. 154; Wambolt et population area. According to BLM 2006, p. 65). Another study (Baker 2013, al. 2001, p. 250). (2005c, p.6), in the Crawford population p. 8) suggested that prescribed burning In addition to altering plant area, the threat of cheatgrass may be in sagebrush habitat may be detrimental, community structure through shrub greater than all other nonnative species given the already limited range of removal and potential weed invasion, combined and could be a major limiting Gunnison sage-grouse (see above fires can influence invertebrate food factor when and if disturbance is used sections, Current Distribution and sources (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). to improve habitat conditions, unless Population Estimates, and Factor A Studies in greater sage-grouse habitats mitigated. introduction). Findings from that study indicate fire indeed influences the Cheatgrass distribution has not been indicated that historical fire regimes in abundance of important insect species comprehensively mapped for the Gunnison sage-grouse range resulted in (Fischer et al. 1996a, p. 196; Nelle et al. Monticello-Dove Creek population area; large areas of contiguous sagebrush 2000, p. 589; Pyle and Crawford 1996, however, cheatgrass is beginning to be across the landscape when Gunnison p. 322). However, the response (positive assessed on a site-specific and project- sage-grouse were more widespread and or negative) and duration of those level basis. No significant invasive plant abundant. Fire treatments to thin or effects, and subsequent recovery of occurrences are currently known in the reduce sagebrush, with its potential insect populations, varied widely Poncha Pass population area. negative effects, would not be as between studies and areas. Therefore, although the best available information Summary of Invasive Plants beneficial to the species as efforts made to expand areas of contiguous sagebrush indicates that fire may influence sage- Invasive plants negatively impact (Baker 2013, pp. 1, 8). Likewise, using grouse survival by altering the Gunnison sage-grouse primarily by fire to remove all trees in sagebrush availability of insect prey, the reducing or eliminating native habitats is likely not appropriate, based magnitude of those effects is uncertain. vegetation that sage-grouse require for on the historical presence of pin˜ on- The invasion of the exotic annual food and cover, resulting in habitat juniper in these communities. Pin˜ on- grass cheatgrass increases fire frequency decline. Although invasive plants, juniper abundance likely fluctuated within the sagebrush ecosystem (Zouhar especially cheatgrass, have affected over time in response to fire, at times et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. 2011, p. some Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, the occupying approximately 20 percent of 170). As described in the previous impacts do not currently appear to be the sagebrush landscape (Baker 2013, p. section (Invasive Species), cheatgrass threatening individual populations or 8). Thus, on the whole, we conclude readily invades sagebrush communities, the species rangewide. However, that fire negatively affects Gunnison especially disturbed sites, and changes invasive plants continue to expand their sage-grouse and its habitat. historical fire patterns by providing an range, facilitated by ground The nature of historical fire patterns abundant and easily ignitable fuel disturbances such as fire, grazing, and in sagebrush communities, particularly source that facilitates fire spread. While human infrastructure. Climate change in Wyoming big sagebrush, is not well sagebrush is killed by fire and is slow will likely alter the range of individual understood, and a high degree of to reestablish, cheatgrass recovers invasive species, accelerating the variability likely occurred (Miller and within 1 to 2 years of a fire event decline of sagebrush communities. Even Eddleman 2001, p. 16; Zouhar et al. (Young and Evans 1978, p. 285). This with treatments, given the history of 2008, p. 154; Baker 2011, p. 195). In annual recovery leads to a readily invasive plants on the landscape, and general, mean fire return intervals in burnable fuel source and ultimately a our continued inability to control such low-lying, xeric (dry) big sagebrush reoccurring fire cycle that prevents species, invasive plants will persist and communities range from over 100 to 350 sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et will likely continue to spread years, with return intervals from 50 to al. 2009, p. 1324). The extensive throughout the range of the species over 200 years in more mesic (wet) distribution and highly invasive nature indefinitely. Although currently not a areas, at higher elevations, during wetter of cheatgrass poses increased risk of fire major threat to the persistence of climatic periods, and in locations and permanent loss of sagebrush Gunnison sage-grouse at the species associated with grasslands (Baker 2006, habitat, as areas disturbed by fire are level, we anticipate invasive species to p. 181; Mensing et al. 2006, p. 75; Baker highly susceptible to further invasion become an increasing threat to the 2011, pp. 194–195; Miller et al. 2011, p. and ultimately habitat conversion to an species in the future, particularly when 166). altered community state. For example, considered in conjunction with future Herbaceous understory vegetation Link et al. (2006, p. 116) show that risk climate projections and potential plays a critical role throughout the of fire increases from approximately 46 changes in sagebrush plant community breeding season as a source of forage to 100 percent when ground cover of composition and dynamics. and cover for Gunnison sage-grouse cheatgrass increases from 12 to 45 females and chicks. The response of percent or more. However, BLM (2013b, Fire herbaceous understory vegetation to fire p. 1–7) noted that changes in fire Mountain big sagebrush, the most varies with differences in species frequency due to cheatgrass invasion, important and widespread sagebrush composition, pre-burn site condition, such as those observed in the Great species for Gunnison sage-grouse, is fire intensity, and pre- and post-fire Basin region of the western United killed by fire and can require decades to patterns of precipitation. Any beneficial States, have not been observed on BLM recover. In nesting and wintering sites, flush of perennial grasses and forbs lands in Gunnison sage-grouse range. fire causes direct loss of habitat due to following fire in sagebrush communities As discussed above, there are reduced cover and forage (Call and is often minimal and lost after only a numerous potential negative effects of Maser 1985, p. 17), with effects likely few years, with little difference in fire to sagebrush habitat and, lasting 75 years or longer until herbaceous vegetation between burned presumably, Gunnison sage-grouse. A sagebrush recovers (Baker 2011, p. 16). and unburned sites, but reduced clear positive response of Gunnison or While there may be limited instances sagebrush in burned sites (Cook et al. greater sage-grouse to fire has not been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69253

demonstrated (Braun 1998, p. 9). The severity will increase in the Gunnison population area (CDOW 2009b, pp. 125– few studies that have suggested fire may Basin (see Climate Change section in 126) or the Monticello-Dove Creek be beneficial for greater sage-grouse this Factor A analysis). However, CPW population area (CDOW 2009b, p. 75; were primarily conducted in mesic recently completed a literature review UDWR 2009, p. 5). Although fire can areas used for brood-rearing (Klebenow regarding fire in high elevation have devastating effects on Gunnison 1970, p. 399; Pyle and Crawford 1996, Intermountain sage-brush basins, such sage-grouse habitats, as discussed above, p. 323; Gates 1983, in Connelly et al. as the Gunnison Basin, and concluded because fires have burned primarily 2000c, p. 90; Sime 1991, in Connelly et that the probability of catastrophic fire outside of occupied Gunnison sage- al. 2000a, p. 972). In this type of habitat, in these areas in the future is low, due grouse habitat in the Pin˜ on Mesa small fires may maintain a suitable to historic fire return intervals, the low population area and fire has been habitat mosaic by reducing shrub number of lightning strikes in the recently absent or minimal in most encroachment and encouraging Gunnison Basin, and a low relative risk other population areas, fire has not understory, herbaceous growth. of cheatgrass invasion after fires (CPW resulted in substantial impacts to However, without available nearby 2014g, Attachment 2). Gunnison sage-grouse in these sagebrush cover, the utility of these sites population areas. Fire in All Other Population Areas is questionable. This is especially true Summary of Fire within the six small Gunnison sage- Two prescribed burns conducted in grouse populations, where fire could 1986 (105 ha (260 ac)) and 1992 (140 ha Fires can cause the proliferation of further degrade the remaining habitat. (350 ac)) on BLM land in the San Miguel weeds and can degrade suitable sage- More recent research indicated that, due Basin on the north side of Dry Creek grouse habitat, which may not recover to the fragmented nature of remaining Basin had localized negative impacts on to suitable conditions for decades, if at sagebrush habitat across the species’ Gunnison sage-grouse. The burns were all (Pyke 2011, p. 539). Recent fires in range, prescribed fire may be conducted for big game forage Gunnison sage-grouse habitat were inappropriate if the goal is to improve improvement, but the sagebrush died mostly small in size and did not result sagebrush conditions and overall habitat and was largely replaced with weeds in substantial impacts to Gunnison sage- quality for the species (Baker 2013, (BLM 2005b, pp. 7–8). The Burn Canyon grouse, and there has been no obvious p. 8). wildfire in the Dry Creek Basin and change in fire cycle in any Gunnison Hamilton Mesa areas burned 890 ha sage-grouse population area to date. Fire in the Gunnison Basin Population (2,200 ac) in 2000. Three wildfires have Therefore, we do not consider fire to be Area occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse a current threat to Gunnison sage- Six prescribed burns have occurred habitat since 2004 on lands managed by grouse. While the best available on BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin the BLM in the Crawford, Cerro scientific information does not currently since 1984, totaling approximately 409 Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and San allow us to predict the extent or location ha (1,010 ac) (BLM 2009a, p. 35). The Miguel Basin population areas. There of future fire events, it does indicate that fires created large sagebrush-free areas have been no fires since 2004 on lands fire frequency may increase in the future that were further degraded by poor post- managed by the BLM within the as a result of cheatgrass encroachment burn livestock management (BLM Monticello-Dove Creek population. on the sagebrush habitat and the 2005a, p. 13). As a result, these areas are Because these fires were mostly small in projected effects of climate change (see less suitable as Gunnison sage-grouse size, we do not believe they resulted in Invasive Plants and Climate Change habitat. Approximately 8,470 ha (20,930 substantial impacts to Gunnison sage- discussions, above and below in this ac) of prescribed burns occurred on grouse at the species level. Factor A analysis, respectively). Fire is, Forest Service lands in the Gunnison Several wildfires near or within the therefore, likely to become a threat to Basin since 1983 (USFS 2009, p. 1). A Pin˜ on Mesa population area have Gunnison sage-grouse in the future. small wildfire on BLM lands near occurred in the past 20 years. One fire Climate Change Hartman Rocks burned 8 ha (20 ac) in burned a small amount of occupied 2007 (BLM 2009a, p. 35). The NPS Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 1995, Our analyses under the Act include completed a prescribed burn on the and several fires burned in potential consideration of ongoing and projected north rim of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. changes in climate and its associated National Park in mixed montane shrub Individual burned areas in this effects. The terms ‘‘climate’’ and and mountain big sagebrush population ranged from 3.6 ha (9 ac) to ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the communities to remove invading 2,160 ha (5,338 ac). A wildfire in 2009 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate juniper trees. Very few mountain big burned 1,053 ha (2,602 ac), Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the sagebrush were killed as a result of the predominantly within vacant or mean and variability of different types burn. The total area of occupied unknown Gunnison sage-grouse habitat of weather conditions over time, with 30 Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the (suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is years being a typical period for such Gunnison Basin burned in recent separated from occupied habitats that measurements, although shorter or decades is approximately 8,887 ha has not been adequately inventoried, or longer periods also may be used (IPCC (21,960 ac), which constitutes 1.5 without recent documentation of grouse 2007, p. 78; IPCC 2013, p. 1450). The percent of the occupied Gunnison sage- presence) near the Pin˜ on Mesa term ‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a grouse habitat area. Cumulatively, this population. change in the mean or variability of one 1.5 percent area equates to a relatively Since 2004, a single 2.8-ha (7-ac) or more measures of climate (e.g., small amount of habitat burned over a wildfire occurred in the Cerro Summit- temperature or precipitation) that period of nearly three decades. This Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area, persists for an extended period, information suggests that there has not and two prescribed fires, both less than typically decades or longer, whether the been a demonstrated change in fire 12 ha (30 ac), were implemented in the change is due to natural variability, cycle in the Gunnison Basin population San Miguel population area. No fire human activity, or both (IPCC 2007, p. area to date. The Nature Conservancy et activity is reported within occupied 78; IPCC 2013, p. 1450). Various types al. (2011, p. 12) predicts that, due to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the last of changes in climate can have direct or climate change, wildfire frequency and two decades in the Poncha Pass indirect effects on species. These effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

may be positive, neutral, or negative and (Ray et al. 2008, pp. 7, 20). To obtain amount of precipitation will alter the they may change over time, depending climate projections specific to the range competitive advantage among plant on the species and other relevant of Gunnison sage-grouse, we requested species (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 175–179), considerations, such as the effects of a statistically downscaled model from and may shift individual species and interactions of climate with other the National Center for Atmospheric ecosystem distributions (Bachelet et al. variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation) Research for a region covering western 2001, p. 174). Temperature increases (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our Colorado. The resulting projections may increase the competitive advantage analyses, we use our expert judgment to indicate the highest probability scenario of cheatgrass in higher elevation areas weigh relevant information, including is that average summer (June through where its current distribution is limited uncertainty, in our consideration of September) temperature could increase (Miller et al. 2011, p. 182). Decreased various aspects of climate change. by 2.8 °C (5.1 °F), and average winter summer precipitation reduces the According to the IPCC, ‘‘Warming of (October through March) temperature competitive advantage of summer the climate system in recent decades is could increase by 2.2 °C (4.0 °F) by 2050 perennial grasses, reduces sagebrush unequivocal, as is now evident from (University Corporation for cover, and subsequently increases the observations of increases in global Atmospheric Research (UCAR) 2009, likelihood of cheatgrass invasion average air and ocean temperatures, pp. 1–15). Annual mean precipitation (Prevey et al. 2009, p. 11). This impact widespread melting of snow and ice, projections for Colorado are unclear; could increase the susceptibility of areas and rising global sea level’’ (IPCC 2007, however, data indicate a shift towards within Gunnison sage-grouse range to p. 1). Average Northern Hemisphere increased winter precipitation and cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, p. temperatures during the second half of decreased spring and summer 204), which would reduce the overall the 20th century were very likely higher precipitation (Ray et al. 2008, p. 34; Karl cover of native vegetation, reduce than during any other 50-year period in et al. 2009, p. 30). Similarly, there is a habitat quality, and potentially decrease the last 500 years and likely the highest high probability of a 5 percent increase fire return intervals, all of which would in at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC in average winter precipitation and a 5 negatively affect the species. In 2007, p. 30). Over the past 50 years, cold percent decrease in average spring- addition, The Nature Conservancy et al. days, cold nights, and frosts have summer precipitation in 2050 (UCAR (2011, p. 12) predicted increased fire become less frequent over most land 2009, p. 15). These predicted changes in frequency and severity in the Gunnison areas, and hot days and hot nights have precipitation and temperature will Basin associated with climate change. become more frequent. Heat waves have likely alter sagebrush plant community Under drought conditions, plants become more frequent over most land composition and dynamics, but to what generally are less vigorous and less areas, and the frequency of heavy degree is uncertain. successful in reproduction, and may precipitation events has increased over For sagebrush, spring and summer require several years to recover most areas (IPCC 2007, p. 30). precipitation comprises the majority of following drought (Weltzin et al. 2003, For the southwestern region of the the moisture available to the species; p. 946). Increased drought and shifts in United States, including western thus, the interaction between reduced the magnitude and timing of Colorado, warming is occurring more precipitation in the spring-summer temperature and precipitation could rapidly than elsewhere in the country growing season and increased summer reduce herbaceous and insect (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). Annual temperatures will likely decrease production within Gunnison sage- average temperature in west-central growth of mountain big sagebrush. This grouse habitats. Colorado increased about 1.11 °C (2 °F) effect could result in a significant long- A recent climate change vulnerability over the past 30 years, but high term reduction in the distribution of index applied to Gunnison sage-grouse variability in annual precipitation sagebrush communities (Miller et al. ranked the species as ‘‘highly precludes the detection of long-term 2011, pp. 171–174). In the Gunnison vulnerable’’ to modeled climate change precipitation trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. Basin, increased summer temperature by the year 2050 (The Nature 5). Under high greenhouse gas emission was strongly correlated with reduced Conservancy 2011, p. 11). The scenarios, future projections for the growth of mountain big sagebrush mechanism of this vulnerability was the southwestern United States show (Poore et al. 2009, p. 558). Based on degradation of high-quality brood- increased probability of drought (Karl et these results and the likelihood of rearing habitat due to the loss of al. 2009, pp. 129–134), and the number increased winter precipitation falling as adequate moisture for the maintenance of days over 32 °C (90 °F) could double rain rather than snow, and the of mesic meadows, springs, seeps, and by the end of the century (Karl et al. corresponding increase in evaporation riparian areas, as well as potential 2009, p. 34). Climate models predict and decrease in deep soil water changes in the fire regime and annual temperature increase of recharge, Poore et al. (2009, p. 559) subsequent loss of sagebrush cover. A approximately 2.2 °C (4 °F) in the predict decreased growth of mountain reduction in the quality and amount of Southwest by 2050, with summers big sagebrush, particularly at the lower these resources, including brood-rearing warming more than winters (Ray et al. elevation limit of the species. Because habitats in particular, will likely affect 2008, p. 29). Projections also show Gunnison sage-grouse are sagebrush key demographic processes such as the declines in snowpack across the West obligates, loss of sagebrush would result productivity of breeding hens and with the most dramatic declines at in a reduction of suitable habitat and survival of chicks and juveniles, lower elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 negatively impact the species. The resulting in reduced population ft)) (Ray et al. 2008, p. 29). interaction of climate change with other viability. A recent analysis indicated Colorado’s complex, mountainous stressors likely has impacted and will juvenile survival was the most topography results in a high degree of impact the sagebrush steppe ecosystem influential vital rate affecting spatial variability across the State. As a where Gunnison sage-grouse occur. population growth rates in the result, predicting localized climate Climate change is likely to alter fire Gunnison Basin (Davis 2012, pp. 89). changes is challenging for mountainous frequency, community assemblages, and Drought conditions from 1999 through areas because current global climate the ability of nonnative species to 2003 were closely associated with models are unable to capture this proliferate. Increasing temperature as reductions in the sizes of all Gunnison variability at local or regional scales well as changes in the timing and sage-grouse populations, including the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69255

Gunnison Basin (CDOW 2009b, entire). Leasable Mineral Development Walker et al. 2007a, pp. 2652–2653; Zou While geographic and microclimatic Leasable minerals are defined and et al. 2006, pp. 1039–1040; Doherty et variation in the Gunnison Basin may administered under the Mineral Leasing al. 2008, p. 193; Leu and Hanser 2011, provide some degree of local variation Act of 1920, as amended, and include pp. 270–271). Increased human and, perhaps, local population oil and gas, oil shale, coal, geothermal, presence resulting from oil and gas redundancy to resist environmental potash, sodium, and sulfur. In this development can also impact sage- pressures, past drought has had section, we first discuss the effects of oil grouse either through avoidance of widespread impacts on this population, and gas development on sage-grouse suitable habitat or disruption of as indicated by negative trends in nearly and sage-grouse habitats in general. We breeding activities (Braun et al. 2002, pp. 4–5; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, all lek complexes during that period then evaluate potential and ongoing pp. 30–31; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. (see Drought in this Factor A analysis; development of oil and gas, coal and 518; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 194). The and Resiliency, Redundancy, and coal-bed methane, and other leasable development of oil and gas resources Representation in the Factor E analysis minerals across the range of Gunnison requires surveys for economically for further discussion on this topic). sage-grouse. Available scientific recoverable reserves, construction of information on the effects of mineral Summary of Climate Change well pads and access roads, subsequent development to sage-grouse is related drilling and extraction, and transport of Climate change predictions are based primarily to oil and gas development. oil and gas, typically through pipelines. on models with assumptions, and there However, in terms of effects on the Ancillary facilities can include are uncertainties regarding the species and its habitat, we expect other magnitude of associated climate change compressor stations, pumping stations, types of mineral development to have electrical generators and powerlines parameters such as the amount and impacts similar to that of oil and gas timing of precipitation and seasonal (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7–39; BLM development, though those impacts may 2007, p. 2–110). Surveys for recoverable temperature changes. There is also vary in magnitude and scope. uncertainty as to the magnitude of resources occur primarily through loud effects of predicted climate parameters Effects of Oil and Gas Development seismic exploration activities. These surveys can result in the crushing of on sagebrush plant community Oil and gas, or fluid mineral, vegetation. Well pads vary in size from dynamics. These factors make it development for energy resources on 0.10 ha (0.25 ac) for coal-bed natural gas difficult to predict to what extent Federal (BLM and USFS) lands is wells in areas of level topography to climate change will affect Gunnison regulated by the BLM (see Factor D greater than 7 ha (17.3 ac) for deep gas sage-grouse. We recognize that climate analysis below for a more thorough wells and multi-well pads (Connelly et change has the potential to alter discussion). The BLM (1999, p. 1) has al. 2004, p. 7–39; BLM 2007, p. 2–123). Gunnison sage-grouse habitat by classified the area encompassing all facilitating an increase in the Pads for compressor stations require 5– Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for its oil 7 ha (12.4–17.3 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, distribution of cheatgrass and and gas potential. Two population areas, concurrently increasing the potential for p. 7–39). Individually, impacts from San Miguel Basin and Monticello-Dove well pads, infrastructure, and ancillary wildfires, and reducing herbaceous Creek, have areas with high potential, features may be small; however, the vegetation and insect production in and one, the Crawford population area, cumulative impact of such development drought years, which would have has medium potential. BLM classifies can be significant. negative effects on Gunnison sage- the oil and gas potential for the The amount of direct habitat loss grouse. We do not consider climate remaining populations as low or none. within an area of oil and gas change to be a current threat to San Miguel County, where much oil and development is ultimately determined Gunnison sage-grouse because of the gas activity has occurred in the last few by well densities and the associated loss uncertainties described above. However, years, ranked 9 out of 39 in Colorado from ancillary facilities. Roads based on the best available information counties producing natural gas in 2009 associated with oil and gas development on climate change projections over the (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation were suggested as the primary impact to next 35 years or so, climate change has Commission 2010a, p. 1) and 29 of 39 greater sage-grouse due to their the potential to alter important seasonal in oil production in 2009 (Colorado Oil persistence and continued use even habitats and food resources of Gunnison and Gas Conservation commission after drilling and production ceased sage-grouse, the distribution and extent 2010b, p. 2). (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489). of sagebrush, and the occurrence of Energy development impacts sage- Declines in male greater sage-grouse lek invasive weeds and associated fire grouse and sagebrush habitats through attendance were reported within 3 km frequencies. Climate change effects, direct habitat loss from well pad (1.9 mi) of a well or haul road with a including increased drought, are also construction, seismic surveys, roads, traffic volume exceeding one vehicle per predicted in the Gunnison Basin powerlines and pipeline corridors, and day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). Because of population. Therefore, we find that indirectly from noise, gaseous reasons discussed previously, the effects climate change is a substantial future emissions, changes in water availability of oil and gas development to Gunnison threat to Gunnison sage-grouse and quality, and human presence. The sage-grouse are expected to be similar to rangewide. interaction and intensity of effects could those observed in greater sage-grouse. Mineral Development cumulatively or individually lead to Sage-grouse also may be at increased habitat degradation and fragmentation risk for collision with vehicles simply Mineral commodity development on (Suter 1978, pp. 6–13; Aldridge 1998, p. due to the increased traffic associated Federal lands includes three primary 12; Braun 1998, pp. 144–148; Aldridge with oil and gas activities (Aldridge types: Leasable, locatable, and salable and Brigham 2003, p. 31; Knick et al. 1998, p. 14; BLM 2003, p. 4–222). minerals. Below, we define each type of 2003, pp. 612, 619; Lyon and Anderson Habitat fragmentation resulting from mineral development and assess the 2003, pp. 489–490; Connelly et al. 2004, oil and gas development infrastructure, scope of those activities and their pp. 7–40 to 7–41; Holloran 2005, pp. including access roads, may have potential impacts across Gunnison sage- 56–57; Holloran et al. 2007, pp. 18–19; greater effects on sage-grouse than grouse range. Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 521–522; habitat loss associated with drill sites.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Energy development and associated producing wells occur in the San 2009, pp. 28 and 36). Overall, we infrastructure works cumulatively with Miguel population area on BLM land; 5 believe that this stressor is localized other human activity or development to newly permitted wells occur on non- and, although it is likely to increase in decrease available habitat and increase Federal land in the Dove Creek the future, it is not now, or likely to fragmentation. Greater sage-grouse leks population in Colorado; and 1 active become a rangewide threat to the had the lowest probability of persisting well occurs on private land in the species in the future. (40–50 percent) in a landscape with less Monticello population in Utah (IEc Coal and Coal-bed Methane than 30 percent sagebrush within 6.4 2014, pp. 5–4 to 5–5, and references Development in All Population Areas km (4 mi) of the lek. These probabilities therein). In the San Miguel population, were even less in landscapes where most wells are in or near the Dry Creek While coal resources and several energy development also was a factor subpopulation area. The exact locations active coal fields (Somerset, Crested (Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2652). of potential future wells are not known, Butte, , etc.) exist in the but because the area is small, they will region, there are no active coal Oil and Gas Development Across the likely lie within 3 km (2 mi) of one of operations in Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison Sage-Grouse Range— only three leks in this area (CDOW habitat (Colorado Division of As noted above, high oil and gas 2005, p. 108). Reclamation, Mining, and Safety development potential exists in the San In the remainder of the Gunnison (CDRMS) 2013), and recoverable coal Miguel Basin and Monticello-Dove sage-grouse range, a total of 10 oil and resources are limited in Gunnison sage- Creek population areas, medium gas wells occur in occupied habitat. grouse range. We have reviewed the best potential exists in the Crawford Eight oil and gas wells occur in the available scientific information population area, and low or no potential Gunnison Basin population area, and regarding the potential for development exists in the remaining population one in each of the Crawford and Cerro of any coal resources in the Gunnison areas. Approximately 33 percent of the Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa sage-grouse range, and found that it is Gunnison Basin population area was population areas (derived from Colorado unlikely in the near future due to ranked as having low oil and gas Oil and Gas Commission 2010, GIS technological, geologic, economic, and potential with the remainder having no dataset). We are not aware of any new other constraints (USFWS 2014a, potential for oil and gas development fluid mineral development in these or entire). Therefore, we find that coal and (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). No Federal lands other population areas since 2010. No coal-bed methane development are not are currently leased for oil and gas oil and gas wells or Federal leases are current or future threats to Gunnison development within the Gunnison Basin within the Pin˜ on Mesa population area sage-grouse. population area. (BLM 2009a, p. 1), and no potential for Other Leasable Mineral Development Energy development within the range oil or gas exists in this area except for of Gunnison sage-grouse is occurring a small area on the eastern edge of the Potash exploration is currently primarily in the San Miguel Basin and largest habitat block (BLM 1999, p. 1; underway in the Monticello-Dove Creek Dove Creek population areas in GSRSC 2005, p. 130). The Crawford population area, but outside of occupied Colorado. The San Miguel Basin and population is in an area with medium habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. Monticello-Dove Creek population areas potential for oil and gas development. A During 2009 and 2010, BLM received occur in the Paradox Basin, a known oil single Federal lease occurs on less than applications for 22 prospecting permits and gas producing region. The majority 1 percent of the Crawford population on approximately 40,000 acres of BLM of oil and gas development and area (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). We are not land in this area (outside of occupied potential in the Paradox Basin, however, aware of any information which habitat). Recently, BLM prepared an is outside of Gunnison sage-grouse indicates that oil and gas development Environmental Analysis for six proof-of- habitat (Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) is a threat to the Poncha Pass concept drill sites. The company that 2014, p. 5–2, and references therein). In population. Based on the best available submitted the application estimates that addition, to date, low levels of information, we conclude that oil and between 250,000 and two million tons development and production have gas development is not a current or of potash may be recovered per year for occurred in this area relative to recent future threat to the Pin˜ on Mesa, at least 20 years. If preliminary development in other regions within the Crawford, or Poncha Pass populations. explorations determine that extraction is western U.S. Oil and gas production in Since 2005, the BLM has deferred feasible, potash development will likely San Juan County, Utah, which includes (temporarily withheld from lease sales) follow (IEc 2014, p. 5–6). However, the Monticello portion of occupied federal parcels nominated for oil and because it is unknown where and to range for Gunnison sage-grouse, has gas leasing in occupied Gunnison sage- what extent development would occur, declined since the late 1980’s (IEc 2014, grouse habitat in Colorado (see further the degree to which potash development p. 5–1 to 5–2, and references therein). In discussion in Factor D Federal Laws and would affect Gunnison sage-grouse and the San Miguel Basin, approximately Regulations). Even with this temporary its habitat is unknown at this time. 8,000 acres are leased for oil and gas deferment, however, we expect energy development in occupied habitat on development on public and private Summary of Leasable Mineral BLM land and, of that area, about 5,000 lands in the San Miguel Basin and the Development acres (63 percent) are producing (IEc Monticello-Dove Creek areas to continue The San Miguel Basin and Dove Creek 2014, p. 5–4, and references therein). over the next 20 years based on the populations are the only areas within The entire San Miguel Basin population length of development and production Gunnison sage-grouse range that area has high potential for oil and gas projects described in existing project currently have a moderate amount of oil development (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). and management plans. Gas and gas production. However, impacts Fluid mineral development in the development may be negatively to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat Paradox Basin is currently taking place impacting a portion of the Dry Creek in this area are limited in scope relative on 44 active, producing, or permitted subpopulation because this area to other regions of oil and gas wells in occupied habitat in the San contains some of the poorest habitat and development within the western U.S. Miguel and Monticello-Dove Creek smallest grouse populations within the We recognize that portions of the range, populations. Of these, 38 active or San Miguel population ((SMBGSWG) such as the Dry Creek subpopulation of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69257

the San Miguel population, may Division of Reclamation, Mining and Currently, in Gunnison sage-grouse currently be impacted by fluid mineral Safety (CDRMS). A mine operator need occupied habitat in Colorado, there are development. However, current and only file a ‘‘Notice of Intent’’ with BLM 694 active mining claims, totaling potential leasable energy development before proceeding with locatable approximately 9,966 acres, or 1.15 is limited to a small portion of the mineral exploration or prospecting percent of rangewide occupied habitat. species’ overall range. To date, the resulting in surface disturbance of 5 Approximately 7.79 percent and 2.10 majority of oil and gas development has acres or less. Operators are required to percent of occupied habitat in the San occurred outside of occupied habitat for provide financial warranty for Miguel Basin and Dove Creek Gunnison sage-grouse. reclamation costs associated with populations, respectively, are under While the San Miguel, Monticello- disturbance from exploration, which is mining claims. For each of the other five Dove Creek, and Crawford populations also filed and held by the CDRMS. Gunnison sage-grouse populations, the have high or medium potential for ‘‘Casual use’’ activities related to area under mining claims is less than 1 future development, the potential for locatable minerals on Federal lands that percent of total occupied habitat in future development is low throughout cause negligible disturbance (e.g., no those populations (USFWS 2014b, p. 3). the remaining population areas, which use of earth moving equipment or These data indicate that mining represent the majority of the species’ explosives) have no legal requirements. potential and future development is range. While coal resources and several The quantity and extent of casual use limited in scope in the range of active coal fields exist in the region, activities, and thus the effects on Gunnison sage-grouse. It is uncertain there are no active coal operations in Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat, what proportion of these mining claims Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, and are unknown. will be developed in the future, and to recoverable coal resources are limited in Salable minerals, or mineral what extent they will be developed. Gunnison sage-grouse range (USFWS materials, include sand, gravel, stone, Future development depends on 2014a, entire). In the near future, there clay, pumice, cinders, and similar economic and market conditions, is a potential for potash development in minerals. Salable minerals on Federal permitting requirements, and multiple the Monticello-Dove Creek population; lands are subject to mineral material other factors. however, the magnitude of the impacts disposal under the Materials Act of Future development of some mining (if any) of this development on the 1947, as amended. Mining of these claims, however, could affect individual species are unknown at this time (see minerals entails a sales contract or a Gunnison sage-grouse or populations. above discussion). Because of the free-use permit from the responsible Future development of uranium mining localized scale of these impacts, we Federal agency. claims in the San Miguel population consider leasable mineral development The Service accessed CDRMS mine area, in particular, could result in to be a threat of low magnitude to and mine claim data (CDRMS 2013, impacts on this population of Gunnison species as a whole. However, given the entire) to evaluate mineral potential and sage-grouse and its habitat. This area small and isolated nature of the development in Gunnison sage-grouse includes the Uravan Mineral Belt, populations where oil and gas occupied range in Colorado. The which has historically been the most development is most likely to occur, oil CDRMS’s dataset includes both active productive uranium region in Colorado, and gas development is a current and and terminated or expired mining and provides an important national future threat to those populations. permits since about 1984 to present, reserve of uranium (IEc 2014, pp. 5–1, including locatable and salable 5–5 to 5–6). The Department of Energy, Locatable and Salable Mineral minerals. Our analysis found that in which is responsible for managing Development in All Population Areas Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat uranium leasing and development, is Locatable minerals include both in Colorado, there are 19 active mining currently in the process of evaluating metallic minerals (gold, silver, uranium, permits (‘‘active’’ means the permits are the continuation of existing uranium vanadium, lead, zinc, copper, etc.) and valid and current, not necessarily that leases under a Draft Programmatic certain unique, valuable non-metallic actual mining is occurring), comprising Environmental Impact statement. In minerals (gemstones, fluorspar, mica, 324.07 acres. Of this number, our recent years, uranium mining activity in gypsum, asbestos, mica, etc.). The analysis found that 247.96 acres (77 this area has nearly ceased due to a Mining Law of 1872 governs the percent) are in the Gunnison Basin decrease in global uranium prices. One exploration, purchase, and development population, and are associated primarily active uranium mine occurs in occupied of locatable minerals on mining claims. with sand and gravel operations habitat in the San Miguel population. This law grants citizens of the United (USFWS 2014b, p. 1). However, this mine is currently not in States the opportunity to explore for, Fifty recently expired or terminated production (IEc 2014, p. 5–5 to 5–6). discover, develop, and purchase certain mining permits exist in Gunnison sage- Construction of the first conventional valuable mineral deposits on public grouse occupied range in Colorado, uranium mill in 25 years, the Pin˜ on domain minerals. Unpatented mining affecting approximately 256.5 acres. Ridge Uranium Mill, is proposed near, claims established under the Mining Again, the majority of area affected was but outside of, occupied habitat in the Law of 1872 give the holder the right to in the Gunnison Basin, including 194.1 San Miguel Basin. However, this mill mine locatable minerals on Federal acres (75.6 percent) associated with may not be built until uranium prices lands. Locating a mining claim requires sand and gravel, borrow material, and increase (IEc 2014, p. 5–5 to 5–6). Such discovery of a valuable mineral through gold mining. Some of these mining a project may result in indirect impacts exploration. The BLM administers permit applications were withdrawn, or on Gunnison sage-grouse, though we mining claims and related notices and mining did not occur (USFWS 2014b, cannot predict the scope or magnitude approvals on BLM and USFS lands. The p. 2). of those impacts. BLM reviews and approves a ‘‘Plan of Where mining has not yet been We were unable to acquire similar Operations’’ for mining on Federal lands permitted or occurred, active (recorded) data for mining activity in the State of resulting in surface disturbance of more mining claims indicate potential Utah, and as a result we do not know than 5 acres, and, in Colorado, financial development of those resources in the the degree to which mineral claims or warranty (e.g., cash bond) is required for future, since identifying a claim requires mines overlap occupied habitat in the reclamation through the Colorado discovery of a valuable mineral. Monticello population area. Published

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

maps indicate there are four small (Suter 1978, p. 3), which may cause application parcels indicating that a mines (less than 5 ac of disturbance at disturbance to sage-grouse. The ultimate high degree of seasonal use may occur any one time) on the periphery of number of wells, and, therefore, within the area surrounding these leks occupied habitat in the Monticello potential loss of habitat, depends on the (GSRSC 2005, p. J–4). A significant population area. These include two thermal output of the source and amount of high-quality Gunnison sage- uranium mines and one flagstone mine expected production of the plant (Suter grouse nesting habitat also exists on and that are inactive; and one uranium/ 1978, p. 3). Pipelines are needed to near the leased parcels (Aldridge et al. vanadium mine that was active as of carry steam or superheated liquids to 2012, p. 402). Thus, geothermal 2008 (UGS 2008a, pp. 4–5, 7). The the generating plant, which is similar in development is a potential future threat majority of uranium and vanadium size to a coal- or gas-fired plant, to the Gunnison Basin population. potential and past production in San resulting in further habitat destruction Geothermal Energy in All Other Juan County is south-southeast of the and indirect disturbance. Direct habitat Population Areas— city of Monticello, Utah, outside of loss occurs from well pads, structures, occupied habitat (UGS 2005, entire). roads, pipelines and transmission lines, Geothermal development potential Several large mines (more than 5 ac of and impacts would be similar to those exists in the San Luis Valley including disturbance at any one time), including described above for oil and gas portions of the Poncha Pass population uranium and copper (inactive and development. The development of area. No geothermal leases currently active) occur northeast of Monticello, geothermal energy requires intensive exist in the San Luis Valley or Poncha Utah (UGS 2008b, pp. 2, 5), outside the human activity during field Pass areas (BLM 2012b, entire; IEc 2014, species’ range. This information development and operation, which p. 7–2). Further, the 2013 BLM San Luis indicates that the overall current and could lead to habitat loss. Furthermore, Valley Geothermal Amendment to their potential development of locatable and geothermal development could cause Resource Management Plan prohibits all salable minerals is very limited in toxic gas release. The type and effect of geothermal development within Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range in these gases depends on the geological Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat Utah. formation in which drilling occurs through a no surface occupancy Future mineral development, (Suter 1978, pp. 7–9). The amount of stipulation (BLM 2012b, entire; BLM especially in seasonally important water necessary for drilling and 2013e, p. 2–11; BLM 2013f, entire). habitats or in smaller or declining condenser cooling can be high. Local Therefore, geothermal development populations, will likely impact water depletions may be a concern if does not appear to be a current or future Gunnison sage-grouse populations. such use results in the loss or threat to Gunnison sage-grouse in the Indirect effects such as functional degradation of brood-rearing habitat. Poncha Pass population. We found no habitat loss associated with mineral other information on the presence of operations, as well as impacts from Geothermal Energy in the Gunnison existing, pending, or authorized associated infrastructure, are also likely. Basin Population Area— geothermal energy sites, nor any other The entire Gunnison Basin, or 87 areas with high potential for geothermal Summary of Locatable and Salable percent of rangewide occupied habitat, energy development, within any other Mineral Development is within a region of known geothermal Gunnison sage-grouse population area. Mining, especially in seasonally potential (BLM and USFS 2010, p. 1). Thus, at this time, geothermal important habitats or in smaller or Currently, geothermal leases in the development outside the Gunnison declining populations, will likely Gunnison Basin occur in the same Basin does not appear to be a threat to impact Gunnison sage-grouse general vicinity on private, BLM, USFS, Gunnison sage-grouse. populations. Indirect effects such as and Colorado State Land Board lands, Wind Energy Development functional habitat loss associated with near and Waunita Hot mining operations, as well as impacts Springs in southeastern Gunnison Most published reports of the effects from associated infrastructure, are also County. The cumulative area of of wind development on birds focus on likely. However, currently active mines geothermal leases in occupied habitat is the risks of collision with towers or and mining claims are limited in approximately 3,399 ha (8,400) ac, turbine blades. However, a recent study geographic scope, and thus are including 1,861 ha (4,600 ac) on BLM conducted in south-central Wyoming considered a threat of low magnitude to land, and 1,538 ha (3,800 ac) on USFS examined the short-term behavioral Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide. If land. This comprises 1.4 percent of response of greater sage-grouse to wind uranium prices increase in the future, occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin. energy development (LeBeau 2012, development in the San Miguel Basin In 2012, all of the leased area entire). In the two years following could potentially pose a threat to this described above was acquired by a construction, greater sage-grouse were already small and vulnerable population conservation group that does not intend not avoiding habitats near wind of Gunnison sage-grouse. to develop the resource. Geothermal turbines, and even selected for habitats leases are issued for 10 years and may closer to turbines during the summer Renewable Energy Development— be extended for two five-year periods months. Male lek attendance was Geothermal and Wind (IEc 2014, p. 7–2, and references apparently unaffected by wind energy Geothermal energy production is therein). Therefore, we do not anticipate development in the area. However, the similar to oil and gas development in geothermal development of these leases author cautioned that these responses that it requires surface exploration, prior to 2032. If geothermal may have been due to typically high site exploratory drilling, field development, development occurs on the leases in the fidelity of sage-grouse despite and plant construction and operation, future, it would likely negatively impact anthropogenic disturbances, and that and likely results in similar degrees of Gunnison sage-grouse through habitat impacts may not be realized until two direct and functional habitat loss (see loss and disturbance of birds. One active to 10 years following development, Effects of Oil and Gas Development). lek and two inactive leks are located similar to oil and gas development in Wells are drilled to access the thermal within the leased parcels. In addition, sage-grouse habitats. The study reported source, and drilling can require 3 weeks six active leks and four inactive leks are that other fitness and vital rates such as to 2 months of continuous activity within 6.4 km (4 mi) of the lease nesting and brood survival rates

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69259

declined near constructed wind height and flight height of grouse, and development is currently underway turbines, potentially as a result of diurnal migration habitats of some birds there by Eco-Power Wind Farms, LLC increased predation and edge effects minimized the risk of collision (Johnson (IEc 2014, p. 7–2). Other landowners created by wind energy infrastructure et al. 2000, pp. ii–iii; Erickson et al. have recently been approached to lease (LeBeau 2012, entire). 2001, pp. 8, 11, 14, 15). their properties for wind development Avoidance of human-made structures Noise is produced by wind turbine as well (Messmer 2013, p. 14). The two such as powerlines and roads by sage- mechanical operation (gear boxes, other wind projects are proposed for grouse and other prairie grouse is well- cooling fans) and airfoil interaction with areas outside of occupied Gunnison documented (Holloran 2005, p. 1; Pruett the atmosphere. No published studies sage-grouse habitat (IEc 2014, p. 7–2 to et al. 2009, pp. 1255–1256) (also see have focused specifically on the noise 7–3, and references therein). Roads and Powerlines sections above). effects of wind power to Gunnison or In addition, the State of Utah recently Wind power requires many of the same greater sage-grouse. In studies completed a statewide screening study features for construction and operation conducted in oil and gas fields, noise to identify geographic areas with a high as do nonrenewable energy resources. may have played a factor in habitat potential for renewable energy Therefore, we anticipate that potential selection and decrease in greater sage- development (UDNR 2009, entire). An impacts from habitat decline due to grouse lek attendance (Holloran 2005, area approximately 80,200-ha (198,300- roads and powerlines, noise, and pp. 49, 56). However, comparison ac) in size northwest of the city of increased human presence (Connelly et between wind turbine and oil and gas Monticello, UT, was identified, with a al. 2004, pp. 7–40 to 7–41) will operations is difficult based on the high level of confidence, as a wind generally be similar to those discussed character of sound. Adjusting for power production zone with a high above for mineral energy development. manufacturer type and atmospheric potential for utility-scale wind Wind farm development begins with conditions, the audible operating sound development (production of greater than site monitoring and collection of of a single wind turbine has been 500 megawatts) (UDNR 2009, p. 19). The meteorological data to accurately calculated as the same level as mapped wind power production zone characterize the wind regime. Turbines conversational speech at 1 m (3 ft) at a overlaps with nearly all Gunnison sage- are installed after the meteorological distance of 600 m (2,000 ft) from the grouse occupied habitat in the data indicate the appropriate siting and turbine. This level is typical of Monticello population, as well as the spacing. Roads are necessary to access background levels of a rural large area surrounding the perimeter of the turbine sites for installation and environment (BLM 2005e, p. 5–24). occupied habitat. The Monticello maintenance. Each turbine unit has an However, commercial wind farms do population is currently small estimated footprint of 0.4 to 1.2 ha (1 to not have a single turbine, and multiple (approximately 70 individuals), with 3 ac) (BLM 2005e, pp. 3.1–3.4). One or turbines over a large area would likely apparent low resilience (see discussion more substations may be constructed have a much larger noise print. Low- and analysis in Factor E below), making depending on the size of the farm. frequency vibrations created by rotating it particularly sensitive to habitat loss Substation footprints are 2 ha (5 ac) or blades also produce annoyance and other impacts. Therefore, we less in size (BLM 2005e, p. 3.7). responses in humans (Van den Berg conclude that future wind energy The average footprint of a turbine unit 2004, p. 1), but the specific effect on development poses a threat to the is relatively small from a landscape birds is not documented. Monticello population of Gunnison perspective. Turbines require careful Moving blades of turbines cast sage-grouse. placement within a field to avoid loss of moving shadows that cause a flickering output from interference with effect producing a phenomenon called Wind Energy in All Other Population neighboring turbines. Spacing improves ‘‘shadow flicker’’ (American Wind Areas— efficiency but expands the overall Energy Association (AWEA) 2008, p. 5– We found no additional information footprint of the field. Sage-grouse 33). Shadow flicker could mimic on the presence of existing, pending, or populations are impacted by the direct predator shadows and elicit an authorized wind energy sites, or any loss of habitat associated with the avoidance response in birds during other areas with high potential for wind construction of access roads, as well as daylight hours, but this potential effect energy development within any other indirect loss of habitat and behavioral has not been investigated. However, Gunnison sage-grouse population area. avoidance of the wind turbines. Sage- greater sage-grouse hens with broods Summary of Renewable Energy grouse could be killed by flying into have been observed under turbines at Development turbine rotors or towers (Erickson et al. Foote Creek Rim in south-central 2001, entire), although reported Wyoming (Young 2004, pers. comm.), Based on the above information, we collision mortalities have been few. One suggesting those birds were not do not consider renewable energy sage-grouse was found dead within 45 disturbed by the motion of turbine development to be a current threat to m (148 ft) of a turbine on the Foote blades. Gunnison sage-grouse range-wide. Creek Rim wind facility in south-central However, in the Gunnison Basin, Wyoming, presumably from flying into Wind Energy in the Monticello geothermal development potential is a turbine (Young et al. 2003, Appendix Population Area— high; if geothermal energy development C, p. 61). This is the only known sage- There is increasing interest in wind were to increase here in the future, it grouse mortality at this facility during energy development in the vicinity of may influence the overall long-term three years of monitoring. We have no the Monticello population in San Juan viability of the Gunnison Basin recent reports of sage-grouse mortality County, Utah (UDWR 2011, p. 3). Three population; thus, it is a potential future due to collisions with wind turbines; wind energy projects are proposed in threat to that population. Similarly, however, many facilities may not be the vicinity of Gunnison sage-grouse information suggests wind energy monitored. No deaths of gallinaceous habitat (IEc 2014, p. 7–2). The San Juan development may increase in the future birds were reported in a comprehensive County Commission recently issued a in the Monticello population, review of avian collisions and wind permit for wind energy development on potentially contributing to further farms in the United States; the authors private land in occupied habitat in the population declines in this small and hypothesized that the average tower Monticello population area, and vulnerable population. Therefore, wind

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

energy development is a future threat to approximately 20 percent of the remove pin˜ on and juniper trees since the Monticello population of Gunnison sagebrush landscape (Baker 2013, p. 8). 2005, and nearly half of which occurred sage-grouse. in the Pin˜ on Mesa population area Pin˜ on-Juniper Encroachment in All (CDOW 2009b, pp. 111–113). Pin˜ on-Juniper Encroachment Population Areas Mechanical treatment of areas Pin˜ on-juniper woodlands are a native The Gunnison Basin population area experiencing pin˜ on-juniper habitat type dominated by pin˜ on pine is not currently undergoing significant encroachment continues to be one of the (Pinus edulis) and various juniper pin˜ on-juniper encroachment (Boyle and most successful and economical species (Juniperus species) that can Reeder 2005, Figure 4–1); however, all treatments for the benefit of Gunnison encroach upon, infill, and eventually other populations have some degree of sage-grouse habitat. However, such replace sagebrush habitat and other documented encroachment. A treatments may have minimal benefit at rangelands. Pin˜ on-juniper extent has considerable portion of the Pin˜ on Mesa the population level, since the majority increased ten-fold in the Intermountain population is experiencing pin˜ on- of affected populations have continued West since Euro-American settlement, juniper encroachment. Approximately 9 to decline since 1996 (Figure 3) despite causing the loss of many bunchgrass percent (1,140 ha [3,484 ac]) of occupied considerable efforts to remove pin˜ on- and sagebrush-bunchgrass communities habitat in the Pin˜ on Mesa population juniper in those areas. (Miller and Tausch 2001, pp. 15–16). area has pin˜ on-juniper coverage, while Pin˜ on-juniper woodlands have also 7 percent (4,414 ha [10,907 ac)] of Summary of Pin˜ on-Juniper been expanding throughout portions of vacant or unknown (suitable habitat for Encroachment the range of Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM sage-grouse that is separated from Most Gunnison sage-grouse 2009a, pp. 14, 17, 25), although we do occupied habitats that either (1) has not population areas are experiencing low not have information that quantifies this been adequately inventoried, or (2) has to moderate levels of pin˜ on-juniper expansion. Pin˜ on-juniper expansion has not had documentation of grouse encroachment; however, considerable been attributed to the reduced influence presence in the past 10 years (GSRSC pin˜ on-juniper encroachment in the of fire, the introduction of livestock 2005, p. 258) and 13 percent (7,239 ha Pin˜ on Mesa population has occurred. grazing, increases in global carbon [17,888 ac]) of potential habitat The encroachment of pin˜ on-juniper into dioxide concentrations, climate change, (unoccupied habitats suitable for sagebrush habitats can contribute to the and natural recovery from past occupation of sage-grouse if practical decline of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. disturbance (Miller and Rose 1999, pp. restoration were applied) have However, pin˜ on-juniper treatments, 555–556; Miller and Tausch 2001, p. 15; encroachment (BLM 2009a, p. 17). particularly when completed in the Baker 2011, p. 199). In addition, Gambel Some areas on lands managed by the early stages of encroachment when the oak (Quercus gambelii) invasion as a BLM within other population areas are sagebrush and forb understory is still result of fire suppression is a potential undergoing pin˜ on-juniper invasion. intact, have the potential to benefit sage- threat to Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOW However, the extent of the area affected grouse (Commons et al. 1999, p. 238). 2002, p.139) if stands become thick and has not been quantified (BLM 2009a, p. Approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 ac) begin to choke out sagebrush 74; BLM 2009a, p. 9). Approximately 9 within the range of Gunnison sage- understory. However, some deciduous percent of the 1,300 ha (3,200 ac) of the grouse has been treated to address shrub communities (primarily Gambel current range in the Crawford pin˜ on-juniper encroachment. Based on oak and serviceberry) are used population is dominated by pin˜ on- the rate of past treatment efforts (CDOW seasonally by Gunnison sage-grouse juniper (GSRSC 2005, p. 264). However, 2009c, entire), we expect pin˜ on-juniper (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). BLM (2005d, p. 8) estimated that as encroachment and corresponding Removal of pin˜ on-juniper is a much as 20 percent of the Crawford treatment efforts to continue. Pin˜ on- common treatment to improve sage- population area is occupied by pin˜ on- juniper encroachment is contributing to grouse habitat. Similar to powerlines, juniper, although much of that has been habitat decline in a limited area, but the trees provide perches for raptors, and as removed by habitat treatments in recent level of encroachment is not sufficient a consequence, Gunnison sage-grouse years. Pin˜ on and juniper trees have also to pose a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse avoid areas with pin˜ on-juniper been encroaching in peripheral habitat at a population or rangewide level at (Commons et al. 1999, p. 239). In on Sims Mesa, and to a lesser extent on this time. However, in combination with Oregon, greater sage-grouse lek activity Cerro Summit, but not to the point other factors such as those contributing ceased when conifer canopy exceeded 4 where it is a threat to the Cerro Summit- to habitat decline (roads, powerlines, percent of the land area, suggesting that Cimarron-Sims Mesa population area invasive plants, etc.), pin˜ on-juniper low levels of pin˜ on-juniper (CDOW 2009b, p. 47). Pin˜ on and juniper encroachment poses a threat to the encroachment can lead to population- trees are reported to be encroaching species. In addition, future conditions level impacts (Baruch-Mordo et al. throughout the current range in the due to drought or climate change may 2013, p. 238). The number of male Monticello group, based on a intensify the problem such that pin˜ on- Gunnison sage-grouse observed on leks comparison of historical versus current juniper encroachment becomes a more in the Crawford population doubled aerial photos, but no quantification or serious threat, particularly in the after pin˜ on-juniper removal and mapping of the encroachment has smaller, declining populations. mechanical treatment of mountain occurred (San Juan County GSWG 2005, sagebrush and deciduous brush p. 20). A relatively recent invasion of Conversion to Agriculture (Commons et al. 1999, p. 238). However, pin˜ on and juniper trees between the While sage-grouse may forage on removal of all trees in a given area is Dove Creek and Monticello groups agricultural croplands (Commons 1997, likely not appropriate, based on the appears to be contributing to their pp. 28–35), they tend to avoid historical presence of pin˜ on-juniper isolation from each other (GSRSC 2005, landscapes dominated by agriculture communities when Gunnison sage- p. 276). (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 991) and do not grouse were more abundant and Within the range of Gunnison sage- nest or winter in agricultural lands widespread. Pin˜ on-juniper abundance grouse, approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 where shrub cover is lacking. Effects likely fluctuated over time in response ac) of pin˜ on-juniper have been treated resulting from agricultural activities to fire, at times occupying with various methods designed to extend into adjoining sagebrush, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69261

include increased predation and In the Gunnison Basin, approximately Summary of Conversion to Agriculture reduced nest success due to predators 9 percent of the occupied range is Throughout the range of Gunnison associated with agriculture (Connelly et currently in agricultural production. In sage-grouse, the amount of land area al. 2004, p. 7–23). Agricultural lands Gunnison County, approximately 38,419 devoted to agriculture is declining. provide limited benefits for sage-grouse ha (94,936 ac) is currently in Therefore, although we expect most as some crops such as alfalfa (Medicago agricultural production (primarily land currently in agricultural sativa), winter wheat (Triticum irrigated hay and pastureland) production to remain so indefinitely, we aestivum), and pinto bean sprouts (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 97, 123; do not expect significant additional, (Phaseolus spp.) are eaten or used GSRSC 2005, p. 73), though we do not future habitat conversion to agriculture seasonally for cover by Gunnison sage- know what proportion of these lands within the range of Gunnison sage- grouse (Braun 1998, pers. comm., Lupis occur in occupied range. Approximately grouse. The loss of sagebrush habitat et al. 2006, entire). Since lek monitoring 15 percent of the occupied range in the from 1958 to 1993 was estimated to be began, the Monticello population of San Miguel Basin is currently in approximately 20 percent throughout Gunnison sage-grouse appears to have agricultural production. In the Cerro the range of Gunnison sage-grouse been at its highest numbers during the Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 326). One 1970’s and 1980’s (SJCWG 2003, p. 5). population, approximately 14 percent of exception is the Monticello-Dove Creek During this time, winter wheat and the occupied range is currently in population, where more than half of the dryland alfalfa were the primary agricultural production. Habitat occupied range is currently in agricultural crops in the area, and many conversion due to agricultural activities agriculture or other land uses that are growers did not use herbicides or is limited in the Crawford, Pin˜ on Mesa, generally incompatible with Gunnison insecticides because of the slim profit and Poncha Pass populations, with 3 sage-grouse conservation. This habitat margin in growing these crops. Also percent or less of the occupied range loss is being mitigated somewhat by the during this period, landowners currently in agricultural production in enrollment of lands in CRP. Because of frequently reported observing flocks of each of the population areas. its limited extent, we do not consider sage-grouse in their fields during Substantial portions of sage-grouse future conversion of sagebrush habitats harvest and post-harvest periods to agriculture to be a current or future (Messmer 2013, p. 19). These habitat on private land in the Gunnison Basin, Crawford, San Miguel, and Pin˜ on threat to the persistence of Gunnison agricultural fields and their sage-grouse. management may have provided a Mesa population areas are currently enrolled in the CCAA (see Conservation However, the extent of historical surplus of arthropods and forbs for conversion of sagebrush to agriculture Gunnison sage-grouse, and for hens Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation in this Factor A analysis). has fragmented the remaining Gunnison with broods, in particular. Despite these sage-grouse habitat to a degree that seasonal benefits, crop monocultures do Except for properties recently enrolled in the program, all enrolled private currently occupied lands are inadequate not provide adequate year-round food or for the species’ conservation, especially cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22–30). lands have been monitored using standardized vegetation transects and in light of other threats discussed Current Agriculture in All Gunnison rangeland health assessments and, throughout this rule. As described above Sage-grouse Population Areas despite recent drought conditions and in the introduction to this Factor A ongoing land uses, no significant analysis, the onset of Euro-American The following estimates of land area deviations from baseline habitat settlement in the 1800s resulted in dedicated to agriculture (including conditions were observed. CPW reports significant human alterations to grass/forb pasture) were derived that all enrolled properties continue to sagebrush ecosystems throughout North primarily from Southwest Regional Gap be in compliance with the terms of their America, primarily as a result of Analysis Project (SWReGAP) landcover Certificates of Inclusion (CIs) (CPW urbanization, agricultural conversion, data (USGS 2004, entire). Agricultural 2014a, p. 1). This information suggests and irrigation projects (West and Young parcels are distributed patchily amongst that the current level of livestock 2000, pp. 263–265; Miller et al. 2011, p. what was recently a sagebrush grazing and operations on those lands is 147). Areas in Colorado that supported landscape. These agricultural parcels compatible with Gunnison sage-grouse basin big sagebrush were among the first are likely used briefly by grouse to move sagebrush community types converted habitat needs. between higher quality habitat patches. to agriculture because their soils and Habitat conversion to agriculture is most Except in Gunnison County, where topography are well-suited for prevalent in the Monticello-Dove Creek cropland is relatively limited, total agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). population area, where approximately cropland has declined over the past two Decreases in the abundance of sage- half of Gunnison sage-grouse occupied decades in all counties within the grouse paralleled the loss of range range is currently in agricultural occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse (Braun 1998, pp. 2–3), and a gradual but production (primarily cropland and (USDA NASS 2010, entire). The marked decrease in sage-grouse pastureland). The conversion of majority of agricultural land use in distribution and numbers in Colorado sagebrush to agricultural use eliminated Gunnison County is hay production, had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, suitable vegetation cover at three leks in and this has also declined over the past pp. 20–22). However, due to the long- the Monticello population, and those two decades (USDA NASS 2010, p. 1). term downward trend in land area leks are no longer used by Gunnison We do not have any information to devoted to agriculture, we do not expect sage-grouse (SJCWG 2000, p. 15; GBSC predict changes in the amount of land agricultural conversion to be a 2005, p. 81). However, habitat loss due devoted to agricultural purposes. significant cause of further range to agricultural conversion has been However, because of this long-term contraction into the future. mitigated somewhat by the downward trend in land area devoted to Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) agriculture, we do not expect a Large-Scale Water Development and (see section below, NRCS and Private significant amount of Gunnison sage- Irrigation Land Conservation Efforts, in this Factor grouse habitat to be converted to Irrigation projects have generally A analysis). agricultural purposes in the future. resulted in loss of sage-grouse habitat

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(Braun 1998, p. 6). Development of Blue Conservation Programs and Efforts whether a future formalized Mesa Reservoir in 1965 in the Gunnison Related to Habitat Conservation conservation effort contributes to Basin flooded an estimated 3,700 ha Consideration of Conservation Efforts in forming a basis for not listing a species, (9,200 ac), or 1.5 percent of potential This Rulemaking or listing a species as threatened rather habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse than endangered, we must find that the Multiple partners including private (McCall 2005, pers. comm.), and conservation effort is sufficiently certain citizens, nongovernmental to be implemented, and effective, so as according to Gunnison County (2013a, organizations, Tribal, State, and Federal p. 124), at least one known lek. Based to have contributed to the elimination or agencies are engaged in conservation adequate reduction of one or more on the size and location of Blue Mesa efforts across the range of Gunnison Reservoir, we presume that habitat threats to the species identified through sage-grouse. Numerous conservation the section 4(a)(1) (five-factor) analysis. connectivity and dispersal of birds actions have already been implemented If a conservation effort meets the criteria between the Gunnison Basin population for Gunnison sage-grouse, and these described in PECE, we are able to and satellite populations to the west efforts have provided and will continue include and rely upon these recent and were impacted. Three other reservoirs to provide conservation benefit to the future efforts in our current threats inundated approximately 2 percent of species. These implemented efforts are analysis and status determination. habitat in the San Miguel Basin considered below. We completed an evaluation of the population area (Garner 2005, pers. Additionally, there are recent and recently developed multi-county comm.). planned conservation efforts that are Conservation Agreement and intended to provide conservation The demand for water in Gunnison Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), benefits to the Gunnison sage-grouse; the 2013 Gunnison Basin CCA and the sage-grouse range is expected to some of which have not been fully increase into the future due to increased Ute Mountain Ute Tribe’s 2014 Species implemented or shown to be effective. Management Plan pursuant to PECE; temperatures resulting from climate The Service’s Policy for Evaluation of change (see Climate Change in this however, only the CCA met the criteria Conservation Efforts When Making established under PECE and thus may Factor A analysis), severe drought (see Listing Decisions (PECE; 68 FR 15100, be considered in determining whether Drought and Extreme Weather in the March 28, 2003) describes our the species is warranted for listing or is Factor E analysis), and human procedure for evaluating the certainty of threatened rather than endangered. population growth (see Residential implementation and effectiveness of Neither the MOU nor the multi-county Development in this Factor A analysis). these recent and future actions. The conservation agreement can contribute Water demand from the Upper Colorado purpose of PECE is to ensure consistent to these determinations because they do River Basin, which encompasses and adequate evaluation of recently not include specific conservation efforts Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range, is formalized conservation efforts when as defined in the PECE polic, and the expected to increase over the next making listing decisions. The policy Tribal plan only met 7 of the 15 PECE several decades, and there are likely to provides guidance on how to evaluate criteria. Therefore, we did not rely upon be significant shortfalls between formalized conservation efforts that these conservation efforts in our current projected water supply and demand have not yet been implemented or have threats analysis and status through 2060 (BOR 2013, entire). not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The determination. However, it is unknown if, when, or evaluation focuses on the certainty that The 2006 Colorado Gunnison sage- the conservation efforts will be where future water projects in the grouse CCAA, 2013 Gunnison Basin implemented and effectiveness of the Upper Colorado River Basin would CCA, habitat improvement projects, and conservation efforts. The policy defines occur. other non-regulatory conservation ‘‘formalized conservation efforts’’ as efforts that address habitat-related A small amount of Gunnison sage- ‘‘specific actions, activities, or programs issues are described and evaluated grouse habitat has been lost to large- designed to eliminate or reduce threats below in this section. Habitat-related scale water development projects, but in or otherwise improve the status of and other conservation efforts provided potentially important areas (see species’’ that are identified in a through Federal, state, tribal, and local discussion above). We expect these conservation agreement, conservation laws and regulations, conservation existing reservoirs to be maintained plan or similar document, and presents easements, and similar regulatory indefinitely, thus acting as another nine criteria for evaluating the certainty mechanisms are evaluated under Factor source of habitat fragmentation. With of implementation and six criteria for D below. Also, throughout this rule, increased water demand in the future, evaluating the certainty of effectiveness conservation efforts are described under we expect that water developments and of such conservation efforts. These relevant threat sections. irrigation practices may further criteria are not considered comprehensive evaluation criteria. The 2006 Colorado Candidate Conservation contribute to impacts on Gunnison sage- Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) grouse, though the scope and magnitude certainty of implementation and the In April 2005, the Colorado Division of those effects are unknown. Based on effectiveness of a formalized of Wildlife (CDOW, now called this information, we conclude that conservation effort may also depend on species-specific, habitat-specific, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)) large-scale water developments and location-specific, and effort-specific applied to the Service for an irrigation are a threat of low magnitude factors. Enhancement of Survival Permit for the to Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, Conservation efforts that are not Gunnison sage-grouse pursuant to both now and in the future. Small-scale sufficiently certain to be implemented section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act. The water developments, such as stock and effective cannot contribute to a permit application included a proposed ponds and tanks, are described and determination that listing is Candidate Conservation Agreement with evaluated in the Domestic Grazing and unnecessary or a determination that to Assurances (CCAA) between CPW and Wildlife Herbivory (Factor A analysis), list as threatened rather than the Service. The standard that a CCAA and Disease (Factor C analysis) sections endangered (PECE, 68 FR 15115). must meet is that the ‘‘benefits of the of this rule. Accordingly, before considering conservation measures implemented by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69263

a property owner under a CCAA, when Federal lands in Colorado within the enrolled properties, all properties have combined with those benefits that current range of Gunnison sage-grouse been monitored using standardized would be achieved if it is assumed that where occupied, vacant/unknown, or vegetation transects and rangeland conservation measures were also to be potentially suitable habitats occur, as health assessments and, despite recent implemented on other necessary mapped and identified in the RCP. After drought conditions and ongoing land properties, would preclude or remove Gunnison sage-grouse is listed under the uses, no significant deviations from any need to list the species’’ (64 FR Act, the CCAA remains in place and the baseline habitat conditions have been 32726, June 17, 1999). The draft CCAA, permit becomes effective. The permit observed. According to CPW, which is the permit application, and the draft exempts take of Gunnison sage-grouse responsible for administering the CCAA environmental assessment were made incidental to otherwise lawful activities with Service oversight, all enrolled available for public comment on July 6, specified in the CCAA (e.g., crop properties continue to be in compliance 2005 (70 FR 38977). The CCAA and cultivation or harvesting, livestock with the terms of their CIs (CPW 2014a, environmental assessment were grazing, farm equipment operation, p. 1). finalized in October 2006, and the commercial/residential development), Colorado Parks and Wildlife has made associated permit was issued on October when performed in accordance with the great strides to enroll landowners, 23, 2006, with a term of 20 years. terms of the CCAA, provided the protect habitat, and alleviate threats to The goal of the CCAA is to reduce participating landowner is Gunnison sage-grouse under this threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and implementing conservation measures voluntary program. We estimate that by help provide for secure, self-sustaining voluntarily agreed to in the landowner’s December 2014, when this rule becomes local populations by enrolling, CI (USFWS 2006, entire). Landowners effective, 40 CIs will have been protecting, maintaining, and enhancing may only enroll properties in the CCAA completed for private properties, or restoring non-federally owned and receive these benefits before a enrolling 94,391 ac, roughly 81,156 ac Colorado habitats of Gunnison sage- species is listed under the Act. that are in suitable habitat, in four grouse (as described further below). CPW may terminate landowner Gunnison sage-grouse populations. This Landowners with eligible property in participation in the CCAA or otherwise includes 32 CIs (54,580 ac (roughly southwestern Colorado could revoke the CI if the landowner fails to 50,410 ac in suitable habitat)) in the voluntarily sign up under the CCAA and comply with or implement the terms of Gunnison Basin; 2 CIs (4,231 ac associated permit through a Certificate the agreement. Further, the Service may (roughly 3,921 ac in suitable habitat)) in of Inclusion (CI) that specifies the land suspend or revoke the permit for just Crawford; 3 CIs (16,820 ac (roughly enrolled in the CCAA and the habitat cause or if continuation of permitted 13,694 ac in suitable habitat)) in San protection or enhancement measures the activities would likely result in jeopardy Miguel; and 3 CIs (18,761 ac (roughly landowner will implement on these to Gunnison sage-grouse (USFWS 2006, 13,131 ac in suitable habitat)) in Pin˜ on lands. Eligible lands include non- p. 20). However, except for recently Mesa (Table 9).

TABLE 9—COMPLETED AND IN-PROGRESS CIS UNDER THE GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE CCAA [CPW 2014a, entire; CPW 2014g, appendix 3]

Total Population Acres * in # Enrolled acres suitable habitat

Gunnison Basin ...... 32 54,580 50,410 Crawford ...... 2 4,231 3,921 San Miguel ...... 3 16,820 13,694 Pin˜on Mesa ...... 3 18,761 13,131

Rangewide Totals ...... 40 94,391 81,156 * These are estimates based on Geospatial analyses.

Based on the RCP conservation acreages on private lands are intended on important seasonal habitats since objective of securing and maintaining 90 to complement lands already receiving these are mapped in this area. In the percent of seasonally important habitat some protection because they are under remaining populations where important for the Gunnison sage-grouse in each Federal ownership. seasonal habitats are not mapped, CCAA population area (GSRSC 2005, pp. 223– A habitat protection objective of 75 targets were based on available 224), the CCAA identifies targets for percent of seasonally important habitat occupied habitat (USFWS 2006, pp. 11– private land protection for each was identified for the Cerro Summit- 12). Roughly 99 percent of the Gunnison population area, including private lands Cimarron-Sims Mesa population, Basin population area target, 95 percent because this area is thought to function not already considered as protected of the Crawford population area target, more as a habitat linkage between the under a conservation easement (USFWS 45 percent of the San Miguel population San Miguel Basin, Gunnison, and ˜ 2006, pp. 11–12). However, we note that Crawford populations (GSRSC 2005, pp. area target, and 217 percent of the Pinon there are lands that are part of the 223–224; USFWS 2006, p. 10). The Mesa population area target on private CCAA, and are also protected under a CCAA habitat protection target for the lands are enrolled in the CCAA (Table conservation easement. Targeted CCAA Gunnison Basin population was based 10).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10—CCAA HABITAT PROTECTION TARGETS ON PRIVATE LAND AND ENROLLMENT [CPW 2014a, entire; CPW 2014b, entire]

CCAA Enrolled % of CCAA Population Target (ac) on CIs (ac) a on target on private land private land private land

Gunnison basin ...... 55,302 54,580 99 Crawford ...... 4,143 4,231 95 San Miguel ...... 37,690 16,820 45 Pin˜on Mesa ...... 8,635 18,761 217 a CI acreage in suitable habitat based on geospatial analyses. Includes some properties also protected by conservation easements.

The CCAA promotes the conservation 2013 Gunnison Basin Candidate measures required for these projects on of Gunnison sage-grouse on portions of Conservation Agreement Federal lands in the Gunnison Basin private lands in the Gunnison Basin, Candidate Conservation Agreements will be addressed separately through Crawford, San Miguel, and Pin˜ on Mesa are formal, voluntary agreements ESA section 7 consultation. However, populations. In these areas, threats to between the Service and one or more the actions addressed by the CCA, as Gunnison sage-grouse are reduced and parties to address the conservation listed above, comprise the most habitats covered by the CCAA are needs of one or more candidate species common land use authorizations where protected, maintained, enhanced, or or species likely to become candidates Gunnison sage-grouse occur on Federal restored. In particular, private land uses in the near future. Participants commit lands in the Gunnison Basin. The CCA including livestock grazing and to implement specific actions designed and conference opinion cover an agricultural production are managed to to remove or reduce threats to the estimated 160,769 ha (397,267 ac) of be consistent with the needs of covered species, so that listing may not occupied habitat on Federal lands in the Gunnison sage-grouse and the species’ be necessary. Unlike CCAAs, CCAs do Gunnison Basin. This constitutes about conservation. Although enrollment of not provide assurances that additional 67 percent of the estimated 239,953 ha property in the CCAA is voluntary and conservation measures will not be (592,936 ac) of total occupied habitat in not permanent or binding, the program’s required if a species is listed or critical the Gunnison Basin; approximately 78 regulatory assurances and take authority habitat is designated. percent of rangewide occupied habitat provide an incentive for participating In January 2010, the BLM, USFS, on Federal lands; and approximately 42 landowners to continue enrollment and NPS, and other members of the percent of rangewide total occupied compliance with terms of their CI. Gunnison Basin Sage-Grouse Strategic habitat for the species. However, there are instances in which Committee (Strategic Committee) began Conservation measures in the CCA those assurances and incentives would preparing a Candidate Conservation and conference opinion are actions that no longer be desirable to the landowner. Agreement (CCA) with the Service to the signatory agencies agreed to For instance, a landowner may choose promote the conservation of the implement to further the recovery of to opt out of the CCAA to sell subject Gunnison Basin population of Gunnison Gunnison sage-grouse. A key lands, whether for development or other sage-grouse (BLM 2013b, entire). The component of the CCA’s site-specific purposes, meaning the benefits to CCA was completed and signed by the conservation measures is a requirement Gunnison sage-grouse provided under Federal land management agencies on for offsetting habitat loss or disturbance the program would cease as well unless August 23, 2012. On April 12, 2013, the to ensure a net increase in priority the new owner decided to continue the Federal land management agencies habitats, and no net loss (maintenance) property’s enrollment in the CCAA. submitted a joint biological assessment of secondary habitats for Gunnison sage- Thus, although residential development (BA) and letter to the Service requesting grouse. A number of other conservation is expected to be very limited on an ESA Section 7 formal conference on measures and practices will be enrolled properties under the terms of the CCA. The Service issued its implemented pursuant to the CCA by the CIs (USFWS 2006, p. 13), the CCAA conference opinion on July 29, 2013 the Federal agencies during the ESA does not preclude the sale of those (USFWS 2013b, entire) and section 7 consultation process to avoid properties nor their subsequent subsequently signed the CCA. The and minimize project impacts on development. Such development would conference opinion evaluated Gunnison sage-grouse. likely result in further habitat loss and anticipated effects of the CCA on The Service commends the Federal decline for Gunnison sage-grouse, Gunnison sage-grouse and estimated agencies, and the Gunnison Basin Sage- though we cannot predict the scope or incidental take over a 20-year period, or grouse Strategic Committee for their magnitude of those impacts. Therefore, through July 29, 2033. efforts in the design of the CCA and the Service views the CCAA differently The CCA serves as a project screen implementation of conservation from conservation easements in terms of and requires implementation of measures to benefit Gunnison sage- its regulatory certainty (see Other conservation measures associated with grouse. In our conference opinion, we Regulatory Mechanisms: Conservation specified actions under three Federal found that, despite incidental negative Easements, Factor D analysis; and land use programs: Development (roads, effects on individual birds and potential Residential Development, in this Factor transmission lines, etc.), recreation short-term, localized, and unavoidable A analysis). Nevertheless, we consider (such as trails and special recreation effects, implementation of the CCA will lands enrolled under the CCAA to be a permits, etc.), and livestock grazing provide a long-term, net benefit for net gain for Gunnison sage-grouse (permit renewals and operations). Larger Gunnison sage-grouse on a landscape conservation, particularly in regard to or impact intensive projects (e.g., scale. The conservation measures and the reduction of habitat-related impacts construction of a new transmission line, mitigation scheme are required for the due to ongoing land uses on private energy development) are not covered signatory Federal agencies engaging in lands. under the CCA, and any conservation covered activities, and are based on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69265

current applicable land management grouse if either species is listed under approximately 9,793 ha (24,200 ac) were plans of the respective agencies. As the Act (USFWS 2010d, entire). enrolled in the CRP program within noted earlier, approximately 87 percent Also under the SGI and related occupied habitat in the Monticello of the rangewide population of private land programs (e.g., Farm Bill), population (UDWR 2011, p. 7). This Gunnison sage-grouse occurs in the the NRCS, Farm Service Agency (FSA), area represents approximately 34 Gunnison Basin population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners percent of the occupied habitat in the Implementation of the proposed action for Fish and Wildlife (PFW), CPW, and Monticello population, and and its conservation measures will help other partners have implemented approximately 22 percent of the entire reduce several substantial threats numerous habitat improvement projects Monticello-Dove Creek population area. known to affect the species on Federal on private lands to benefit Gunnison By 2011, lands that had dropped out of lands in the Gunnison Basin, including sage-grouse. Since 1998, the Service’s the CRP program were replaced by habitat decline. Although we analyzed Colorado PFW has completed 20 habitat newly enrolled properties, and the total the CCA under our PECE policy and improvement or restoration projects in acreage of lands enrolled in the CRP found it satisfies all the criteria for Gunnison sage-grouse habitat including program remained at the maximum consideration in our listing projects on 638.5 ac of wetland habitat; allowed by the FSA for San Juan determination, approximately 22 3,957 ac of upland habitat; and 4.3 mi County, UT (UDWR 2011, p. 7). percent of rangewide occupied habitat of riparian habitat in Gunnison, Gunnison sage-grouse are known to on Federal lands—all within the Saguache, and Montrose Counties, with regularly use CRP lands in the satellite population areas—are not most treated acres in Gunnison County. Monticello population (Lupis et al. covered under the CCA or a similar Project types included restoration, 2006, pp. 959–960; Ward 2007, p. 15). agreement. Additional protections on improvement, and management actions In San Juan County, Gunnison sage- those Federal lands will be necessary to such as enhancement of wetland and grouse use CRP lands in proportion to conserve these smaller, declining brood-rearing habitat, treating their availability (Lupis et al. 2006, p. populations. Therefore, while the CCA sagebrush, reseeding of native 959). The CRP areas are used by grouse is effective in reducing some threats in vegetation, fencing installation, grazing primarily as foraging and brood-rearing the Gunnison Basin population, it is not management, and removal of pin˜ on- habitat, but these areas vary greatly in effective at reducing the threats to the juniper (USFWS 2014c, entire). plant diversity and forb abundance, species rangewide such that listing is Contributing partners for these projects generally lack any shrub cover (Lupis et not warranted. have included CPW, NRCS, and Rocky al. 2006, pp. 959–960; Prather 2010, p. Mountain Bird Observatory. In addition, 32), and thus are less suitable for NRCS and Private Lands Conservation in 2006 the NRCS Gunnison Basin nesting and wintering habitat. Efforts Conservation District sponsored a Range Except in emergency situations such The NRCS’s Sage-Grouse Initiative Management School to assist ranchers as drought, CRP-enrolled lands are not (SGI) is a rangewide, collaborative, in managing and monitoring their lands hayed or grazed. In response to a severe targeted effort to implement to benefit Gunnison sage-grouse and drought, four CRP parcels totaling 1,487 conservation practices which alleviate meet the requirements of the CCAA ha (3,674 ac) in San Juan County, UT, threats that some agricultural activities (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 204–206). were emergency grazed for a duration of can pose to greater and Gunnison sage- Projects undertaken through SGI and one to two months in the summer of grouse while improving the related private land programs, as 2002 (Lupis et al. 2006, p. 959). Males sustainability of working ranches. described above, have benefitted and broodless females avoided the Through SGI, the NRCS and its partners Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat, grazed areas while cattle were present help ranchers proactively conserve and but are limited in extent. Therefore, it is but returned after cattle were removed improve sage-grouse habitat. The SGI unlikely that such actions are able to (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 960–961). Thus, includes a monitoring and evaluation offset habitat loss and decline across the the effects from grazing were likely component for projects to measure the species’ range. negative but apparently short in response of sage-grouse populations and The CRP is another Federally duration. vital rates (USFWS 2010d, p. 5). sponsored program that has helped Largely as a result of agricultural In 2010, the Service issued the SGI offset the loss of Gunnison sage-grouse conversion, sagebrush patches in the Conference Report (USFWS 2010d, habitat. Administered by the FSA, this Monticello-Dove Creek subpopulation entire) to facilitate the SGI and program provides incentives to area have progressively become smaller conservation of Gunnison and greater landowners to plant more natural and more fragmented, thereby limiting sage-grouse rangewide. In the vegetation in lands formerly devoted to the amount of high quality nesting and Conference Report, the Service provided agricultural production. The NRCS winter habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 82, guidance and conservation provides technical assistance and 276). Overall, the CRP has provided recommendations for avoiding and planning in the implementation of CRP. important foraging habitat and has minimizing adverse effects to sage- The CRP helps address the threat of protected a portion of the Monticello- grouse associated with the SGI, and habitat decline due to agricultural Dove Creek population from more found that the implementation of the conversion. intensive agricultural use and SGI and identified conservation Lands within the occupied range of development. Continued enrollment of measures would have a net benefit on Gunnison sage-grouse currently enrolled lands in CRP and management of those the species. The report identified in the CRP are limited to Dolores and lands are conservation priorities of the primary conservation practices San Miguel counties in Colorado, and local sage-grouse working group (management, vegetative, and structural) San Juan County in Utah (USDA FSA (SJCWG 2003, entire). However, the implemented by the NRCS to benefit 2010, entire). From 2000 to 2008, CRP overall value of CRP lands to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat, and specific enrollment averaged 10,622 ha (26,247 sage-grouse to reduce or remove the conservation measures (e.g., avoiding ac) in Dolores County, 1,350 ha (3,337 threat of habitat loss and fragmentation fence construction near leks) for those ac) in San Miguel County, and 14,698 ha is currently limited because these lands practices. The report did not provide for (36,320 ac) in San Juan County (USDA largely lack sagebrush cover required by exemption of incidental take of sage- FSA 2010, entire). In 2011, the species throughout most of the year.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

The value of CRP lands to the species determination, and highlight some of history, we find that the RCP is not will likely increase over time with the the more significant of these efforts effective at reducing the threats acting establishment of sagebrush in those below. on the species to the point where listing areas. The extent to which existing CRP Except for the Cerro Summit- the species is not warranted. lands will be reenrolled in the future is Cimarron-Sims Mesa population, each Other conservation efforts in the unknown. However, given the recent of the Gunnison sage-grouse population species’ range include the North Rim enrollment, we expect lands to continue areas has a Conservation Plan authored Landscape Strategy developed by to be enrolled into the future. by Local Working Groups with Federal and state agencies, partners, and publication dates of 1997 to 2011 stakeholders to supplement the Tribal Species Management Plan (CSGWG 1997; Dove Creek/Monticello Crawford Area Conservation Plan. The Approximately 12,000 ac of occupied Local Working Group 1998; GSRSC strategy identifies broad habitat on Pinecrest Ranch are owned 2005; Pin˜ on Mesa Gunnison Sage-grouse recommendations for resource by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (Tribe) Working Group 2000; Poncha Pass Local management and conservation of under restricted fee status. The Working Group 2000; Gunnison Sage- Gunnison sage-grouse in the Crawford Pinecrest Ranch includes a total of grouse Working Group 2000; SJCWG population area, but is not a legal 18,749 ac in the Gunnison Basin 2000 and 2003; SMBGSWG 2009; decision document (BLM 2013c, p. 4–5). population area west of Gunnison, Crawford Area Sage-grouse Working Gunnison County has been Colorado. The Tribe uses the ranch Group 2011). These plans provide particularly active in Gunnison sage- primarily for livestock grazing and for guidance and recommendations for grouse conservation activities. In 2005, important traditional and cultural management of Gunnison sage-grouse it hired a Gunnison Sage-grouse purposes. In February 2014, the Tribe and have been the basis for identifying Coordinator and organized a Strategic completed a Species Management Plan and prioritizing local conservation Committee to facilitate implementation (SMP) to promote the conservation of efforts. We have reviewed all of the of conservation measures in the Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat on Local Working Group plans and the Gunnison Basin under both the local the Pinecrest Ranch while maintaining implementation reporting we received Conservation Plan (CSGWG 1997, a sustainable agricultural operation and with respect to these plans. While these entire) and RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire). other traditional uses of the property plans are providing a conservation An estimated $30 million has been (Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 2014a, entire). benefit to the species, the actions in invested in conservation actions by On April 9, 2014, the Tribe approved these plans are all voluntary and many these groups and partners in the and adopted the SMP for the Pinecrest of the satellite populations are in a Gunnison Basin (Gunnison County Ranch per Resolution No. 2014–059 downward trajectory, therefore the 2013a, p. 147). Gunnison County reports (Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 2014b, pp. 1– actions do not reduce the threats, such that it alone has contributed more than 2). as residential development (Factor A), $1 million to Gunnison sage-grouse The SMP includes management which may require compensatory conservation (Gunnison County 2013a, actions and/or considerations that will mitigation to ameliorate, and, to the p. 218). In 2009, Gunnison County benefit Gunnison sage-grouse including, species to a point where listing is not adopted the Gunnison Basin Sage- but not limited to, continued predator warranted. grouse Strategic Plan (Gunnison County control, seasonal restrictions for The Gunnison Sage-Grouse 2013a, Appendix E) to foster construction and development Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) was coordination and guide local citizens in activities, road restrictions and closures, developed by the states of Colorado and the conservation of Gunnison sage- wildlife-friendly fencing, outreach and Utah and 5 Federal agencies, including grouse. Also in 2009, the Gunnison education, and sustainable grazing the Service, in 2005 to supplement the County Sage-Grouse Conservation practices which are compatible with local working group plans and to offer Action Plan (Gunnison County 2013a, maintaining habitat that meets the a rangewide perspective for Appendix F) was developed to guide species’ needs (UMUT 2014, pp. 7–15). conservation of the species. The RCP and prioritize the implementation of While we think the SMP provides a includes specific, recommended specific conservation actions identified benefit to species, we evaluated the avoidance and minimization measures, in the Strategic Plan. Gunnison County species management plan under our as well as species and habitat and the Gunnison Basin Sage-Grouse PECE policy, but found the plan met conservation targets. However, similar Strategic Committee (local working only 7 of the 15 criteria. to the local plans, the RCP is a guidance group for the Gunnison Basin document only, is voluntary, and does population area) have also made Other Conservation Efforts not provide regulatory mechanisms for significant public outreach efforts To varying degrees, most counties in Gunnison sage-grouse conservation including holding the Gunnison Sage- Colorado either support or are involved (GSRSC 2005, p. 1). Where RCP Grouse Festival, providing Web site in other conservation efforts for recommended conservation measures information for the public, and Gunnison sage-grouse, such as local have been implemented, we have education and communication with area working groups, habitat improvement evaluated and included them in our landowners (Gunnison County 2013a, p. projects, and research projects analysis. For example, the RCP 59). (Gunnison County 2013b, Appendix 1 recommends road closures and the The Crawford Working Group (Delta A–K, CPW 2014g, Attachment 3 and enactment of county regulations to and Montrose County areas) also hired Appendix A; Office of the Governor of minimize impacts to the species; where a Gunnison sage-grouse coordinator in Colorado 2014, entire). Through CPW, appropriate, the existing efforts that December 2009. Likewise, Saguache the State of Colorado has also been a implement these recommendations are County hired a part-time coordinator for leader in sage-grouse research and included in our analysis. Overall, the Poncha Pass population in 2013. conservation efforts throughout the however, there is no requirement to These efforts facilitate coordination species’ range (CPW 2014g, entire; implement the recommendations in the relative to sage-grouse management and Office of the Governor of Colorado 2014, RCP and past implementation of these reflect positively on these counties’ entire). We have considered all such recommendations has generally been ad commitment to Gunnison sage-grouse conservation efforts in this listing hoc and opportunistic. Given this conservation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69267

Gunnison County and several other Multi-County Rangewide Efforts Basin, but does not cover the remaining, counties in the species’ range have also In 2013, the ‘‘Conservation Agreement more vulnerable satellite populations. enacted regulatory and related measures for Gunnison Sage-grouse,’’ and a Similarly, the existing CCAA benefits to benefit Gunnison sage-grouse and its Memorandum of Understanding, was Gunnison sage-grouse, but does not habitat, as discussed under Factor D drafted by 11 Colorado and Utah provide sufficient coverage of the (Local Laws and Regulation). Counties across the range of Gunnison species’ range to ensure the species’ The Gunnison Climate Adaptation sage-grouse (Gunnison, Saguache, long-term conservation. Based on their voluntary nature and track records, the Pilot Project, led by the Gunnison Dolores, Montezuma, Delta, Montrose, RCP, local working group plans, and Climate Change Working Group, Hinsdale, Mesa, San Miguel, and Ouray other conservation efforts are not implemented several habitat projects in Counties in Colorado; and San Juan effective at reducing the threats acting 2012 and 2013 to restore and improve County in Utah) (hereafter, County on the species to the point where listing Coalition). To date, the Governors of the the resiliency of Gunnison sage brood- the species is not warranted. Thus, States of Colorado and Utah; and rearing habitats (riparian areas and wet although the ongoing conservation County Commissioners from all nine meadows) to address climate change in efforts are a positive step toward the counties in occupied range from both the Gunnison Basin (The Nature conservation of the Gunnison sage- States have signed the agreement. Conservancy (TNC) 2012, entire). The grouse and have undoubtedly reduced Hinsdale and Montezuma Counties do projected vulnerability of the Gunnison the severity of certain threats to not contain occupied range for Basin to climate change was the primary populations, on the whole we find that Gunnison sage-grouse and, therefore, impetus for the pilot project (see current conservation efforts are not Climate Change). Long-term monitoring did not sign the agreement. While the sufficient to offset the full scope of will determine effectiveness of the agreement itself is not regulatory, threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. projects. Additional projects under this signatories of the agreement committed initiative are planned for the future (The to implementing appropriate Summary of Factor A Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2011, p. 1). resolutions, regulations, and guidelines Gunnison sage-grouse require large to enhance the species and its habitat in A review of a database compiled by areas of sagebrush for long-term an effort to increase populations of the CPW that included local, State, and persistence, and thus are affected by Gunnison sage-grouse (County Coalition Federal ongoing and pending Gunnison factors that occur at the landscape scale. 2013, entire). Specifically, they have sage-grouse conservation actions in Broad-scale characteristics within formally committed to adopting a surrounding landscapes influence Colorado from 2005 to 2009 (CDOW Habitat Prioritization Tool, which will 2009c, entire) revealed a total of 224 habitat selection, and adult Gunnison better predict preferred habitat for the sage-grouse exhibit a high fidelity to all individual conservation efforts, most of species, and they have formally which were habitat improvement or seasonal habitats, resulting in low committed to updating and adopting an adaptability to habitat changes. Habitat protection projects. As of 2012, 165 of amended Rangewide Conservation Plan. loss, degradation, and fragmentation of those efforts were completed, resulting We did evaluate these multi-county sagebrush habitats are a primary cause in the treatment (enhancement or efforts under our PECE policy, but of the decline of Gunnison and greater restoration) of 9,324 ha (23,041 ac), or found they did not include specific sage-grouse populations (Patterson approximately 2.5 percent of occupied conservation efforts as defined by the 1952, pp. 192–193; Connelly and Braun Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. A PECE policy, and hence cannot 1997, p. 4; Braun 1998, p. 140; Johnson monitoring component was included in contribute to a determination that listing and Braun 1999, p. 78; Connelly et al. 45 percent of the completed efforts, is unnecessary or a determination to list 2000a, p. 975; Miller and Eddleman although we do not have information on the species as threatened rather than 2000, p. 1; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, their overall effectiveness. Five habitat endangered. p. 29; Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Aldridge improvement or protection projects and Brigham 2003, p. 25; Beck et al. Summary of Conservation Programs and occurred between January 2011 and 2003, p. 203; Pedersen et al. 2003, pp. Efforts Related to Habitat Protection September 2012, treating an additional 23–24; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4–15; 300 acres (CPW 2012b, p. 7). Further Numerous conservation actions have Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 368; Leu et al. discussions of habitat improvement been implemented for Gunnison sage- 2011, p. 267). Documented negative projects occurred before 2005 and grouse, and these efforts have provided effects of fragmentation include reduced subsequent to the 2012 summary and will continue to provide lek persistence, lek attendance, document (CPW 2012b, entire; CPW conservation benefit to the species. The population recruitment, yearling and 2014e, entire; CPW 2014g entire). These CCAA and CCA provide significant adult annual survival, female nest site are not discussed here but were conservation benefit to the species and selection, and nest initiation rates, as considered. Individually, these projects its habitat on private lands rangewide well as the loss of leks and winter are generally all relatively small in and Federal lands in the Gunnison habitat (Holloran 2005, p. 49; Aldridge scale, in relation to the individual Basin, respectively, reducing the and Boyce 2007, pp. 517–523; Walker et populations where they have occurred. impacts of primarily habitat-related al. 2007a, pp. 2651–2652; Doherty et al. Cumulatively, these conservation efforts threats in those areas. However, the 2008, p. 194). are providing a conservation benefit to identified conservation efforts, taken We examined a number of factors that the species, however, given the general individually and in combination, do not contribute to habitat decline. Habitat downward trend of many of the satellite fully address the substantial threats of loss due to residential and populations and the inability of these rangewide habitat decline (Factor A), infrastructural development (including efforts to reduce threats such as small population size and structure roads and powerlines) is a current and residential development, we find these (Factor E), drought (Factor E), climate future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse conservation efforts are not effective at change (Factor A), and disease (Factor range-wide. Due to habitat decline, the reducing the threats acting on the C). The Gunnison Basin CCA provides seven individual populations are now species to the point where listing the some protection for Gunnison sage- mostly isolated, with limited migration species is not warranted. grouse on Federal lands in the Gunnison and gene flow among populations,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

increasing the likelihood of population sage-grouse. However, climate change implemented at the scale (even when extirpations. Functional habitat loss also will likely alter the range of invasive considered cumulatively) that would be contributes to habitat decline as sage- plants, intensifying the proliferation of required to effectively reduce the threats grouse avoid areas due to human invasive plants to the point that they to the species and its habitat across its activities and noise, even when become a threat to the species. Even range. The Gunnison Basin CCA, for sagebrush remains intact. The collective with aggressive treatments, invasive example, provides some protection for disturbance from human activities plants will likely persist and continue to Gunnison sage-grouse on Federal lands around residences and infrastructure spread throughout the range of in the Gunnison Basin, but does not results in habitat decline that negatively Gunnison sage-grouse. cover the remaining, more vulnerable impacts Gunnison sage-grouse survival. Livestock management inconsistent satellite populations. Similarly, the Human populations are increasing with local ecological conditions has the existing CCAA benefits Gunnison sage- across the species’ range, a trend potential to degrade sage-grouse habitat grouse on participating lands, but does expected to continue into the future. at local scales by causing the loss of not provide sufficient coverage of the Resulting habitat decline is diminishing nesting cover and decreases in native species’ range to ensure the species’ the probability of Gunnison sage-grouse vegetation, and by increasing the long-term conservation. Thus, although survival and persistence, particularly in probability of incursion of invasive the ongoing conservation efforts are a the satellite populations. plants. Given the widespread nature of positive step toward the conservation of Other habitat-related threats that are grazing within the range of Gunnison the Gunnison sage-grouse, and some impacting Gunnison sage-grouse sage-grouse, the potential for have likely reduced the severity of some include grazing practices inconsistent population-level impacts is probable. threats to the species, on the whole we with local ecological conditions, fences, Effects of domestic livestock grazing find that current conservation efforts are invasive plants, fire, mineral inconsistent with local ecological not sufficient to offset the full scope of development, pin˜ on-juniper conditions are likely being exacerbated threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. encroachment, and large-scale water by intense browsing of woody species We have evaluated the best scientific development and irrigation. The by wild ungulates in parts of the information available on the present or cumulative presence of all these features Gunnison Basin. We conclude that threatened destruction, modification, or and activities constitutes a threat to habitat degradation that can result from curtailment of the Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse as they grazing practices inconsistent with local grouse’s habitat or range. Based on the collectively contribute to habitat ecological conditions is a threat to current and anticipated habitat threats decline. In particular, the satellite Gunnison sage-grouse. identified above and their cumulative populations are less resilient and more We do not consider nonrenewable effects as they contribute to the overall vulnerable to extirpation and energy development to be impacting decline of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, environmental pressures including Gunnison sage-grouse habitat to the we have determined that the present or habitat loss and fragmentation (see extent that it is a threat to the long-term threatened destruction, modification, or discussion in Factor A analysis above persistence of the species at this time, curtailment of Gunnison sage-grouse and in the Factor E analysis below). because its current and anticipated habitat poses a threat to the species Several issues discussed above, such extent is limited throughout the range of throughout its range. This threat is ˜ as fire, invasive species, and pinon- Gunnison sage-grouse. We do not substantial and current, and is projected juniper encroachment, may not consider renewable energy development to continue and increase into the future currently have a substantial impact on to be a threat to the persistence of with additional anthropogenic Gunnison sage-grouse. For example, Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide at this pressures. while it may be impacting individual time. However, geothermal and wind birds or populations, pin˜ on-juniper energy development could increase in B. Overutilization for Commercial, encroachment does not currently pose a the Gunnison Basin and Monticello Recreational, Scientific, or Educational threat to the species because of its areas, respectively, in the future. Purposes limited distribution throughout the We recognize ongoing and proposed Hunting range of Gunnison sage-grouse. conservation efforts by all entities across However, the documented synergy the range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, Hunting for Gunnison sage-grouse is among these three issues (pin˜ on-juniper and commend all parties for their vision not currently permitted under Colorado encroachment, fire and invasive and participation. Local communities, and Utah law. Hunting was eliminated species), results in a high likelihood that landowners, agencies, and organizations in the Gunnison Basin in 2000 due to they will pose a threat to the species in in Colorado and Utah have dedicated concerns with meeting Gunnison sage- the future. Nonnative invasive plants, resources to Gunnison sage-grouse grouse population objectives (Colorado including cheatgrass and other noxious conservation and have implemented Sage Grouse Working Group (CSGWG) weeds, continue to expand their range, numerous conservation efforts. We 1997, p. 66). Hunting has not occurred facilitated by ground disturbances such encourage continued implementation of in the other Colorado populations of as fire, grazing incompatible with local these efforts into the future to promote Gunnison sage-grouse since 1995 when ecological conditions, and human the conservation of Gunnison sage- the Pin˜ on Mesa area was closed (GSRSC infrastructure. Invasive plants grouse. Our review of conservation 2005, p. 122). Utah has not allowed negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse efforts indicates that the measures hunting of Gunnison sage-grouse since primarily by reducing or eliminating identified are not fully addressing the 1989 according to GSRSC (2005, p. 82), native vegetation that sage-grouse most substantial threats to Gunnison or as early as the mid-1970’s according require for food and cover, resulting in sage-grouse including habitat decline to SJCWG (2000, p. 11). habitat decline (both direct and (Factor A), small population size and Both Colorado and Utah report they functional). Cheatgrass is present at structure (Factor E), drought (Factor E), will consider hunting of Gunnison sage- varying levels in nearly all Gunnison climate change (Factor A), and disease grouse only if populations can be sage-grouse population areas, but there (Factor C). All of the conservation sustained (GSRSC 2005, pp. 5, 8, 229). has not yet been a demonstrated change efforts are limited in size and the The local Gunnison Basin working in fire cycle in the range of Gunnison measures provided to us were not group plan calls for a minimum

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69269

population of 500 males (based on lek Disturbance during the peak of mating reducing impacts to sage-grouse (GSRSC counts) before hunting would occur also could result in some females not 2005, p. 125). During 2004–2009, the again (CSGWG 1997, p. 66). The breeding (GSRSC 2005, p. 125). percentage of individuals or groups of minimum population level in the Furthermore, disturbance from lek people in vehicles following the Gunnison Basin population has been viewing might affect nesting habitat Waunita lek viewing protocol in the exceeded in all years since 1996, except selection by females (GSRSC 2005, p. Gunnison Basin ranged from 71 to 92 2003 and 2004 (CDOW 2009d, pp. 18– 126), as leks are typically close to areas percent (CDOW 2009b, pp. 86, 87; 19). However, the sensitive State in which females nest. If females move Magee et al. 2009, pp. 7, 10). Violations regulatory status and potential political to poorer quality habitat farther away of the protocol, such as showing up after ramifications of hunting the species has from disturbed leks, nest success could the sage-grouse started to display and precluded the States from opening a decline. If chronic disturbance causes creating noise, caused one or more sage- hunting season. If hunting does ever sage-grouse to move to a new lek site grouse to flush from the lek (CDOW occur again, harvest will likely be away from preferred and presumably 2009b, pp. 86, 87). Despite the protocol restricted to only 5 to 10 percent of the higher quality areas, both survival and violations, the percentage of days from fall population, and will be structured nest success could decline. Whether any 2004 to 2009 that grouse were flushed to limit harvest of females to the extent or all of these have significant by humans was relatively low, ranging possible (GSRSC 2005, p. 229). population effects would depend on from 2.5 percent to 5.4 percent (Magee However, the ability of these measures timing and degree of disturbance et al. 2009, p. 10). The current lek to be implemented is in question, as (GSRSC 2005, p. 126). viewing protocol includes regulations to adequate means to estimate fall Throughout the range of Gunnison avoid and minimize disturbance from population size have not been sage-grouse, public viewing of leks is photography, research, and education- developed (Reese and Connelly 2011, limited by a general lack of knowledge related viewing; regulations and related pp. 110–111) and limiting female of lek locations, seasonal road closures information are provided to the public harvest may not be possible (WGFD in some areas, and difficulty in online (CDOW 2009b, p. 86; Gunnison 2004, p. 4; WGFD 2006, pp. 5, 7). accessing many leks. Furthermore, 52 of County 2013a, p. 127; CPW 2013, In 1992, a CPW effort to simplify 109 active Gunnison sage-grouse leks entire). Implementation of this protocol hunting restrictions inadvertently occur on private lands, further limiting should preclude lek viewing from opened the Poncha Pass area to sage- public access. The BLM closed a lek in becoming a threat to this lek. grouse hunting, and at least 30 grouse the Gunnison Basin to viewing in the The CPW and UDWR will continue to were harvested from this population. late 1990s due to declining population coordinate and implement lek counts to The area was closed to sage-grouse counts perceived as resulting from determine population levels. We expect hunting the following year and has recreational viewing, although no annual lek viewing and lek counts to remained closed to hunting since scientific studies were conducted (BLM continue into the future. Lek counts (Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 3). One sage- 2005a, p. 13; GSRSC 2005, pp. 124, may disturb individual birds. However, grouse was known to be illegally 126). since the Waunita lek is open to viewers harvested in 2001 in the Poncha Pass The Waunita lek east of Gunnison is on a daily basis throughout the lekking population (Nehring 2010, pers. comm.), the only lek in Colorado designated by season, and lek counters only approach but based on the best available the CPW for public viewing (Waunita an individual lek 2–3 times per season, information illegal harvest has not Watchable Wildlife Area) (CDOW all leks counted will receive lower contributed to Gunnison sage-grouse 2009b, p. 86). Since 1998, a comparison disturbance from counters than the population declines in either Colorado of male counts on the Waunita lek Waunita lek receives from public or Utah. We do not anticipate hunting versus male counts on other leks in the viewing, so we do not consider lek to be opened in the Gunnison Basin or Doyleville zone show that the Waunita counts a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse smaller populations for many years, if lek’s male counts generally follow the populations or the species. ever. Consequently, we do not consider same trend as the others (CDOW 2009d, Scientific Research and Related hunting to be a threat to the species now pp. 31–32). In fact, in 2008 and 2009, Conservation Efforts or in the future. the Waunita lek increased in the number of males counted along with Overall, it is expected that scientific Lek Viewing and Counts three other leks, while seven leks research and related conservation efforts The Gunnison sage-grouse was decreased in the Doyleville zone by the States, such as translocation of designated as a new species in 2000 (CDOW 2009d, pp. 31–32). These data Gunnison sage-grouse, have a net (American Ornithologists’ Union 2000, suggest that lek viewing on the Waunita conservation benefit for the species, pp. 847–858), which has prompted a lek has not impacted Gunnison sage- because they contribute to improved much increased interest by bird grouse attendance at leks. Two lek understanding of the species’ watchers to view the species on their viewing tours per year are organized conservation needs and may have leks (Pfister 2010, pers. comm.). Daily and led by UDWR on a privately owned helped to augment some of the satellite human disturbances on sage-grouse leks lek in the Monticello population. The populations, likely contributing to their could cause a reduction in mating, and lek declined in males counted in 2009, continued persistence. However, some some reduction in total production (Call but 2007 and 2008 had the highest unintended negative effects are known and Maser 1985, p. 19). Human counts for several years, suggesting that to occur in the process. Gunnison sage- disturbance, particularly if additive to lek viewing is not impacting that lek grouse have been the subject of multiple disturbance by predators, could reduce either. Data collected by CPW on greater scientific studies, some of which the time a lek is active, as well as reduce sage-grouse viewing leks also indicates included capture and handling. Most its size by lowering male attendance that controlled lek visitation has not field research has been conducted in the (Boyko et al. 2004, in GSRSC 2005, p. impacted greater sage-grouse at the Gunnison Basin population, San Miguel 125). Smaller lek sizes have been viewed leks (GSRSC 2005, p. 124). Basin population, and Monticello hypothesized to be less attractive to A lek viewing protocol has been portion of the Monticello-Dove Creek females, thereby conceivably reducing developed and has largely been population. Between zero and seven the numbers of females mating. followed on the Waunita lek, likely percent mortality of handled adults or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

juveniles and chicks has occurred A–10). For these studies combined, of The CPW does not feel that these losses during recent Gunnison sage-grouse 688 birds captured, 11 (1.6 percent) died or disturbance are having significant studies where trapping and radio- (Table 11). Additionally, one radio- impacts on the sage-grouse (CDOW tagging was done (Apa 2004, p. 19; tagged hen was flushed off a nest during 2009b, p. 29), and we agree with this Childers 2009, p. 14; Lupis 2005, p. 26; subsequent monitoring and did not assessment. San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse return after the second day, resulting in Working Group (SMBGSWG) 2009, p. the loss of 10 eggs (Ward 2007, p. 52).

TABLE 11—MORTALITY OF GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE FROM RECENT STUDIES

Total birds Mortality handled/ Study focus captured/ Number of % of total Source studied individuals birds

Habitat use, movement, survival of Gunnison sage-grouse in south- 138 3 2.2 Apa 2004, p. 19. west Colorado. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat use ...... a 336 7 2.1 Childers 2009, p. 14. Summer ecology of Gunnison sage-grouse ...... 14 1 7.1 Lupis 2005, p. 26. Summary of CPW research projects in the Gunnison Basin and San 200 0 0.0 SMBGSWG 2009, p. Miguel populations from 2004 to 2009. A–10.

Total ...... 688 11 1.6 n/a. a This figure includes 218 adults and 118 chicks captured; of these, 5 adults (2.3%) and 2 chicks (1.7%) died.

Translocation of birds from the (55.4 percent) and juveniles (61.3 Greater sage-grouse translocations Gunnison Basin population has been percent) than adults (40.0 percent); and have not fared any better than those of used to augment some of the satellite comparable for males (50.0 percent) and Gunnison sage-grouse. Over 7,200 populations and may contribute to their females (48.8 percent). By population, greater sage-grouse were translocated persistence. However, related to survival to 12 months was highest in between 1933 and 1990, but only five translocated birds, there are potential Dove Creek (60 percent) and Crawford percent of the translocation efforts were genetic and population viability (59.6 percent), followed by Pin˜ on Mesa considered to be successful in concerns for the satellite (receiving) (40 percent), Dry Creek Basin (35.3 producing sustained, resident populations and the Gunnison Basin percent), and Poncha Pass (20.0 populations at the translocation sites (source) population (see Small percent). Overall survival of (Reese and Connelly 1997, pp. 235–238, Population Size and Structure in Factor translocated birds to 12 months was 240). More recent translocations from E). Trapping and translocation of approximately 48 percent (CPW 2013d, 2003 to 2005 into Strawberry Valley, Gunnison sage-grouse may also increase entire; Wait 2013, pers. comm.; CPW Utah, resulted in a 40 percent annual mortality rates, either due directly to 2014c, entire). Therefore, about 50 mortality rate (Baxter et al. 2008, p. capturing and handling, or indirectly percent of these translocated birds died 182). We believe the lack of success of (later in time) as a result of translocation within the first 12 months following translocations found in greater sage- to areas outside the individuals’ natal translocation, greater than the average grouse is applicable to Gunnison sage- (home) range. annual mortality rate of non- grouse because the two species exhibit From the spring of 2000 to the spring translocated sage-grouse (approximately similar behavior and life-history traits, 2013, CPW translocated a total of 300 20 percent) (CDOW 2009b, p. 9). and translocations are also managed radio-collared Gunnison sage-grouse However, some birds with an unknown similarly. from the Gunnison Basin population to Because the survival rate for fate (e.g., a dropped radio collar with no the following satellite populations: translocated sage-grouse has not been as sign of death) were assumed dead and, Poncha Pass (41 birds), San Miguel high as desired, the CPW started a therefore, the data may overestimate Basin (Dry Creek Basin) (51 birds), captive-rearing program in 2009 to actual mortality rates (Wait 2013, pers. Pin˜ on Mesa (93 birds), Dove Creek (42 investigate techniques for captive comm.). birds), and Crawford (73 birds). During breeding and rearing of chicks, and this time, CPW reported only four bird In the fall of 2013, an additional 17 methods to release chicks into wild, deaths associated with capture Gunnison sage-grouse were translocated surrogate broods, to potentially increase myopathy (muscle damage due to to the Poncha Pass population from the brood survival and recruitment (CDOW extreme exertion or stress associated Gunnison Basin. As of January 2014, 10 2009b, pp. 9–12). The GSRSC conducted with capture and transport), including of these birds were known to be a review of captive-rearing attempts for two deaths in 2007 and two in 2009 surviving (Nehring 2014, pers. comm.). both greater sage-grouse and other (CPW 2014c, entire). Excluding capture In spring of 2014, 10 more birds were gallinaceous birds and concluded that myopathy cases, data for birds with translocated to the Poncha Pass survival will be very low, unless unknown fates (i.e., due to dropped or population from the Gunnison Basin innovative strategies are developed and expired radio collars), and some of the (CPW 2014e, p. 7). In the fall of 2013 tested (GSRSC 2005, pp. 181–183). more recent (2013) translocated birds, and spring of 2014, CPW translocated 23 However, greater sage-grouse have been CPW has tracked the survival of 176 birds from the Gunnison Basin to the reared in captivity, and survival of Gunnison sage-grouse translocated to Miramonte subpopulation of the San released chicks was similar to that of date. Survival of all translocated birds to Miguel population (CPW 2014e, p. 7). wild chicks (CDOW 2009b, p. 10). 12 months following translocation was Survival data for these birds were not Consequently, the CPW started a higher in the spring (53.8 percent) than available upon the drafting of this final captive-breeding project for Gunnison fall (39.6 percent); higher for yearlings rule. sage-grouse. After establishing a captive,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69271

breeding flock, 78 domestically-reared Primarily due to handling, capture, and affected by parasitic infections chicks were introduced to wild translocations, short-term negative (Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 22). Gunnison sage-grouse broods in 2010 effects to individuals occur as does However, the role of parasites or and 2011 at two treatment ages. While injury and mortality, but these effects do infectious diseases in population survival of successfully-adopted, not pose a threat to Gunnison sage- declines of greater sage-grouse is domestically-reared chicks was slightly grouse populations or the species. unknown based on the few systematic lower than that of wild-reared chicks Translocation of birds from the surveys conducted (Connelly et al. through 14 weeks, across both years Gunnison Basin population has been 2004, p. 10–3). No parasites have been none of the domestically-reared chicks used to augment some of the satellite documented to cause mortality in were recruited into the breeding populations and may have contributed Gunnison sage-grouse, but the population (Wiechman 2014c, pers. to their persistence, albeit with potential protozoan, Eimeria spp., which causes comm.). Although introduced chick genetic and population viability coccidiosis, has been reported to cause survival was relatively low, chick concerns for the receiving populations death in greater sage-grouse (Connelly et survival during captivity increased with (see Genetic Risks), and for the al. 2004, p. 10–4). Infections tend to be improved protocols, and valuable Gunnison Basin (source) population (see localized to specific geographic areas, knowledge on Gunnison sage-grouse Small Population Size and Structure in and no cases of greater sage-grouse rearing techniques has been gained Factor E). Based on the best available mortality resulting from coccidiosis (CPW 2011b). In another study, information, scientific research and have been documented since the early approximately 42 percent of captive- associated activities as described above 1960s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10–4). reared chicks introduced to wild have a relatively minor impact and are Parasites have been implicated in females and their broods survived to 30 not a threat to the Gunnison sage- greater sage-grouse mate selection, with days of age. Of chicks that did not grouse. potentially subsequent effects on the survive, 26.3 percent of chicks were lost genetic diversity of this species (Boyce due to predation, and 25.6 percent were Summary of Factor B 1990, p. 263; Deibert 1995, p. 38). These lost due to exposure to the elements We have no evidence to suggest that relationships may be important to the (Thompson 2012, pp. 29, 93). legal hunting resulted in the long-term ecology of greater sage-grouse, As techniques improve, the CPW overutilization of Gunnison sage-grouse. but they have not been shown to be intends to develop a captive-breeding However, Gunnison sage-grouse harvest significant to the immediate status of manual for Gunnison sage-grouse from an inadvertently opened hunting populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. (CDOW 2009b, p. 11). Although adults season resulted in a significant 10–6). Although diseases and parasites or juveniles have been captured and population decrease in the small Poncha have been suggested to affect isolated moved out of the Gunnison Basin, as Pass population. Nevertheless, we do sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. well as eggs, the removal of the grouse not expect hunting to be permitted in 2004, p. 10–3), we have no evidence only accounts for a very small the near future. Illegal hunting has only indicating that parasitic diseases are a percentage of the total population of the been documented once in Colorado and threat to Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison Basin sage-grouse population is not a known threat in Colorado or populations. (less than 1 percent per year). Utah. Lek viewing has not affected the Greater sage-grouse are subject to a The CPW has a policy regarding Gunnison sage-grouse, and lek viewing variety of bacterial, fungal, and viral trapping, handling, and marking protocols designed to reduce pathogens. The bacterium Salmonella techniques approved by its Animal Use disturbance have generally been sp. has caused a single documented and Care Committee (SMBGSWG 2009, followed. CPW is currently revising its mortality in the greater sage-grouse and p. A–10, Childers 2009, p. 13). lek viewing protocol to make it more studies have shown that infection rates Evaluation of research projects by the stringent and to include considerations in wild birds are low (Connelly et al. Animal Use and Care Committee and for photography, research, and 2004, p. 10–7). The bacteria are improvement of trapping, handling, and education-related viewing. Mortality apparently contracted through exposure marking techniques over the last several from scientific research and capture or to contaminated water supplies around livestock stock tanks (Connelly et al. years has resulted in fewer mortalities handling of wild birds is low, generally and injuries. In fact, in the San Miguel 2004, p. 10–7). Other bacteria found in less than 2 percent and is not a threat. Basin, researchers have handled more greater sage-grouse include Escherichia We know of no overutilization for than 200 sage-grouse with no trapping coli, botulism (Clostridium spp.), avian commercial or educational purposes. mortalities (SMBGSWG 2009, p. A–10). tuberculosis (Mycobacterium avium), Thus, based on the best scientific and The CPW has also drafted a sage-grouse and avian cholera (Pasteurella commercial data available, we conclude trapping and handling protocol, which multocida). These bacteria have never that overutilization for commercial, is required training for people handling been identified as a cause of mortality recreational, scientific, or educational Gunnison sage-grouse, to minimize in greater sage-grouse and the risk of purposes is not a threat to Gunnison mortality and injury of the birds (CDOW exposure and hence, population effects, sage-grouse. 2002, pp. 1–4 in SMBWG 2009, pp. A– is low (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10–7 to 22–A–25). Injury and mortality does C. Disease or Predation 10–8). In Gunnison sage-grouse, occasionally occur from trapping, domestically-reared chicks have died handling, marking, and flushing off Disease due to bacterial infections by Klebsiella nests. However, research-related No research focusing on the types or spp., E. coli, and Salmonella spp. In one mortality is typically below two percent pathology of diseases in Gunnison sage- case (CDOW 2009b, p. 11), bacterial of handled birds (Table 11), indicating grouse has been published. However, growth was encouraged by a wood- there is minimal effect on Gunnison multiple bacterial and parasitic diseases based brooder substrate used to raise sage-grouse at the population level. have been documented in greater sage- chicks. However, in a subsequent study Overall, we find that ongoing and grouse (Patterson 1952, pp. 71–72; (CPW 2011b, pp. 14–15) where the future scientific research and related Schroeder et al. 1999, pp. 14, 27). Some wood-based substrate was not used, conservation efforts provide a net early studies have suggested that greater similar bacterial infections and chick conservation benefit for the species. sage-grouse populations are adversely mortality still occurred. This was likely

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

a product of warm and potential moist grouse, although this practice was to mosquitoes. Likewise, Gunnison sage- substrates which promoted bacterial recommended prior to our knowledge of grouse use more mesic habitats in the growth and spread. After switching to a West Nile virus as a serious risk factor summer and early fall (GSRSC 2005, p. gravel-based substrate and for sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle 30, and references therein), increasing administering antibiotics, bacteria- 2011, p. 29) (see discussion below; also their exposure to mosquitoes. If West related mortalities decreased. While this see discussion of the potential benefits Nile virus outbreaks coincide with appears to suggest that Gunnison sage- of water development to Gunnison sage- drought conditions that aggregate birds grouse may be less resistant to bacterial grouse in Domestic Grazing and Wildlife in habitat near water sources, the risk of infections than greater sage-grouse, most Herbivory in Factor A above). The exposure to West Nile virus will be of the bacteria found can be present at precise quantity and distribution of elevated (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. non-lethal levels in wild Gunnison sage- water developments in Gunnison sage- 131). Greater sage-grouse inhabiting grouse (Wiechman 2014a, pers. comm.). grouse range is unknown. However, we higher elevation sites in summer However, we have no information that know that at least 87 percent of (similar to areas of the Gunnison Basin) shows the risk of exposure in the wild occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat are likely less vulnerable to contracting is different for Gunnison sage-grouse; on Federal lands is currently grazed by West Nile virus than birds at lower therefore, these bacteria do not appear domestic livestock (USFWS 2010c, elevation (similar to Dry Creek Basin of to be a threat to the species. entire), suggesting that water the San Miguel population) as ambient To limit the risk of disease developments are common and temperatures are typically cooler at transmission from introduced avian widespread across the species range. A higher elevations (Walker and Naugle species, Gunnison County’s Land Use similar proportion of area on private 2011, p. 131). Resolution (LUR) Number 07–17 lands is likely grazed by domestic West Nile virus has caused regulates the importation of non- livestock as well. It is expected that population declines in wild bird indigenous, gallinaceous game birds. some of these water sources are populations on the local and regional This regulation requires that species contributing to the persistence of scale (Walker and Naugle 2011, pp. only be imported from a source certified mosquito populations and, therefore, to 128–129) and has reduced the survival by the State of Colorado to be disease the potential spread of West Nile virus rates of greater sage-grouse (Naugle et al. free (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 130). across the range of Gunnison sage- 2004, p. 710; Naugle et al. 2005, p. 616). West Nile virus was introduced into grouse. Management or modification of Experimental results, combined with the northeastern United States in 1999 water developments in sage-grouse field data, suggest that a widespread and has subsequently spread across habitats is one way to control mosquito West Nile virus infection has negatively North America (Marra et al. 2004, p. vector populations and, therefore, affected greater sage-grouse (Naugle et 394). Greater sage-grouse are highly sources of West Nile virus (Walker and al. 2004, p. 711; Naugle et al. 2005, p. susceptible to West Nile virus (Clark et Naugle 2011, p. 29, and references 616). As noted above, the selective use al. 2006, p. 19; McLean 2006, p. 54) and therein). of mesic habitats by sage-grouse during do not develop a resistance to the The virus persists largely within a the summer and fall increases their disease. Death is almost certain once an mosquito-bird-mosquito infection cycle exposure to West Nile virus. Greater individual is infected with the disease (McLean 2006, p. 45). However, direct sage-grouse are highly susceptible to (Clark et al. 2006, p. 18). Transmission bird-to-bird transmission of the virus West Nile virus (Clark et al. 2006, p. 19; occurs when mosquitoes acquire the has been documented in several species McLean 2006, p. 54) and do not develop virus by biting an infected bird, and (McLean 2006, pp. 54, 59), including the a resistance to the disease. Death is then transfer it by feeding on a new host greater sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle certain once an individual is infected (avian or mammalian). Culex species are 2011, p. 132; Cornish 2009, pers. with the disease (Clark et al. 2006, p. recognized as the most efficient comm.). The frequency of direct 18). Furthermore, other gallinaceous mosquito vectors for West Nile virus transmission has not been determined bird species such as ruffed grouse (Turell et al. 2005, p. 60), and Culex (McLean 2006, p. 54). Cold ambient (Bonasa umbellus), wild turkey tarsalis is the dominant vector of the temperatures preclude mosquito activity (Meleagris gallopavo), and chukar virus in sagebrush habitats (Naugle et al. and virus amplification, so transmission partridge (Alectoris chukar), have died 2004, p. 711). West Nile virus to and in sage-grouse is limited to the as a result of West Nile virus infection transmission is regulated by multiple summer (mid-May to mid-September) (CDC 2013, entire). factors, including temperature, (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 620; Zou et al. It is reasonable to assume the precipitation, biology of the mosquito 2007, p. 4), with a peak in July and Gunnison sage-grouse is susceptible to vector (Turrell et al. 2005, pp. 59–60), August (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. West Nile virus based on the confirmed and the presence of anthropogenic water 131). Reduced and delayed West Nile cases of infection and mortality in sources, such as stock ponds and tanks, virus transmission in sage-grouse has greater sage-grouse and other coal bed methane ponds, and irrigated occurred in years with lower summer taxonomically related birds. We are also agricultural fields that support mosquito temperatures (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 621; aware of at least 3 Gunnison sage-grouse life cycles (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309; Walker et al. 2007b, p. 694). In non- dying of West Nile disease, although Walker and Naugle 2011, pp. 131–132). sagebrush ecosystems, high these birds were growing in captivity in The peak of West Nile virus activity temperatures associated with drought Fort Collins, CO where the virus is more typically occurs in the summer from conditions increase West Nile virus likely to be present (Wiechman 2014b, July through August, though this varies transmission by allowing for more rapid pers. comm). To date, however, West by region (Walker et al. 2004). larval mosquito development and Nile virus has not been documented in In Gunnison sage-grouse range and shorter virus incubation periods Gunnison sage-grouse despite the other parts of the west, water sources (Shaman et al. 2005, p. 134; Walker and presence of West Nile virus across most are commonly developed to support Naugle 2011, p. 131). of the species’ range (see discussion livestock operations and improve Greater sage-grouse congregate in below). This may be the result of the animal distribution and forage use. mesic (moist) habitats in the mid-late small number of birds marked and Some water developments are designed summer (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971), studied; limited local abundance of the specifically to benefit Gunnison sage- thereby increasing their risk of exposure principle mosquito vector species,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69273

Culex; unsuitable conditions in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse have However, increased temperature and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat for the declined, and no avian infections or drought conditions are expected to virus to become virulent or widespread; mortalities were reported from 2008 increase in the future due to climate or any number of other factors. West through 2012 (USGS 2013, entire; change across the range (see Climate Nile virus activity within the range of USFWS 2013a, entire). Change in Factor A). Such conditions Gunnison sage-grouse is apparently low A CPW study with the Colorado will contribute to the prevalence and compared to other parts of Colorado, Mosquito Control Company in 2004 spread of West Nile virus and, therefore, Utah, and the western United States. used mosquito trap monitoring to the exposure of Gunnison sage-grouse to However, West Nile virus surveillance evaluate the relative risk of West Nile this disease. Therefore, due to the may not occur every year or in every virus on Gunnison sage-grouse in the known presence of West Nile virus county (USGS 2013, entire), meaning Gunnison Basin. Trapping resulted in a across the majority of Gunnison sage- that incidents likely go undetected. total of 6,729 mosquitoes throughout the grouse range, the high risk of mortality Furthermore, rural areas with smaller Gunnison Basin from June 1 through and population-level impacts based on human populations, such as the August 30. Testing of mosquito samples the biology of the species, and the majority of lands within Gunnison sage- conducted by the Colorado Department immediacy of those potential impacts, grouse range, may have decreased of Public Health observed nine species we conclude that West Nile virus is a detection and reporting rates of avian of mosquito, including Culex tarsalis, future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse mortalities, thus potentially biasing the the primary vector of West Nile virus. rangewide. The threat of West Nile virus modeled distribution of West Nile virus However, the relative abundance of C. is currently lower in the high elevation (Ward et al. 2006, p. 102). tarsalis was low, comprising about 15.8 areas, such as the Gunnison Basin percent of all samples collected. No To date, across Gunnison sage-grouse population, but is expected to increase other Culex species were observed. The occupied range, only San Miguel and in the foreseeable future due to other species observed are not known to Dolores, Counties in Colorado have no increased drought and the predicted be effective transmitters of West Nile confirmed avian mortalities associated effects of climate change. No other virus to avian species. All mosquito with West Nile virus, nor has the virus diseases or parasitic infections are samples tested negative for West Nile known to be a threat to Gunnison sage- been reported in human or mosquito virus. Sixteen Gunnison sage-grouse grouse now or in the future. infection data in those counties. were radiomarked by CPW during the However, adjacent counties have same summer, and no mortalities of Predation confirmed West Nile virus presence, so marked or unmarked birds were Predation is the most commonly the virus is potentially present in San observed (Phillips 2013, p. 6). One avian identified cause of direct mortality for Miguel and Dolores Counties as well. A mortality (a species other than sage-grouse during all life stages total of 84 dead wild birds (species Gunnison sage-grouse) due to West Nile (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et other than Gunnison sage-grouse) infection was reported in Gunnison al. 2000b, p. 228; Connelly et al. 2011b, infected by West Nile virus have been County in 2003 (USGS 2013, entire; p. 66). However, sage-grouse have co- reported from nine counties within the USFWS 2013a, p. 1). evolved with a variety of predators, and current range of Gunnison sage-grouse Walker and Naugle (2011, p. 140) their cryptic plumage and behavioral since 2002, when reporting began in predict that West Nile virus outbreaks in adaptations have allowed them to Colorado and Utah. These include small, isolated, and genetically persist despite this mortality factor Chaffee, Delta, Gunnison, Mesa, depauperate populations could reduce (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; Coates Montrose, Ouray, and Saguache sage-grouse numbers below a threshold 2008, p. 69; Coates and Delehanty 2008, Counties in Colorado; and Grand and from which recovery is unlikely because p. 635; Hagen 2011, p. 96). Until San Juan Counties in Utah. Seventy and of limited or nonexistent demographic recently, little published information 14 of these bird deaths were reported in and genetic exchange from adjacent has been available that indicates Colorado and Utah, respectively. Fifty- populations. If so, a West Nile virus predation is a limiting factor for the two (62 percent) of reported cases were outbreak in any Gunnison sage-grouse greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. in Mesa County where the Pin˜ on Mesa population, except perhaps the 2004, p. 10–1), particularly where population is found. Also, the majority Gunnison Basin population, assuming it habitat quality has not been of reported cases were in Colorado remains large and resilient, would compromised (Hagen 2011, p. 96). counties (USGS 2013, entire; USFWS challenge their survival. Although many predators will consume 2013a, entire). However, as noted above, As described above, West Nile virus is sage-grouse, none specialize on the areas with higher human population present throughout most of the range of species (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Generalist densities, such as Mesa County, Gunnison sage-grouse. Although the predators have the greatest effect on Colorado, can result in increased disease has not yet been documented in ground-nesting birds because predator detection and reporting rates, thus any Gunnison sage-grouse, it has caused numbers are independent of the density potentially biasing the modeled large mortality events and has also of a single prey source since they can distribution of West Nile virus (Ward et caused the deaths of other gallinaceous switch to other prey sources when a al. 2006, p. 102). In Utah, 13 (93 birds including greater sage-grouse. given prey source is not abundant percent) avian mortality reports were in Similar to observations in greater sage- (Coates 2007, p. 4). We presume that the Grand County, and 1 (7 percent) was in grouse (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. effects of predation observed in greater San Juan County. Sixty-four (76 percent) 131), higher elevation populations of sage-grouse are similar to those of the 84 total reported bird mortalities Gunnison sage-grouse, such as the anticipated in Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado and Utah occurred in 2003 Gunnison Basin may be at lower risk of since overall behavior and life-history and 2004, when summer temperatures West Nile virus infection and outbreaks. traits are similar for the two species. were above average and, likely Also, the frequency of avian mortalities However, as discussed below, those contributing to the spread of West Nile (species other than sage-grouse) effects may be more substantial and of virus (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 1). Since associated with the virus have greater concern for smaller, declining that time, reported avian mortalities apparently declined since 2004 across populations, such as the six satellite associated with West Nile virus across the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. populations of Gunnison sage-grouse.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Major predators of adult sage-grouse mating displays. Because leks are can be total (all eggs destroyed) or include many species including golden attended daily by numerous grouse, partial (one or more eggs destroyed). eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), red foxes predators also may be attracted to these However, hens abandon nests in either (Vulpes fulva), and bobcats (Felis rufus) areas during the breeding season (Braun case (Coates, 2007, p. 26). Over a 3-year (Hartzler 1974, pp. 532–536; Schroeder 1995, p. 2). In a study of greater sage- period in Oregon, 106 of 124 nests (84 et al. 1999, pp. 10–11; Schroeder and grouse mortality causes in Idaho, it was percent) were preyed upon (Gregg et al. Baydack 2001, p. 25; Rowland and found that, among males, 83 percent of 1994, p. 164). Nest predation rates of 41 Wisdom 2002, p. 14; Hagen 2011, p. 97). the mortality was due to predation and percent were reported in one study in Juvenile sage-grouse also are killed by 42 percent of those mortalities occurred Wyoming (Patterson 1952, p. 104), many raptors as well as common ravens during the lekking season (March while another study reported a (Corvus corax), badgers (Taxidea taxus), through June) (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. predation rate of 12 percent in Wyoming red foxes, coyotes (Canis latrans), and 228). In the same study, 52 percent of (Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309). weasels (Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, the mortality of adult females was due Moynahan et al. (2007, p. 1777) entire; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10). Nest to predation and 52 percent of those attributed 131 of 258 (54 percent) of nest predators include badgers, weasels, mortalities occurred between March and failures to predation in Montana. Re- coyotes, common ravens, American August, which includes the nesting and nesting efforts may partially compensate crows (Corvus brachyrhyncos), magpies brood-rearing periods (Connelly et al. for the loss of nests due to predation (Pica spp.), elk (Cervus canadensis) 2000b, p. 228). (Schroeder 1997, p. 938), but re-nesting (Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309), Predation of adult sage-grouse is low rates for greater sage-grouse are highly and domestic cows (Bovus spp.) (Coates outside the lekking, nesting, and brood- variable (Connelly et al. 2011b, p. 63). et al. 2008, pp. 425–426). Ground rearing season (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. Further, re-nesting rates are low in squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) also have 230; Naugle et al. 2004, p. 711; Gunnison sage-grouse (Young, 1994, p. been identified as nest predators Moynahan et al. 2006, p. 1536; Hagen 44; Childers, 2009, p. 7), indicating that (Patterson 1952, p. 107; Schroeder et al. 2011, p. 97). Adult female greater sage- re-nesting may not offset losses caused 1999, p. 10; Schroder and Baydack grouse are susceptible to predators by predation. Loss of breeding hens and 2001, p. 25), but recent data show that while on the nest but mortality rates are young chicks to predation can influence they are physically incapable of low (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Greater sage- overall greater and Gunnison sage- puncturing eggs (Holloran and grouse selected nest and brood-rearing grouse population numbers, as these Anderson 2003, p. 309; Coates et al. sites with lower avian predator densities two groups contribute most significantly 2008, p. 426; Hagen 2011, p. 97). Several than nearby random locations (Dinkins to population productivity (GSRSC, other small mammals visited sage- et al. 2012, p. 605). Hens will abandon 2005, p. 29, Baxter et al. 2008, p. 185; grouse nests in Nevada, but none their nest when disturbed by predators Connelly et al., 2011, pp. 64–65). resulted in predation events (Coates et (Patterson 1952, p. 110), likely reducing Nesting success of greater sage-grouse al. 2008, p. 425). this mortality (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Sage- is positively correlated with the The most common predators of grouse populations are likely more presence of big sagebrush and grass and Gunnison sage-grouse eggs are weasels, sensitive to predation upon females forb cover (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971). coyotes, and corvids (Young 1994, p. given the highly negative response of Females actively select nest sites with 37). Most raptor predation of sage- Gunnison sage-grouse population these qualities (Schroeder and Baydack grouse is on juveniles and older age dynamics to adult female reproductive 2001, p. 25; Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). classes (GSRSC 2005, p. 135). Golden success and chick mortality (GSRSC, Nest predation appears to be related to eagles were found to be the dominant 2005, p. 173). the amount of herbaceous cover raptor species recorded perching on Estimates of predation rates on surrounding the nest (Gregg et al. 1994, power poles in Utah in Gunnison sage- juvenile sage-grouse are limited and p. 164; Braun 1995, pp. 1–2; DeLong et grouse habitat (Prather and Messmer variable due to the difficulties in al. 1995, p. 90; Braun 1998; Coggins 2009, p. 12), indicating a possible studying this age class (Aldridge and 1998, p. 30; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. source of predation. In a study Boyce 2007, p. 509; Hagen 2011, p. 97). 975; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; conducted from 2000 to 2009 in the For greater sage-grouse, chick mortality Coates and Delehanty 2008, p. 636). western portion of the Gunnison Basin, from predation ranged from 10 to 51 Therefore, loss of nesting cover from 22 and 40 percent of 111 adult percent in 2002 and 2003 on three study any source (e.g., grazing, fire) has the Gunnison sage-grouse mortalities were sites in Oregon (Gregg et al. 2003, p. 15; potential to reduce nest success and the result of avian and mammalian 2003b, p. 17). Mortality due to predation adult hen survival. Also, habitat predation, respectively (Childers 2009, during the first few weeks after hatching alteration that reduces cover for young p. 7). Twenty-five and 35 percent of 40 was estimated to be 82 percent (Gregg et chicks can increase their rate of chick mortalities were caused by avian al. 2007, p. 648). Survival of juveniles predation (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, and mammalian predation, respectively to their first breeding season was p. 27). Conversely, Coates (2007, p. 149) (Childers 2009, p. 7). A causative agent estimated to be low (10 percent). In found that badger predation was of mortality was not determined in the northwest Colorado, mortality due to facilitated by nest cover as it attracts remaining mortalities (approximately predation was estimated at 26.3 percent small mammals, a badger’s primary one-third of all known mortalities) in in captive reared greater sage-grouse prey. the western portion of the Gunnison chicks introduced to the wild In a review of published nesting Basin from 2000 to 2009 (Childers 2009, (Thompson 2012, pp. 29, 93). Given the studies, Connelly et al. (2011, pp. 63– p. 7). known sources and rates of adult 64) reported that nesting success was Adult male Gunnison and greater mortality due to predation, it is greater in unaltered habitats versus sage-grouse are very susceptible to reasonable to assume that predation is a habitats affected by anthropogenic predation while on the lek (Schroeder et contributor to the high juvenile activities. Where habitat has been al. 1999, p. 10; Schroeder and Baydack mortality rates as well (Crawford et al. altered, it has been shown that the 2001, p. 25; Hagen 2011, p. 5), 2004, p. 4). associated influx of predators can presumably because they are Sage-grouse nests are subject to decrease annual recruitment of greater conspicuous while performing their varying levels of predation. Predation sage-grouse (Gregg et al. 1994, p. 164;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69275

DeLong et al. 1995, p. 91; Coates 2007, 522; Bui 2009, p. 32; Howe et al. 2014, agriculture, or other non-sagebrush p. 2;), and the same cause-effect p. 41–44). Human-made structures in habitat types, grouse nesting and brood- relationship has been speculated in the environment increase the effect of rearing become increasingly spatially other cases as well (Schroeder and raven predation, particularly in low restricted (Bui 2009, p. 32). Future Baydack 2001, p. 28; Braun 1995, pp. 1– canopy cover areas, by providing ravens human population growth and 2; Braun 1998; Hagen 2011, pp. 97–98). with perches (Braun 1998, pp. 145–146; associated development and Agricultural development, landscape Coates 2007, p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2; infrastructure will likely further restrict fragmentation, and human populations Howe et al. 2014, p. 41–44) (also see nesting habitat within the species’ can increase predation pressure on all discussion under Factor A above). range. Additionally, Gunnison sage- life stages of greater sage-grouse by Reduction in patch size and diversity of grouse have been shown to avoid forcing birds to nest in less suitable or sagebrush habitat, as well as the residential development and marginal habitats, increasing travel time construction of fences, powerlines, and infrastructure in some areas, resulting in through altered habitats where they are other infrastructure, also are likely to functional habitat loss (Aldridge et al. vulnerable to predation, and increasing encourage the presence of the common 2012, p. 402). Of 99 nest sites studied the diversity and density of predators raven (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426; Bui in the western portion of the Gunnison (see further discussion below) (Ritchie 2009, p. 4; Howe et al. 2014, p. 44). For Basin population, 69 (approximately 70 et al. 1994, p. 125; Schroeder and example, raven counts have increased percent) occurred within 13 percent of Baydack 2001, p. 25; Connelly et al. by approximately 200 percent along the the available habitat (Aldridge et al. 2004, p. 7–23; and Summers et al. 2004, Falcon-Gondor transmission line 2012, p. 400). Unnaturally high nest p. 523; GSRSC 2005, p.135). We believe corridor in Nevada (Atamian et al. 2007, densities, which result from habitat the above information for greater sage- p. 2). Ravens contributed to lek fragmentation or disturbance associated grouse is also applicable to Gunnison disturbance events in the areas with the presence of edges, fencerows, sage-grouse since overall behavior and surrounding the transmission line or trails, may increase predation rates by life-history traits are similar between the (Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2), but as a making foraging easier for predators two species (Young 1994, p. 4). cause of decline in surrounding sage- (Holloran 2005, p. C37). Increased nest In the Strawberry Valley of Utah, a grouse population numbers, this could density could negatively influence the high density of red fox contributed to not be separated from other potential probability of a successful hatch historically low survival rates of female impacts, such as West Nile virus. (Holloran and Anderson, 2005, p. 748). (30 percent) and male (29.7 percent) Holloran (2005, p. 58) attributed The influence of the human footprint greater sage-grouse. The authors increased sage-grouse nest predation to in sagebrush ecosystems may be speculated that the high density of red high corvid abundance, which resulted underestimated (Leu and Hanser 2011, foxes were attracted to the area by from anthropogenic food and perching pp. 270–271) since it is uncertain how Strawberry Reservoir and associated subsidies in areas of natural gas much more habitat sage-grouse (a large anthropogenic activities (Bambrough et development in western Wyoming. Bui landscape-scale species) need for al. 2000, p. 1). The red fox population (2009, p. 31) also found that ravens used persistence in increasingly fragmented has apparently increased within the road networks associated with oil fields landscapes (Connelly et al. 2011a, pp. Gunnison Basin (BLM, 2009, p. 37), and in the same Wyoming location for 80–82). Therefore, the influence of the species was only recently observed foraging activities. Holmes (2009, pp. 2– ravens and other predators associated in habitat within the Monticello, Utah, 4) also found that common raven with human activities may be population area (UDWR 2011, p. 4). In abundance increased in association with underestimated. In addition, nest addition to wild predators, domestic oil and gas development in predation may be higher, more variable, species including dogs (Canis southwestern Wyoming. and have a greater impact on the small, domesticus) and cats (Felis domesticus) Raven abundance was strongly fragmented Gunnison sage-grouse have been introduced by ranches, farms, associated with sage-grouse nest failure populations, particularly the six and housing developments into greater in northeastern Nevada, with resultant smallest populations (GSRSC 2005, p. sage-grouse habitats (Connelly et al. negative effects on sage-grouse 134). 2004, p. 12–2). reproduction (Coates 2007, p. 130). The Except for the few studies presented Raven abundance has increased as presence of high numbers of predators here, data that link Gunnison sage- much as 1,500 percent in some areas of within a sage-grouse nesting area may grouse population numbers and western North America since the 1960s negatively affect sage-grouse predator abundance are limited. Still, in (Coates 2007, p. 5). Breeding bird survey productivity without causing direct at least the six smaller populations, the trends from 1966 to 2007 indicate mortality. Increased raven abundance best available information suggests that increases throughout Colorado and Utah was associated with a reduction in the predation may be limiting Gunnison (USGS, 2009, pp. 1–2). The presence of time spent off the nest by female sage- sage-grouse survival and persistence. ravens was negatively associated with grouse, thereby potentially The lack of recruitment in the San greater sage-grouse nest and brood compromising their ability to secure Miguel population may be associated success in western Wyoming (Bui 2009, sufficient nutrition to complete the with predation (CDOW 2009b, p. 31; p. 27). It was suggested that raven incubation period (Coates 2007, pp. 85– Davis 2012, p. 162). In this area, six of numbers have increased in the Pin˜ on 98). Another model utilized known 12 observed nests were destroyed by Mesa population, though data have not raven nest locations and found a 31 predation. None of the chicks from the been collected to verify this (CDOW percent decrease in the odds of nesting remaining successful nests survived 2009b, p. 110). Raven numbers in the by ravens for every 1-km increase in beyond two weeks. Those observations Monticello population area remain high distance from a transmission line (Howe are in contrast to the Gunnison Basin (UDWR 2011, p. 4). et al. 2014), indicating that the presence where approximately 20 percent of Local attraction of ravens to nesting of transmission lines may increase the radio-marked chicks survived their first hens may be facilitated by loss and presence of and risk of predation by year during that period. Further, trends fragmentation of native shrublands, ravens in sage-grouse habitat. in lek count and other data indicate which increases the exposure of nests to As more suitable grouse habitat is there has been no recruitment of young predators (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. converted to exurban development, into the San Miguel population since

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69276 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

around 2005. The CPW suspects these made up a very small percentage (0.4– Gunnison County and CPW have trends are most likely due to predation 2.4 percent) of analyzed scat samples jointly funded an ongoing study (Magee (CDOW 2009b, p. 30–31; Davis 2012, (Johnson and Hansen 1979, p. 954). 2013, pers. comm.) of the distribution pp. 37, 79). The other five satellite Additionally, coyote removal can have and abundance of ravens and crows populations are smaller than the San unintended consequences resulting in (corvids), which may help inform Miguel population; therefore, it is the release of smaller predators, like the managers of the potential influence of reasonable to expect that predation may red fox, many of which may have more these species in the Gunnison Basin. Of be limiting those populations as well. negative impacts on sage-grouse twelve survey sites in the Gunnison Actions To Address Predation (Mezquida et al. 2006, p. 752). Basin, the site most used by ravens was Removal of ravens from an area in the Gunnison County Landfill. Due to low population numbers and northeastern Nevada caused only short- Preliminary distribution and abundance the potential impact of predation, a term reductions in raven populations data indicate that a large number of predator control program initiated by (less than 1 year), as apparently ravens are utilizing the landfill as their CPW occurred between March 2011 and transient birds from neighboring sites primary food source (Magee 2013, pers. June 2012 in the Miramonte repopulated the removal area (Coates comm.). Additional information from subpopulation area of the San Miguel 2007, p. 151). Additionally, badger surveys during spring and early summer population to evaluate the effects of predation appeared to partially of 2014 may provide information on predator removal on Gunnison sage- compensate for decreases due to raven raven use of sagebrush habitats during grouse juvenile recruitment in the removal (Coates 2007, p. 152). In their the sage-grouse breeding and nesting subpopulation (CPW 2012b, pp. 8–10). review of literature regarding predation, season when Gunnison sage-grouse are Over the two-year period, the United Connelly et al. (2004, p. 10–1) noted more vulnerable to predation. States Department of Agriculture that only two of nine studies examining Evaluating raven predation on Gunnison Animal and Plant Health Inspection survival and nest success indicated that sage-grouse was not an objective of this Service removed 155 coyotes, 101 predation had limited a sage-grouse study. However, preliminary data on corvids, two bobcats, eight badgers, two population by decreasing nest success, raven abundance, spatial and temporal raccoons, and three red foxes. Radio- and both studies indicated low nest distribution, and movements suggest marked hens, nest success, and chick success due to predation was ultimately that ravens are not preying on Gunnison survival were monitored during this related to poor nesting habitat. It has sage-grouse as primary food source in time, and results were compared to been suggested that removal of the Gunnison Basin. Planned spring and baseline data collected for the same area early summer surveys may indicate from 2007 to 2010. Prior to predator anthropogenic ‘‘subsidies’’ (e.g., otherwise, but the results of these control, of eight marked chicks, no landfills, tall structures) may be an surveys were not available at the time of individuals survived to 3 months. From important step to reducing the presence drafting of this final rule. 2011 through August of 2012, during of sage-grouse predators (Bui 2009, pp. which predator control occurred, of 10 36–37). Leu and Hanser (2011, p. 270) Summary of Predation marked chicks, four (40 percent) chicks also argue that reducing the effects of survived to three months, and two (20 predation on sage-grouse can only be Due to the extent of human influence percent) survived at least one year. The effectively addressed by precluding and alteration of habitat across its range, study did not compare chick survival these features. Gunnison sage-grouse may be rates to non-predator removal areas, so In 1999, property was transferred increasingly subject to levels and it is unknown whether the apparent from the BLM to Gunnison County for impacts of predation that would not increase in chick survival was due to the purposes of the Gunnison County normally occur in the historically predator control or other environmental Landfill. This conveyance required contiguous, intact sagebrush habitats, or factors (e.g., weather, habitat conditions, implementation of a mitigation plan for in larger, more resilient populations. etc.). potential impacts to Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse are adapted to Predator removal efforts have grouse, including establishment of a minimize predation through cryptic sometimes shown short-term gains that mitigation fund known as the Gunnison plumage and behavior, however may benefit fall populations, but not Sage-grouse Conservation Trust. To predation is strongly influenced by breeding population sizes (Cote and date, over $250,000 has been allocated anthropogenic factors on the landscape, Sutherland 1997, p. 402; Hagen 2011, from the trust fund for Gunnison sage- and human presence on the landscape pp. 98–99; Leu and Hanser 2011, p. grouse projects in occupied habitat in will continue to increase. The impacts 270). Predator removal may have greater Gunnison County. Projects include, but of predation on greater sage-grouse can benefits in areas with low habitat are not limited to, habitat increase where habitat quality has been quality, but predator numbers quickly improvements, conservation easements, compromised by anthropogenic rebound without continual control road closures, and outreach and activities (exurban development, road (Hagen 2011, p. 99). Red fox removal in education (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. development, powerlines, etc.) (e.g., Utah appeared to increase adult greater 147–150). Gunnison County has actively Coates 2007, pp. 154, 155; Bui 2009, p. sage-grouse survival and productivity, controlled ravens at the Gunnison 16; Hagen 2011, p. 100; Howe et al. but the study did not compare these County Landfill since 2003. Between 2014, p. 41–44). Landscape rates against other nonremoval areas, so 200 and 250 ravens are removed fragmentation and habitat decline inferences are limited (Hagen 2011, p. annually within the landfill boundaries. associated with human populations 98). Further efforts to control ravens in the have the potential to increase predator Coyote control efforts failed to have Gunnison Basin are under consideration populations through increasing the ease an effect on greater sage-grouse nesting by the county and the Gunnison Basin of securing prey and subsidizing food success in southwestern Wyoming Sage-grouse Strategic Committee sources and nest or den substrate for (Slater 2003, p. 133). However, coyotes (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 132). The predators. Consequently, otherwise may not be an important predator of effects of these control efforts on suitable habitat may change into a sage-grouse. In a coyote prey base Gunnison sage-grouse survival have not habitat sink (habitat in which analysis, sage-grouse and bird egg shells been studied. reproduction is insufficient to balance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69277

mortality) for grouse populations 100 percent lethality, disease Gunnison sage-grouse. Conservation (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 517). occurrence is sporadic in other taxa efforts by these parties that are Anthropogenic influences on across the species’ range and has not yet voluntary or are not enforceable, sagebrush habitats that increase been detected in Gunnison sage-grouse. however, including conservation suitability for ravens may also limit While we have no evidence of West Nile strategies and guidance, are typically sage-grouse populations (Bui 2009, p. virus acting on Gunnison sage-grouse not regulatory mechanisms. Non- 32). Current land-use practices in the individuals or populations, because of regulatory conservation efforts that Intermountain West favor high predator its presence within the species’ range, address habitat related issues, such as (in particular, raven) abundance relative its lethality to sage-grouse, and the the Rangewide Conservation Plan, the to historical numbers (Coates et al. continued development of Colorado CCAA and the Gunnison Basin 2008, p. 426). The interaction between anthropogenic water sources in the area CCA, are described and evaluated under changes in habitat and predation may that support mosquito vector Factor A, and other non-regulatory have substantial effects to sage-grouse at populations, the virus is a future threat conservation efforts are described and the landscape level (Coates 2007, pp. 3– to the species. We anticipate that West assessed under relevant threat sections. 5; Howe et al. 2014, p. 41–44). Nile virus will persist within the range In this section, pursuant to Factor D, we Research and data linking predation of Gunnison sage-grouse indefinitely review and evaluate only regulatory to Gunnison sage-grouse abundance and and that the threat it presents will be mechanisms undertaken by local, State, viability are limited. However, the exacerbated by any factor (e.g., drought, and Federal entities designed to reduce studies presented above suggest that, climate change) that increases ambient or remove threats to Gunnison sage- particularly in areas of intensive habitat temperatures and the presence of the grouse and its habitat. alteration and fragmentation and in vector on the landscape. smaller less resilient populations, sage- The best available information shows Local Laws and Regulations grouse productivity and, potentially, that existing and future habitat decline, Approximately 43 percent of population viability could be negatively and fragmentation in particular, will Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide affected by predation. Since the increase the effects of predation on this occupied habitat is privately owned Gunnison and greater sage-grouse have species, particularly in the six smaller (Table 1), and local laws and regulations similar behavior and life-history traits, it populations, resulting in a reduction in are most applicable in those areas. Local is reasonable to assume that predator sage-grouse productivity and abundance laws and regulations vary widely by impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse are in the future. county across Gunnison sage-grouse similar to those documented in greater We evaluated the best available range. Below we first broadly address sage-grouse. As more habitats are altered scientific information regarding disease general county regulations that have the or lost due to human development, and predation and their effects on the potential to affect Gunnison sage-grouse including dispersed development, we Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on the and its habitat and then move on to expect predators to spread and increase information available, we have local laws and regulations that in numbers into the future, thereby determined that predation and disease specifically address Gunnison sage- increasing the risk of predation. are threats to the species throughout its grouse. Ongoing effects from predation are range at the present time and are likely Under state law, all county likely greater in the smaller satellite to increase in the future. In particular, governments have general authority to populations, and will likely increase if West Nile virus poses a substantial regulate land use development in their these populations continue declining in threat to Gunnison sage-grouse jurisdictions through the abundance. Therefore, the best available rangewide in the foreseeable future. implementation of comprehensive or information indicates that, as we stated master plans, zoning, and subdivision D. The Inadequacy of Existing in our proposed rule, predation is a planning (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30–28–101 Regulatory Mechanisms current and future threat to the species, et seq.; Utah 2011, entire), and to protect particularly in the satellite populations. Under this factor, we examine wildlife habitat through enforcement of While predation likely acts as a threat whether threats to the Gunnison sage- wildlife-related regulations or in localized areas across the range of the grouse are adequately addressed by requirements (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24– species, the stability of the Gunnison existing regulatory mechanisms. 65.1–104; Utah Code § 17–27a–403). Basin population over the last 19 years Existing regulatory mechanisms that can Local laws and regulations enacted indicates that predation is not having a provide some protection for Gunnison pursuant to this authority may benefit significant impact on that population. sage-grouse include: (1) Local land use Gunnison sage-grouse depending on the We believe, however, that the effects of laws, regulations and ordinances; (2) regulations adopted in a particular predation are more pronounced in the State laws and regulations; and (3) county and the degree to which threats satellite populations. Given the stability Federal laws and regulations. to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat of the Gunnison Basin population, we Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, are considered and addressed in these do not believe that the magnitude of this may preclude the need for listing if such local regulations. threat is significant at the rangewide mechanisms adequately address the By statute, the State of Colorado level. threat to the species such that listing is grants Colorado counties broad not warranted. Conversely, threats to a authority for planning and regulation of Summary of Factor C species may be exacerbated when not land use and development in their We have reviewed the available addressed at all by existing regulatory respective jurisdictions (Colo. Rev. Stat. information on the effects of disease and mechanisms, or if the existing § 30–28–101 et. seq.). This law provides predation on the long-term persistence mechanisms are not adequately that whenever local land use regulations of the Gunnison sage-grouse. The only implemented or enforced. impose higher standards than other disease that is known to be a threat to Multiple partners, including private statutes, the provisions of the the survival of the Gunnison sage-grouse citizens, nongovernmental regulations made under local authority is West Nile virus. This virus is organizations, Tribes, Counties, States, (i.e., county planning) shall apply (Colo. distributed throughout most of the and Federal agencies, are engaged in Rev. Stat. § 30–28–123). Furthermore, species’ range. However, despite its near conservation efforts across the range of Colorado law authorizes local

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

governments to plan for and regulate development proposals, which may specifically for Gunnison sage-grouse land uses in order to protect significant include generic ‘‘1041’’ wildlife habitat will typically be more effective in wildlife habitat and species (Colo. Rev. regulations, requiring review and/or conserving the species and its habitat Stat. § 30–29–104). coordination with CPW/UDWR for new than the standard regulations described In our proposed rule, we reported that subdivision and development requests above that do not address the species Colorado law exempts parcels of land in sensitive wildlife habitat (Delta specifically. that are 35 acres or larger from county County 2011–R–054. 2012–R–044, Gunnison County Sage-Grouse land use regulations (78 FR 2523). This 2013–R–025; Delta County 2011–R–054; Regulations (Gunnison Basin is only partially correct. Under Colorado Dolores County land use regulations; Population) law, a county does not have authority to Mesa County 7.6.4; Ouray County 6, 25, regulate the subdivision of land that and site development permit; Saguache The Gunnison Basin population is creates parcels that are each 35 acres or County Article XX). However, we do not located in Gunnison and Saguache larger (‘‘plus-35 acre parcels’’) (Colo. have sufficient information to determine County, Colorado. Gunnison County has Rev. Stat. § 30–28–101(10)(b)). However, whether and how these general wildlife adopted specific regulations to further Colorado counties retain authority to habitat regulations have been applied to the conservation of the Gunnison sage- regulate the actual use and development Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, what grouse and its habitat (Gunnison County of plus-35 acre parcels (for example, recommendations may have been made Land Use Resolution (LUR) § 11.106 home, road, or infrastructure by CPW/UDWR regarding the avoidance including amendments 07–17 and development). All Colorado counties in of impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse 2013–23). Approximately 79 percent of the occupied range of Gunnison sage- under these non-sage-grouse specific private lands in occupied habitat in the grouse have land use regulations that regulations, and how or if the counties Gunnison Basin population is in apply to development of plus-35 acre incorporated any such Gunnison County, and is thereby subject parcels (Delta County 2013–R–025; recommendations in their land use to those regulations. The remaining 21 Dolores County policy on subdivisions authorization. Therefore, we cannot percent of private lands in the Gunnison exemptions; Gunnison County 95–34; conclude that the generic county Basin population is in Saguache County, Mesa County 31; Montrose County 45– requirements to consult with state which does not currently have similar 2012, 02–2013, 24–2013, 14–2006; wildlife agencies for actions that occur species-specific regulations in place, Ouray County 2013–022; Saguache within sensitive wildlife habitat although Saguache County is working to County 2013–LU–11; San Juan County constitute adequate regulatory develop species-specific criteria (CPW Utah Statute Summary; San Miguel mechanisms to reduce the threats to the 2014g, Attachment 3, Appendix A). Article 1). Similarly, the State of Utah species. (Again, wildlife habitat Gunnison County’s Land Use grants County governments, including regulations specific to Gunnison sage- Resolution (LUR) 11.106 was adopted in San Juan County, which encompasses grouse are discussed separately below.) 1977 and broadly provides for the the Monticello population of Gunnison Several counties without specific land regulation of land uses in sensitive sage-grouse, authority to regulate and use regulations directed at Gunnison wildlife habitat areas. In 2007, control property (i.e., zoning) and sage-grouse habitat conservation do Gunnison County Board of County development (Utah 2011, entire). have regulations that contain Commissioners approved Resolution County or city ordinances in San Juan restrictions that may benefit the species. Number 07–17, which amended LUR County, Utah, that address agricultural These measures may include control of 11.106, to create a review process and lands, transportation, and zoning for dogs, seasonal road closures, or protective standards specific to various types of land uses have the requirements for clustering housing Gunnison sage-grouse. In 2013, potential to affect sage-grouse habitat, units within subdivisions. Specifically, Gunnison County further amended LUR behavior, and abundance. Similarly, San Juan County, Utah, and Gunnison, § 11.106 to incorporate use of the general, non-sage-grouse specific local San Miguel, Mesa, and Montrose Gunnison Basin Sage Grouse Habitat land use codes and permitting Counties, Colorado include regulations Prioritization Tool, a GIS model requirements in the Colorado portion of to control dogs from roaming freely and developed by the Gunnison Basin Sage- the species’ range can affect Dolores, Gunnison, Mesa, San Juan, and grouse Strategic Committee in 2012 that development in occupied habitat and San Miguel Counties have regulations first stratifies or values Gunnison sage- thus have implications for the species that apply to road closures (CPW 2014g; grouse habitat (largely based on and its habitat. We do not, however, Appendix A). distances to leks) and then discounts the have sufficient information about Counties within Gunnison sage- value of the habitat based on soils, and implementation of general local land grouse range with regulations or policies on distance to developed areas use laws and regulations to determine that include conservation measures or including structures, roads, and power what uses, if any, have been modified considerations specifically targeted at lines. This process stratifies occupied pursuant to these general authorities to Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat habitat in the Gunnison Basin into three avoid or lessen impacts to Gunnison include Dolores, Gunnison, Montrose, types (Gunnison County 2013a, sage-grouse. Therefore, we are unable to Ouray, and San Miguel Counties, Appendix G; see detailed description conclude that such general county land Colorado (Dolores County 05–13–04; under Local Laws and Regulations, use codes and regulations within Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 33–57; Gunnison County). Tier 1 habitat Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat Gunnison County 2013b, p. 11; includes important seasonal habitats constitute adequate regulatory Gunnison County 11–106, 07–17 and and is considered the highest value for mechanisms to reduce the threats to the 2013–23; Gunnison County 2014–24; the species; Tier 2 habitat includes the species. (Local land use regulations Montrose County 2013, entire; Montrose remainder of occupied habitat in the specific to Gunnison sage-grouse are County 39–2013; Ouray County 2013– Gunnison Basin that is closer to discussed individually and separately 022; San Miguel County land use code, structures, roads, and power lines, and below.) 2–16, 5–407, 5–26; San Miguel County is generally of lower value to the Many Colorado counties within Wright’s Mesa Zone Districts), as species. Occupied habitat that does not Gunnison sage-grouse range have described below. We anticipate that stratify into Tier 1 or Tier 2 is not requirements for County review of land use regulations designed considered Gunnison sage-grouse

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69279

habitat under Gunnison County’s sage- of development projects have been collection in the Gunnison Basin by the grouse regulations. CPW telemetry data located within existing areas of Colorado Wildlife Commission due to from 2004 to 2010 for approximately development, including outbuildings or its disturbance of Gunnison sage-grouse 500 collared Gunnison sage-grouse in additions to buildings. According to the during the early breeding season, and a the Gunnison Basin showed that, of County seventy-one (15.4 percent) of the BLM/USFS/Gunnison County/CPW 10,140 radio locations in Saguache and projects reviewed involved collective effort to implement and Gunnison County, approximately 79.63 development within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a enforce road closures during the early percent (8,074) and 15.65 percent lek (CPW 2014g, Attachment 3, p. 27). breeding season (March 15 to May 15) (1,587) points occurred in Tier 1 habitat Implementation of the County (see Roads for more details). These and Tier 2 habitats, respectively regulations likely reduced impacts from regulatory efforts have provided a (including all occupied habitat in the these projects, but did not fully benefit to Gunnison sage-grouse during Gunnison Basin regardless of compensate for disturbance or lost the breeding period. ownership) (Gunnison County 2013b, p. habitat. We commend Gunnison County for 25; Gunnison County 2013d, p. 1). This Pursuant to Gunnison County the regulatory measures (and other indicates a preference for modeled Tier Resolution No. 95–34, adopted on June actions it has taken, as described in the 1 habitats by the Gunnison Basin birds 6, 1995, ‘‘individual parcels of land Factor A discussion above and and supports the model’s reliability. greater than 35 acres in size are subject elsewhere in this final rule), to conserve As amended, Gunnison County LUR to the same county review and Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. § 11.106 requires the County to review regulatory processes as individual The County regulations have helped to applications for land use change parcels less than 35 acres in size except, reduce some of the negative effects of permits, building permits, individual as is generally provided in current state human development and infrastructure sewage disposal system permits, statute, for the act of subdividing such on the species and its habitat. However, Gunnison County access permits, and parcels into resultant parcels all of Gunnison County’s current Gunnison Gunnison County Reclamation permits which are 35 acres or greater in size’’ sage-grouse related regulations do not (Gunnison County Public Works (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 34–35). As prevent human development in Department 2014a, 2014b; subject to a result, development on parcels that are Gunnison sage-grouse habitat nor do some exceptions) specifically for 35 acres or larger requires one or more they prevent additional habitat loss and potential impacts to Gunnison sage- of the County permits identified above fragmentation that occurs as a result. grouse and occupied habitat. If the and are subject to review and regulation Further, they do not address or require activity to be permitted is located under LUR § 11.106. offsetting or mitigation for the habitat wholly or partially in Gunnison sage- Gunnison County reports that five loss and fragmentation that cannot be grouse habitat identified pursuant to the separate developments involving 35- avoided and that occurs as a result of Habitat Prioritization Tool, then the acre or greater parcels (‘‘plus-35 acre’’) permitted development in the species’ County performs a site-specific analysis have occurred in the County since 2003. habitat. Gunnison County’s sage-grouse and works with the applicant to ensure This included a total of about 2,700 regulations have not, therefore, that the project meets the County’s sage- acres divided into 75 parcels, with sufficiently or adequately reduced this grouse specific and other wildlife portions occurring in occupied habitat threat, which is the primary concern protective standards for such for Gunnison sage-grouse. Two of the related to human development (see development (LUR § 11.106.G–11.106.J). five projects were reviewed by Factor A, Residential Development). In general, these standards direct that Gunnison County under LUR § 11.106 San Miguel County Gunnison Sage- covered land use activities and projects for Gunnison sage-grouse concerns and Grouse Regulations (San Miguel be designed to avoid, minimize, and/or included permit conditions to avoid and Population) mitigate impacts on the species and its minimize potential impacts from their habitat. According to Gunnison County, development. The County reports that In 2005, San Miguel County amended standard avoidance and minimization the other three projects did not occur in its Land Use Codes to require measures included in permits subject to Gunnison sage-grouse habitats. The consideration and implementation, to LUR § 11.106 include restrictions on Ohio Creek area, which has experienced the extent possible, of conservation pets and animals and on the siting and the greatest concentration of plus-35 measures recommended in the 2005 timing of construction, adjustment of acre development in the county since RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) for the building envelopes, and other lek counts were standardized in 1996, Gunnison sage-grouse when considering recommendations (Gunnison County has had increasing numbers of land use activities and development 2013a, pp. 24–31). Mitigation Gunnison sage-grouse since that time located within its habitat (San Miguel techniques as defined and used by (based on increased high male counts at County 2005). More specifically, under Gunnison County include visual and the Ohio Creek lek) (Gunnison County its Land Use Code, the County has sound buffers, limitation of human 2013a, pp. 35–37). specific requirements that apply when activities during sensitive time periods, Recently, Gunnison County has there is a request for a special use and controls on the location of started requiring monetary permit (such as for oil and gas facilities development. Gunnison County’s use of compensation for reclamation of or wind turbines) in occupied habitat. the term ‘‘mitigation’’ thus differs from habitats disturbed in Tier 1 and Tier 2 Special use permits are not, however, the Service’s definition of this term, Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Gunnison typically required for residential which is the full suite of activities to County Public Works Department development projects, which limits the avoid, minimize, and compensate for 2014a, 2014b; subject to some County’s involvement in review of adverse impacts to sage-grouse and sage- exceptions). This is a recently enacted projects adversely affecting Gunnison grouse habitat. regulation for which we have little more sage-grouse and their habitat. In From July 2006 through September information that what is presented here. addition, when the County receives an 2014, Gunnison County reviewed 461 Additional regulatory measures application for a special use permit for projects under § 11.106 for impacts to implemented by Gunnison County in activities in sage-grouse habitat, it only Gunnison sage-grouse. Gunnison coordination with State and Federal solicits recommended conservation County reports that, to date, the majority agencies include: closing of shed antler measures from the CPW and a local

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69280 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Gunnison sage-grouse working group, guests) and appropriate terms and Summary of Local Laws and and does not require implementation of conditions be applied during this same Regulations the recommended conservation time period at construction sites within measures. As a result, implementation 0.6 miles of a lek to minimize and avoid We commend the efforts that local of recommended conservation measures impacts on breeding and brood-rearing governments have made to date (those is dependent on negotiations between habitat (Ouray County 2013, entire). The regulations not yet completed are not included) to enact and strengthen local the County and the applicant. restrictions do not specify what regulatory protections for Gunnison Some positive measures (e.g., locating avoidance or minimization will occur a special use activity outside grouse sage-grouse. Existing local laws and with development permits in these habitat, establishing a 324-ha (800-ac) regulations are helping and will areas. conservation easement; implementing continue to help to reduce the negative speed limits to reduce likelihood of On November 4, 2013, Montrose effects of human development and bird/vehicle collisions) have been County adopted special regulations infrastructure on the species. implemented as a result of this process. (‘‘1041 regulations’’ 39–2013) that are Continuation, enhancement, and Most measures that result from intended to avoid and minimize impacts expansion of these efforts across the discussions with applicants, however, from land use activities on Gunnison species’ range will likely be necessary result in measures that may minimize, sage-grouse and occupied habitat, for conservation of the species. but do not prevent, or mitigate for similar to the approach adopted by Nevertheless, current local laws and impacts (Henderson 2010, pers. comm.). Gunnison County. Building permits are regulations do not fully address the full In addition, as noted above, residential required for construction within 0.6 scope of threats to the species (Factors development proposals typically do not miles of an active lek, and land use A through C and E), including habitat require a special use permit so are not projects or permitting in occupied loss due to residential and human subject to this review and negotiation habitat will require conservation actions development (see Residential process. San Miguel County also has to avoid or minimize impacts on Development). The permanent loss, and regulations relating to the Wrights Mesa Gunnison sage-grouse (Montrose County associated fragmentation and Zone Districts that restrict fence 2013, entire). degradation, of sagebrush habitat are building, sagebrush removal, considered the greatest threat to powerlines, housing, and roads within On May 20, 2013 Dolores County Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. 0.6 miles of a lek (San Miguel County clarified what planning and regulatory 2). Residential development is likely 2010, entire). In addition, San Miguel means are available for local efforts in contributing to habitat loss and County hired a Gunnison Sage-grouse preservation of Gunnison sage-grouse degradation throughout the range of Coordinator for the San Miguel Basin (Dolores County Resolution 05–13–04). Gunnison sage-grouse. Future population in March 2006 to implement The resolution highlights coordination development, especially in areas of the regulatory process. with CPW (and other agencies) to important seasonal habitats, is a concern The San Miguel County Land Use review the impacts to wildlife from any throughout the range, including in the Codes provide some conservation change of use application submitted to Gunnison Basin, where we believe that benefit to the species by encouraging the County. It also highlights regular the level of impact from residential landowners to voluntarily minimize coordination with both the BLM and the development will increase in the future impacts of residential development in U.S. Forest Service. (Factor A). For the reasons described grouse habitat where the County has While these three recently enacted above, existing local regulations and authority to do so (with special use laws do not fully address this threat. permits). The County’s regulations do county regulations likely provide some Likewise, existing local regulations and not prevent human disturbance in conservation benefits to the species, laws do not address other substantial occupied habitat or address or require none of them provide the requisite threats to the species, including small offsetting or mitigation for habitat loss certainty that they will be effective in population size and structure (Factor E), and fragmentation resulting from such ameliorating the threat human drought (Factor E); or disease (Factor C). disturbance. As a result, we find that development poses to the species and San Miguel County’s regulations do not its habitat. For example, the Ouray State Laws and Regulations adequately address the threat of habitat County regulations do not specify what Colorado and Utah State laws and loss, degradation and fragmentation terms or conditions will be required for regulations may influence Gunnison which is the primary concern related to construction in occupied habitat, and sage-grouse conservation by providing human development (see Factor A, neither the Montrose nor Dolores Residential Development). specific authority for sage-grouse County regulations specify how conservation over lands that are directly Dolores, Ouray, and Montrose County mitigation will occur where effects owned by the States. As described in Sage-Grouse Regulations (San Miguel cannot be avoided. None of these county more detail below, the States also have and Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa regulations prevent human development broad authority to regulate and protect Populations) in occupied habitat and the additional wildlife on all lands within their Ouray County adopted a resolution habitat loss and fragmentation that borders, and State laws provide (Resolution Number 2013–022) on May occurs as a result, or address or require mechanisms for indirect conservation 28, 2013, directed at protecting offsetting or mitigation of habitat loss through regulation of threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse breeding and for the species, which is the primary species (e.g., noxious weeds). In the brood-rearing habitat from land use concern related to human development previous section, we described the activities including construction and (see Factor A, Residential authorities granted by Colorado and motor vehicle use. The resolution Development). As a result, none of these Utah to local and county governments provides that seasonal restrictions local land regulations eliminate or in regulating land use development (March 15 until May 15) be adequately reduce the impact of human within their respective jurisdictions to implemented for roads (not belonging to development on Gunnison sage-grouse conserve wildlife, including the adjacent property owners or their and their habitat. Gunnison sage-grouse.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69281

Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) Factor B), but do not protect the habitat economically feasible,’’ again subject to section 33–1–104 gives the CPW Board or address other substantial threats such various exceptions (COGCC 2014). responsibility for the management and as drought, climate change, or disease. The 2009 COGCC rules identified conservation of wildlife resources In 2009, the Colorado Oil and Gas certain areas as ‘‘sensitive wildlife within State borders. The CPW, which Conservation Commission (COGCC), habitat’’ and RSO areas for Gunnison operates under the direction of the CPW which is the entity responsible for sage-grouse (COGCC 2009). In Board, is required by statute to provide permitting oil and gas well development September 2013, COGCC amended its counties with information on in Colorado, adopted new rules rules to, among other things, update and ‘‘significant wildlife habitat,’’ and addressing the impact of oil and gas expand the definitions and maps of provide technical assistance in development on wildlife resources sensitive wildlife habitat and RSO areas establishing guidelines for designating (COGCC as amended 2014, entire). for Gunnison sage-grouse (COGCC and administering such areas, if asked These COGCC rules require that 2013). The COGCC rules as amended (C.R.S. § 24–65.1–302). The CPW Board permittees and operators on all lands define sensitive wildlife habitat for the also has authority to regulate possession within the state of Colorado determine Gunnison sage-grouse lek based on 4 of the Gunnison sage-grouse, set hunting whether their proposed development mile buffers around lek sites and RSO seasons, and issue citations for poaching location overlaps with ‘‘sensitive areas for the species as areas within 0.6 (C.R.S § 33–1–106). These authorities, as wildlife habitat,’’ or is within a miles of a lek (COGCC 2014; COGCC implemented by the CPW Board, restricted surface occupancy (RSO) area. 2013). provide individual Gunnison sage- If it does, the COGCC rules require that We find that while COGCC’s rules grouse with protection from direct the Commission consult with CPW, the provide for greater consideration of mortality from hunting, as described operator and the surface owner to allow Gunnison sage-grouse needs, the rules only apply to oil and gas development, below. it to determine whether conditions of and they do not adequately address the The Wildlife Resources Code of Utah approval are necessary to ‘‘minimize threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. Oil and (Utah Code Annotated Title 23) adverse impacts’’ from the proposed oil gas operations that were approved provides UDWR with the powers, and gas operations in the identified before the COGCC’s 2009 adoption of duties, rights, and responsibilities to sensitive wildlife habitat or RSO area the wildlife protection rules are not protect, propagate, manage, conserve, (COGCC 2014). For purposes of this subject to Rule 1202’s wildlife and distribute wildlife throughout the rule, ‘‘minimize adverse impacts’’ consultation and conditions of approval State (Utah Code Ann. § 23–14–1). means, ‘‘wherever reasonably Section 23–13–3 of the Code declares requirements, for example, even if practicable, to (i) avoid adverse impacts that wildlife existing within the State, operations have not yet begun (COGCC from oil and gas operations on wildlife not held by private ownership and 2014). The limitations on new oil and resources, (ii) minimize the extent and legally acquired, is property of the State. gas development operations in RSO severity of those impacts that cannot be Section 23–14–18 authorizes the Utah areas also do not apply to applications avoided, (iii) mitigate the effects of Wildlife Board to prescribe rules and that were approved before May 1, 2009 unavoidable remaining impacts, and (iv) regulations for the taking and/or on federal land or April 1, 2009 on all take into consideration cost- possession of protected wildlife, other land (COGCC 2014). Unless effectiveness and technical feasibility including Gunnison sage-grouse. These operations change in a manner that with regard to actions taken and authorities provide adequate protection requires additional COGCC to individual Gunnison sage-grouse decisions made to minimize adverse authorization, drilling operations that from direct mortality from hunting, as impacts to wildlife resources, consistent are already on the landscape may described below. with the other provisions of the Act.’’ continue to operate without further Gunnison sage-grouse are managed by (Id.) Consultation with CPW is not restriction into the future. In addition, CPW and UDWR on all lands within required under certain circumstances, the COGCC regulations qualify each State as resident native game birds. however, such as when the Director of implementation of many of its In both States this classification allows the COGCC issues a variance, a conservation measures to ‘‘wherever the direct human taking of the bird previously CPW-approved wildlife reasonably practicable’’ and like terms, during hunting seasons authorized and mitigation plan exists, and others which can limit the effectiveness of conducted under State laws and (COGCC 2014). these measures in avoiding or regulations. In 2000, CPW closed the All oil and gas operations in sensitive minimizing impacts to the species. We hunting season for Gunnison sage- wildlife habitat or RSO areas authorized also are not aware of any situations grouse in the Gunnison Basin, the only since implementation of the regulations where RSOs have been effectively area then open to hunting for the in 2009 are also required to comply with applied or where conservation measures species. The hunting season for specified general operating have been implemented for potential oil Gunnison sage-grouse in Utah has been requirements, including (1) educating and gas development impacts to closed since 1989 according to GSRSC employees and contractors on Gunnison sage-grouse on private lands (2005, p. 82), or as early as the mid- conservation practices, (2) consolidating underlain with privately owned 1970’s according to SJCWG (2000, p. new facilities to minimize disturbance, minerals. 11). The Gunnison sage-grouse is listed (3) controlling road access and limiting Colorado and Utah have laws that as a species of special concern in traffic, where approved by the surface directly address the priorities for use of Colorado, as a sensitive species in Utah, owner and appropriate authorities, and State school section lands, which and as a Tier I species under the Utah (4) monitoring wells remotely when require that management of these Wildlife Action Plan, providing possible (COGCC 2014). The COGCC properties be based on maximizing heightened priority for management Director may waive these requirements, financial returns. We have no (CDOW 2009b, p. 40; UDWR 2009, p. 9). however (COGCC 2014). With respect to information on any conservation Hunting and other State regulations that RSO areas, operators are also required to measures that will be implemented deal with issues such as harassment avoid these areas in planning and under statutes or regulations for provide adequate protection for conducting new oil and gas operations Gunnison sage-grouse on State school individual birds (see discussion under ‘‘to the maximum extent technically and section lands.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69282 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

In 2007, the Colorado State Land invasive plants, although large-scale ‘‘should consider all site-specific Board (SLB) purchased the Miramonte control of the most problematic invasive methods and procedures needed to Meadows property (approximately 809 plants is not occurring. Rehabilitation bring species and their habitats to the ha (2,300 ac) next to the Dan Noble State and restoration techniques for sagebrush condition under which management Wildlife Area (SWA)). Roughly 526 ha habitats are mostly unproven and under the Bureau sensitive species (1,300 ac) of this property is considered experimental (Pyke 2011, p. 543). policies would no longer be necessary’’ prime Gunnison sage-grouse habitat Neither Colorado nor Utah’s regulatory (BLM 2008, p. 2A1). As a designated (Garner 2010, pers. comm.). Discussions mechanisms have been demonstrated to sensitive species under BLM Manual with the SLB have indicated a be effective in addressing the overall 6840, sage-grouse conservation must be willingness to implement habitat impacts of invasive plants on the addressed in the development and improvements (juniper removal) on the decline of sagebrush habitat within the implementation of RMPs on BLM lands. property. They have also accepted an species’ range. RMPs are the basis for all actions and authorizations involving BLM- application to designate the tract as a Federal Laws and Regulations ‘‘Stewardship Trust’’ parcel. The administered lands and resources. They Stewardship Trust program is capped at Gunnison sage-grouse are not covered establish allowable resource uses, 119,383 to 121,406 ha (295,000 to or managed under the provisions of the resource condition goals and objectives 300,000 ac), and no more property can Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. to be attained, program constraints and be added until another tract is removed 703–712) because they are considered general management practices needed to from the program. Because of this cap, resident game species. Federal agencies attain the goals and objectives, general it is unknown if or when the are responsible for managing 54 percent implementation sequences, and designation of the tract as a Stewardship of the total Gunnison sage-grouse intervals and standards for monitoring Trust parcel may occur. The scattered habitat. The Federal agencies with the and evaluating the plan to determine its nature of State school sections most sagebrush habitat are BLM, an effectiveness and the need for (generally single sections of land) across agency of the Department of the Interior, amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601 et the landscape and the requirement to and USFS, an agency of the Department seq.). conduct activities to maximize financial of Agriculture. The NPS in the The RMPs also provide a framework returns minimize the likelihood of Department of the Interior also has and programmatic guidance for activity implementation of measures that will responsibility for lands that contain plans, which are site-specific plans Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. benefit Gunnison sage-grouse. Thus, no written to implement decisions made in an RMP. Examples include Allotment regulatory mechanisms are present on BLM State trust lands to minimize habitat Management Plans that address About 42 percent of Gunnison sage- livestock grazing, oil and gas field decline and thus help ensure grouse occupied habitat is on BLM- development, travel management conservation of the species. However, administered land (see Table 1). The (motorized and mechanized road and State school section lands account for Federal Land Policy and Management trail use), and wildlife habitat only 1 percent of occupied habitat in Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et management. Activity plan decisions Colorado and 1 percent in Utah, so seq.) is the primary Federal law normally require additional planning impacts from development and relevant governing most land uses on BLM- and National Environmental Policy Act laws or regulation pertaining to State administered lands. Section 102(a)(8) of (NEPA) analysis. If an RMP contains lands may be negligible in terms of FLPMA specifically recognizes wildlife specific direction regarding Gunnison effects on Gunnison sage-grouse. and fish resources as being among the sage-grouse habitat, conservation, or Some States require landowners to uses for which these lands are to be management, the specific direction for control noxious weeds, which are a managed. Regulations pursuant to the species is an enforceable regulatory potential habitat threat to sage-grouse FLPMA (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) and other mechanism to ensure that the species (as discussed in Factor A, Invasive statutory authorities that address and its habitats are considered during Plants). The types of plants considered wildlife habitat protection on BLM- permitting and other decision making to be noxious weeds vary by State. administered land include 43 CFR for activities that occur on BLM lands. Cheatgrass, which is a particular threat 3162.3–1 and 43 CFR 3162.5–1 (oil and The BLM in Colorado manages to sage-grouse, is listed as a Class C gas); 43 CFR 4120 et seq. (grazing); and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat under six species in Colorado (Colorado 43 CFR 4180 et seq. (grazing). existing RMPs. These include the Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 3). Gunnison sage-grouse has been Gunnison Field Office (1993), The Class C designation delegates to designated as a BLM Sensitive Species Uncompahgre Field Office (1989), local governments the choice of whether since they were first identified and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation or not to implement activities for the described as a species in 2000 (BLM Area (NCA) (2004), Tres Rios Field control of cheatgrass. Gunnison, 2009a, p. 7). The management guidance Office (1985), Grand Junction Field Saguache, and Hinsdale Counties target afforded sensitive species under BLM Office (1987), and San Luis Valley Field cheatgrass with herbicide applications Manual 6840—Special Status Species Office (1991) RMPs. A new RMP for the (GWWC 2009, pp. 2–3). The CPW Management (BLM 2008, entire) states BLM Dominguez-Escalante NCA, annually sprays for weeds on SWAs that ‘‘Bureau sensitive species will be designated in 2009 and encompassing (CDOW 2009b, p. 106). The State of managed consistent with species and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the Utah, however, does not consider habitat management objectives in land vicinity of the Pin˜ on Mesa population, cheatgrass as noxious within the State use and implementation plans to is also under development. (Utah Department of Agriculture 2010a, promote their conservation and to In Utah, Gunnison sage-grouse habitat p. 1) nor in San Juan County, Utah (Utah minimize the likelihood and need for falls under the Monticello Field Office Department of Agriculture 2010b, p. 1). listing’’ under the Act (BLM 2008, p. (2008) and Moab Field Office (2008) The laws dealing with other noxious 05V). BLM Manual 6840 further requires RMPs. All six of the existing Colorado and invasive weeds may provide some that Resource Management Plans RMPs contain broad objectives for protection for sage-grouse in local areas (RMPs) should address sensitive Gunnison sage-grouse conservation, but by requiring some control of the species, and that implementation lack specific land use allocation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69283

decisions, stipulations, and enforceable designates an ACEC in habitat occupied issue can be addressed through measures to achieve those objectives. by Gunnison sage-grouse where revisions or updates to manuals or Three of these RMPs were under management and protection of the RMPs. revision as of the drafting of this rule, Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat BLM has issued a number of IMs including the Tres Rios, Grand Junction, will be emphasized. Within this area, addressing Gunnison sage-grouse. On and Uncompahgre Field Offices, the plan contains specific protections to July 12, 2005 BLM Colorado issued IM covering all or portions of the San maintain or increase Gunnison sage- Number CO–2005–038, stating BLM’s Miguel, Pin˜ on Mesa, Crawford, Cerro grouse numbers and its distribution, intent and commitment to assist with Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and Dove improve the quality of sage-grouse and participate in the implementation of Creek populations. habitat, and to prevent, minimize and the 2005 RCP. This guidance has been All ongoing RMP revisions include in mitigate fragmentation and loss of used for BLM-administered lands in the their range of alternatives or preferred habitat. The RMP adopts and State of Colorado to provide alternative various stipulations and incorporates the Gunnison sage-grouse conservation benefit for Gunnison sage- measures, such as spatial buffers, conservation plan, Crawford Area, grouse (BLM 2009a, p. 6). On August 17, seasonal limitations, and other site- Colorado (Crawford Area Gunnison 2010, BLM Colorado issued IM number specific restrictions and best Sage-Grouse Working Group 2011), as CO–2010–028 on Gunnison sage-grouse management practices, for land use part of the direction and management and greater sage-grouse habitat activities in important Gunnison sage- objectives of the ACEC. management policy, which provides grouse habitat (leks, nesting habitat, Current BLM RMPs in Utah and direction regarding implementation of brood-rearing habitat, winter habitat). Colorado do provide limited regulatory National BLM sage-grouse guidance, Many of these recommendations are protection for Gunnison sage-grouse as ensures continued coordination with derived or adapted from the RCP they are implemented through project- CPW and other agency partners (GSRSC 2005, entire) or local Gunnison level planning. These protections regarding sage-grouse conservation sage-grouse working group plans (see include conservation measures to be planning, and calls for fluid mineral Multi-County and Rangewide Efforts in implemented during travel management leasing deferrals in core Greater sage- Factor A above) and should provide (the management of the motorized and grouse habitats until Field Office plan conservation benefits to the species and non-motorized use of public lands), revisions have been completed (BLM its habitat, if adopted into Final RMP energy development, and grazing permit 2010b, entire). Plan Revisions and Records of Decision renewals. On July 15, 2013, BLM Colorado (BLM 2009a, p.6). The 2008 Final RMP for the BLM issued IM Number CO–2013–033 to In May of 2014, BLM Headquarters Monticello Field Office in Utah provide policy guidance to Colorado issued guidance and direction to BLM incorporates the recommendations of Field Offices on Gunnison sage-grouse Colorado and Utah to undertake a the 2005 RCP, which provides a level of habitat management, land uses, and landscape-level, targeted RMP benefit for Gunnison sage-grouse. For resource management planning (BLM Amendment for the conservation of example, this RMP precludes oil and gas 2013d, p. 1). This IM updated and Gunnison sage-grouse on BLM- development, roads, power lines, superseded the 2010 IM, Number CO– administered public lands in Colorado fences, and other aboveground 2010–028. The 2013 IM was developed and Utah (BLM 2014a). This process is structures within 0.6 mile of a Gunnison in coordination with the Service and expected to be completed within 18–24 sage-grouse lek. It also prohibits grazing provided direction regarding months, and will evaluate the adequacy in allotments containing Gunnison sage- management and ongoing land use of all current RMPs, including those grouse during the breeding season, It planning in Gunnison sage-grouse which may be revised during the does not, however, specifically limit oil occupied habitat, including the current plan amendment review and gas development and the application of specific conservation process. It is unknown what construction of other infrastructure in measures for the species (BLM 2013d, p. conservation measures will be included Gunnison sage-grouse habitat beyond 2). in the planned RMP Amendments or in 0.6 mile, which includes nesting, brood On May 30, 2014, BLM HQ issued a the three BLM Colorado RMPs that are rearing, and wintering habitat. new IM, 2014–100, which applies to all currently under revision rangewide. In general, other than the Gunnison Gunnison sage-grouse proposed All existing Colorado BLM RMPs date Gorge NCA RMP, the remaining RMPs occupied critical habitat in both from 1985 to 1993 and, as described provide only partial protection for Colorado and Utah (BLM 2014b entire). above, contain broad objectives for Gunnison sage-grouse in terms of land In order to protect important habitat Gunnison sage-grouse conservation, but use allocation decisions specific to the across the range of the species, BLM generally lack specific land use species and its habitat and, therefore, will continue to apply conservation allocation decisions, stipulations, and are considered inadequate to protect the measures and focus any type of enforceable measures to ensure that species development in non-habitat areas. All those objectives are achieved. This may In addition to land use planning disturbances will be focused outside of be attributed, in part, to the broader through its RMPs, BLM uses Instruction a 4-mile buffer around leks, except view and approach in land use planning Memoranda (IM) to provide instruction where there are valid existing rights or and resource decisions typical of older to district and field offices regarding where benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse RMPs. specific resource issues. Instruction may be greater than under other More recent (i.e., 2000 and later) Memoranda provide policy guidance or alternatives (BLM 2014b, p.1). The RMPs or revisions typically contain directives, but do not contain binding Policy identifies conservation measures more detailed and resource-specific legal decisions such as those for activities including Land Use decisions and protections than their promulgated under an RMP. IMs are Planning, Proper Livestock Grazing, predecessors. The Gunnison Gorge NCA temporary directives, generally of short Wildland Fire and Fuels Management, RMP (BLM 2004) contains management duration (1 to 2 years), intended to Processing Fluid Mineral Leases and decisions adequate to conserve address urgent resource concerns by Solid Mineral Leases (BOM 2014b pp. Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat in providing interim direction to staff until 2–5). This IM is expected to remain in the Crawford population. This RMP a threat passes or until the resource effect until the RMP Amendment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69284 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

process is complete in 2016. While this allows movement of the drilling area or must address habitat for endangered, IM is of short duration, we anticipate facilities by 200m (650ft) to avoid threatened, proposed, candidate, or that its implementation will reduce sensitive resources (43 CFR 3101.1(c)). special status species, and habitat threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse on However, in most cases this small quality for native plant and animal BLM lands from the covered activities. amount of movement would have little populations and communities (43 CFR to no conservation benefit to Gunnison 4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). BLM’s guidelines Fluid Minerals sage-grouse because sage-grouse for ensuring that grazing standards are The BLM has regulatory authority for respond to nonrenewable energy met similarly must address restoring, oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and development at much further distances maintaining, or enhancing habitats of on private lands with a severed Federal (Holloran et al. 2007, p. 12; Walker et BLM special status species to promote mineral estate, as provided at 43 CFR al. 2007, p. 10). Pursuant to its their conservation, as well as 3100 et seq., and they are authorized to permitting authority as described above, maintaining or promoting the physical require stipulations as a condition of our experience is that many of the BLM and biological conditions to sustain issuing a lease. The BLM’s Land Use field offices work with the operators to native populations and communities (43 Planning Handbook describes program- move a proposed drilling site farther CFR 4180.2(e)(9) and (10)); BLM 2009b, specific guidance for fluid minerals from sensitive resources and justify p. 8). The BLM is required to take (which include oil and gas) and the such a move through a site-specific appropriate action no later than the start handbook specifies that RMP decisions NEPA process. of the next grazing year upon will identify restrictions on areas Given the already small and determining that existing grazing subject to leasing, including closures, as fragmented nature of the populations practices or levels of grazing use are well as lease stipulations (BLM 2005e, where future oil and gas leases are likely significant factors in failing to achieve Appendix C, pp. 23–24). The handbook to occur, additional development within the standards and conform with the also specifies that all stipulations must occupied habitat would negatively guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). have waiver, exception, or modification impact those populations by The BLM is required to consult with criteria documented in the plan, and contributing to further habitat decline. their Resource Advisory Councils notes that the least restrictive constraint Since we have no information on what (RACs) to expand the rangeland health to meet the resource protection objective minimization and mitigation measures standards required under 43 CFR part should be used (BLM 2005e, Appendix might be applied to future leases at this 4180 so that there are public land health C, pp. 23–24). time, we cannot assess the conservation standards relevant to all ecosystems, not To our knowledge, BLM Field Offices benefit of potential BLM regulations to just rangelands, and that these standards are deferring the sale of new drilling those populations. apply to all BLM programs and actions leases, which was first implemented in across public lands, not just livestock Salable and Locatable Minerals the 2010 IM, in habitats they have grazing (BLM Land Health Manual 4180 identified as ‘‘priority’’ or ‘‘core’’ As discussed under Factor A (BLM 2009b, p. 8)). Both southwest habitats for Gunnison sage-grouse until (Locatable and Salable Mineral Colorado and southeast Utah have RACs RMP revisions are complete and/or Development), currently active mines established by the BLM. adequate protective lease stipulations and mining claims are limited in A detailed analysis of grazing on are in place. However, there is currently geographic scope and mining is BLM-administered lands and its impacts no regulatory mechanism in effect expected to have limited impacts on on the Gunnison sage-grouse is included which assures that future lease sales in Gunnison sage-grouse populations. As a above in Factor A. As of 2012, all active occupied habitat on BLM administered result, we found current locatable and BLM grazing permits in occupied lands will not occur or that operations salable mineral development to be a Gunnison sage-grouse habitat managed on federal leases are conducted in a threat of low magnitude to Gunnison by the BLM Gunnison Field Office have manner consistent with protection of sage-grouse. We have no information vegetation structure guidelines specific the Gunnison sage-grouse. indicating that any regulatory to Gunnison sage-grouse incorporated In addition, oil and gas leases already mechanisms currently exist to reduce into Allotment Management Plans or exist in 17 percent of the Pin˜ on Mesa impacts of mines. Records of Decision for permit renewals population area, and 49 percent of the as habitat objectives (BLM 2012a, pp. 3– Grazing San Miguel Basin population. For 4). These Gunnison sage-grouse habitat existing oil and gas leases on BLM land As stated previously, Gunnison sage- objectives are designed to provide good in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse grouse are a BLM Sensitive Species and habitat for the species. Similar habitat, oil and gas companies may therefore receive Special Status Species objectives are also incorporated into conduct drilling operations subject to management considerations. The BLM Allotment Management Plans in BLM-imposed permit conditions. regulatory authority for grazing portions of some of the smaller Specifically, the BLM has regulatory management is provided at 43 CFR part population areas (see section, Public authority to condition ‘‘Application for 4100 (Regulations on Grazing Lands Grazing in other Population Permit to Drill’’ authorizations that are Administration Exclusive of Alaska). Areas under Factor A). However, as conducted under a lease that does not Livestock grazing permits and leases noted earlier (see Domestic Grazing and contain specific Gunnison sage-grouse contain terms and conditions Wild Ungulate Herbivory under Factor conservation stipulations, consistent determined by BLM to be appropriate to A), available information suggests that with lease rights, but utilization of these achieve management and resource LHA objectives important to Gunnison conditions is discretionary and we are condition objectives on the public lands sage-grouse are not being met across uncertain at this time how widely such and other lands administered by BLM, parts of the species’ range. Reduced authority has or will be applied to avoid and to ensure that habitats are, or are habitat quality in those areas, as or minimize impacts to Gunnison sage- making significant progress toward reflected in unmet LHA objectives, may grouse. being, restored or maintained for BLM be negatively impacting Gunnison sage- We also note that onshore federal oil special status species (43 CFR grouse. However, the relationship and gas leases include a provision (also 4180.1(d)). BLM’s State or regional between LHA determinations and the known as a standard lease term) that standards for grazing administration effects of domestic livestock grazing on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69285

Gunnison sage-grouse is difficult to programs and activities to endangered, conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse quantify. threatened, proposed, or sensitive because the GMUG and Rio Grande Specific Gunnison sage-grouse habitat species in a biological evaluation. The National Forests, which cover the vast objectives from the 2005 RCP are National Forests within the range of majority of Gunnison sage-grouse incorporated into some Federal grazing sage-grouse provide important seasonal habitats on national forest lands, are permits and are an effective means of habitats for the species, particularly the governed by older Forest Plans that do ensuring that the needs of Gunnison Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and not contain detailed conservation sage-grouse are met on grazed lands. Gunnison (collectively known as standards for this species. Certain grazing permits also contain GMUG) National Forests. The 1991 NPS standard terms and conditions, such as Amended Land and Resource forage utilization standards, that may Management Plan for the GMUG The NPS manages 2 percent of indirectly help achieve habitat National Forests has not incorporated occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives for Gunnison sage-grouse. Gunnison sage-grouse conservation (Table 1), which means that there is However, terms and conditions applied measures or habitat objectives. little opportunity for the agency to affect within BLM’s existing livestock grazing Similarly, the 1996 the Forest Plan for range-wide conservation of the species. permits and leases are currently the Rio Grande National Forest does not The NPS Organic Act (16 U.S. C. § 1) inadequate in parts of the range of contain Gunnison sage-grouse specific states that NPS will administer areas Gunnison sage-grouse. As discussed conservation measures. The newer 2013 under their jurisdiction ‘‘by such means under Factor A (Summary of Domestic Forest Plan for the San Juan National and measures as conform to the Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory), Forest does contain measures to protect fundamental purpose of said parks, the best available information suggests Gunnison sage-grouse, although there is monuments, and reservations, which that Land Health Assessment objectives very little Gunnison sage-grouse habitat purpose is to conserve the scenery and important to Gunnison sage-grouse are on this national forest. The Regional the natural and historical objects and not being met across localized parts of Forester signed the 2005 RCP, agreeing the wildlife therein and to provide for the species’ range and that livestock to follow and implement the the enjoyment of the same in such grazing is likely contributing to those recommendations in the plan. manner and by such means as will leave conditions in some instances. Reduced Nonetheless, only three of the 34 them unimpaired for the enjoyment of habitat quality in those areas, as grazing allotments in occupied grouse future generations.’’ Lands in the Black reflected in LHA data, is likely habitat on National Forest lands have Canyon of the Gunnison National Park negatively impacting Gunnison sage- incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse and the Curecanti National Recreation grouse in some of the populations. habitat objectives from the RCP, Area include portions of occupied While it is anticipated that future terms indicating that USFS regulations and habitat in the Crawford and Gunnison and conditions in BLM grazing permits the USFS agreement to implement the Basin populations and are managed will minimize further grazing impacts to RCP are currently inadequate to protect under NPS’s General Management Plan habitat on BLM-administered lands, it is the species. for these Park units (NPS 1997, entire). currently unknown what terms and The only Gunnison sage-grouse Under this plan, resource objectives conditions might be incorporated into population within USFS lands that is in related to Gunnison sage-grouse include grazing permits and how such terms and an area of high or even medium protection of the species and its habitat, conditions may improve degraded potential for oil and gas reserves is the protection of threatened and endangered habitats for Gunnison sage-grouse. San Miguel Basin, and USFS lands only species, and minimization of the causes make up 1.4 percent of that population and impacts of habitat fragmentation USFS (GSRSC 2005, D–8). Although the 2014 (NPS 1997, pp. 18–19). In addition, the The USFS manages 10 percent of the BLM IM does not specifically apply to NPS has nearly completed an area occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat USFS lands, USFS considers the IM in Resource Stewardship Strategy, a plan (Table 1). Management of National evaluating leasing decisions. The BLM, that identifies more specific Forest System lands is guided which regulates oil and gas leases on conservation measures and actions, principally by the National Forest USFS lands, has the authority to defer including an emphasis on Gunnison Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. leases and would make a leasing sage-grouse conservation, for 1600–1614, August 17, 1974, as decision consistent with their 2014 IM implementation of the General amended). The NFMA specifies that all in coordination with USFS (McDonald Management Plan (Stahlnecker 2014, National Forests must have a Land and 2014, pers. com). pers. comm.). In the meantime, NPS’s Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (16 While USFS consideration of ability to actively manage for Gunnison U.S.C. 1600) to guide and set standards Gunnison sage-grouse as a sensitive sage-grouse is not limited by the scope for all natural resource management species and commitment to follow the of their management plans, as discussed activities on each National Forest or recommendations contained in the 2005 below. National Grassland. The NFMA requires RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) can provide The NPS completed a Fire USFS to incorporate standards and some conservation benefits to the Management Plan in 2006 that covers guidelines into LRMPs (16 U.S.C. 1600), species, both of these actions are both of the areas mentioned above (NPS which include provisions to manage primarily voluntary in nature and thus 2006, entire). Both prescribed fire and plant and animal communities for are not treated as regulatory fire use (allowing wildfires to burn) are diversity, based on the suitability and mechanisms in our evaluation process. identified as a suitable use in Gunnison capability of the specific land area in Considering the above information, the sage-grouse habitat. However, Gunnison order to meet overall multiple-use USFS has implemented some regulatory sage-grouse habitat is identified as a objectives. mechanisms and policies to provide for Category C area, meaning that, while fire The Gunnison sage-grouse is a USFS the long-term conservation of Gunnison is a desirable component of the sensitive species in both Region 2 sage-grouse and is a signatory to the ecosystem, ecological constraints must (Colorado) and Region 4 (Utah). USFS CCA for the Gunnison Basin (see Factors be observed. For Gunnison sage-grouse, policy provides direction to USFS A and E). However, we find that USFS constraints in the plan include Forests to analyze potential impacts of regulations are not fully addressing the limitation of acreage burned per year

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69286 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

and limitation of percent of project the six long-lived and directly emitted other parameters for land management polygons burned. Moreover, the NPS is greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, practices to achieve conservation values currently following the fire-related methane, nitrous oxide, (Lohr and Gray 2013, p. 2). Therefore, conservation measures in the local hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, we generally consider conservation conservation plans as described in and sulfur hexafluoride—in the easements to be an effective regulatory Multi-County and Rangewide atmosphere threaten the public health tool to prevent long-term or permanent Conservation Efforts above under Factor and welfare of current and future habitat loss. Conservation easements A, and the 2005 RCP fire generations; and that the combined across Gunnison sage-grouse range are recommendations (Stahlnecker 2010, emissions of these greenhouse gases held by nongovernmental organizations pers. comm.). In most cases, from new motor vehicles and new motor and land trusts (The Nature implementation of NPS fire vehicle engines contribute to the Conservancy, Colorado Cattlemen’s management policies should result in greenhouse gas pollution that threatens Agricultural Land Trust, and others), minimal adverse effects since emphasis public health and welfare. In effect, the state agencies (CPW, UDWR), and is placed on activities that will EPA has concluded that the greenhouse Federal agencies (Natural Resources minimize impacts to Gunnison sage- gases linked to climate change are Conservation Service (NRCS), NPS, and grouse habitat. Overall, implementation pollutants, whose emissions can now be BLM). Some conservation easements of NPS plans should reduce impacts to subject to the Clean Air Act (42 U.S. C. include conservation measures specific Gunnison sage-grouse because they 7401 et se.; see 74 FR 66496, December to Gunnison sage-grouse, while many include conservation measures to 15, 2009). On October 15, 2012, EPA are directed at other species, such as big protect Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. and the National Highway game (GSRSC 2005, pp. 59–103). Recreational activities are generally Transportation Safety Administration Following is a summary of the managed more intensively on NPS land (NHTSA) issued a joint Final estimated amount of lands under than on other Federal lands. Rulemaking to extend the National conservation easement for occupied and Nevertheless, recreational activities Program of harmonized greenhouse gas unoccupied Gunnison sage-grouse within occupied habitat on NPS land and fuel economy standards to model habitat in Colorado and Utah, based on may have adverse effects on Gunnison year 2017 through 2025 passenger Lohr and Gray (2013, entire) (Table 12). sage-grouse individuals (see Factor E vehicles (77 FR 62624). On June 17, This report also included lands not discussion). However, given the limited 2013, EPA and NHTSA implemented under conservation easement, but which amount of occupied habitat on NPS land standards for medium- and heavy-duty are owned by entities that manage the (2 percent of the Gunnison Basin vehicles (model years 2014 through property for Gunnison sage-grouse and population area), recreation on those 2018) (78 FR 36370). These regulations other conservation values (e.g., The lands is likely having negligible impacts are relatively new, and at present, we Nature Conservancy properties), or on Gunnison sage-grouse at the have no basis to conclude that which carry covenants that restrict population or species level. implementation of the Clean Air Act in subdivision and development in Grazing management activities on the near future (40 years, based on perpetuity (e.g., Eagle Ridge Ranch in NPS lands are governed by BLM global climate projections) will the Gunnison Basin). Rangewide, regulations, and their implementation substantially reduce the current rate of approximately 35,195 ha (86,968 ac), or and the results of these regulations are global climate change through 22.6 percent, of private lands in likely similar to those discussed for the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat BLM, because they occur under the Thus, we conclude that while the Clean were under conservation easement as of same management criteria and Air Act may reduce greenhouse gas 2013 (Lohr and Gray 2013, entire). guidance. In 2013, all of the active emissions, it does not address the Another 51,040 ac, or 11 percent, of allotments in the Crawford population, primary threats to the Gunnison sage- private lands in mapped unoccupied including NPS allotments, had grouse, such as drought, nonnatives, fire habitat are also under conservation incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse frequency, and decrease of sagebrush. easement (Lohr and Gray 2013, entire). habitat objectives and completed LHAs Other Regulatory Mechanisms: Combined, conservation easements (see Grazing section in Factor A). Conservation Easements include approximately 138,008 ac, or 16 Grazing management plans on NPS percent, of all occupied and unoccupied lands appear to be provide conservation Conservation easements are voluntary legal agreements between a landowner habitat on private land (840,346 ac) measures for the species. Overall, NPS across the species’ range. regulations reduce threats to Gunnison and a land trust, nongovernmental sage-grouse on the 2 percent of occupied organization, or government agency that Of all the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin permanently limit or restrict land uses populations, the Gunnison Basin population under NPS jurisdiction. for identified conservation values and contains the most acres under However, they do not significantly purposes and are binding regulatory conservation easement (102,986 ac total reduce threats on a rangewide basis. mechanisms once established. With in occupied and unoccupied habitat). In very few exceptions, conservation proportion to total occupied habitat, Environmental Protection Agency easements require that individual conservation easements in the Pin˜ on On December 15, 2009, the EPA parcels be owned and conveyed as Mesa and Crawford population areas are published in the Federal Register (74 single units in perpetuity, thereby significant (74 and 41 percent, FR 66496) a rule titled, ‘‘Endangerment ensuring they are not subdivided for respectively). Approximately 30 percent and Cause or Contribute Findings for development in the future. Conservation of private land in unoccupied habitat is Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) easements also restrict land uses by also protected under conservation of the Clean Air Act.’’ In this rule, the defining specific areas for residential or easement in the Gunnison Basin and EPA Administrator found that the agricultural development, including Crawford population areas (Table 12). current and projected concentrations of roads and driveways, and may include

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69287

TABLE 12—CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIED a AND UNOCCUPIED a HABITATS [Lohr and Gray 2013, entire; Gunnison County 2013b, p. 21]

Private land in Private land in Private land in occupied habitat Private land in unoccupied habitat Population occupied under CE unoccupied under CE habitat (ac) habitat (ac) Acres % of total Acres % of total

Monticello-Dove Creek ...... 100,702 6,117 5 200,318 0 0 Pin˜on Mesa...... 27,283 20,076 74 64,275 20,246 31 San Miguel Basin ...... 49,492 6,938 14 45,843 1,486 3 Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa ...... 28,218 3,995 14 20,117 3,774 19 Crawford ...... 8,481 3,470 41 44,552 8,665 20 Gunnison Basin ...... 178,531 46,372 26 56,614 16,348 29 Poncha Pass ...... 4,792 0 0 11,128 521 5 Rangewide Totals ...... 397,499 86,968 22 442,847 51,040 12 a Occupied and unoccupied habitat acres and conservation easements provided in Lohr and Gray (2013) were based on the Service’s pro- posed critical habitat designation for Gunnison sage-grouse (78 FR 2540, January 11, 2013).

In the context of potential threats to species. Past residential and exurban in Colorado, but it is a temporary Gunnison sage-grouse, conservation development throughout the species measure and is not a binding regulatory easements and the protections they range is a primary cause of habitat mechanism. Based on this analysis, and afford are most relevant to the threat of decline. Future human development our more detailed evaluation of BLM residential and human development. will further contribute to habitat loss and other possible Federal regulatory Therefore, in the Residential (see Factor A, Residential Development, mechanisms, we find that existing Development section of this rule (Factor Roads, and Powerlines). As described Federal laws and regulations are not A), we further analyzed existing above, existing local laws and fully addressing the full scope of conservation easements by Gunnison regulations do not fully address this threats to the species (Factors A through sage-grouse population and across the threat to the species. Local regulatory C, and E). species’ range. Therein, Table 6 mechanisms also do not fully address The CPW, UDWR, and other entities summarizes conservation easement other substantial threats to the species, have acquired and continue to pursue acres in occupied habitat for each including small population size (Factor conservation easements in Colorado and Gunnison sage-grouse population, and E), invasive plants (Factor A), disease Utah, respectively, to conserve also provides estimates for those (Factor B), and climate change (Factor Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and meet portions of occupied habitat not under A). the species’ needs. We determined that conservation easement, for the purposes Implementation of Federal agency perpetual conservation easements offer of evaluating the threat of residential regulations specifically for Gunnison protection from habitat loss, but that development. sage-grouse conservation provides conservation values and objectives for Total conservation easements obvious benefits to the species, those properties vary according to the recorded to date cover about 18.3 considering that approximately 54 terms of the easement. Existing percent of private lands in rangewide percent of rangewide occupied habitat conservation easements provide a level occupied habitat for Gunnison sage- occurs on Federal lands (Table 1). of protection from future development grouse. The Service has analyzed the Protections afforded to Gunnison sage- on these lands, but are limited in conservation and regulatory benefit of grouse vary by agency and field office or geographic scope such that they do not existing conservation easements unit, but many of these protections are adequately address the threat of habitat throughout the range of the species. discretionary or undertaken on a loss across the species’ range. State However, conservation easements are voluntary basis rather than required by wildlife regulations provide protection offered and held by numerous entities a regulatory mechanism. BLM’s land use for individual Gunnison sage-grouse and happen opportunistically with management plans are regulatory from direct mortality due to hunting but willing sellers across the range of the mechanisms, but for the most part do do not address habitat loss and other species. not currently include requirements threats such as drought, climate change, directed at sage-grouse conservation. or disease. While the COGCC Summary of Factor D This will likely change in the future, as regulations discussed above provide Gunnison sage-grouse conservation a result of the ongoing revision process some protection and mitigation (as has been addressed in some local, State, for some RMPs in the species’ range and defined by COGCC, not the Service) for and Federal, laws, regulations, and land the planned rangewide RMP loss of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, management plans. We commend Amendment to address sage-grouse they do not prevent ongoing habitat loss Gunnison, San Miguel, Ouray, and threats. Nonetheless, we do not know at and fragmentation (Factor A). Montrose Counties for enacting special this time what conservation measures We evaluated the best available regulations for Gunnison sage-grouse for will be included in these future RMPs information related to existing land uses within their jurisdictions. or the degree to which they may address regulatory mechanisms that address Existing local laws and regulations will threats to the species. As a result, we do threats (Factors A through C, and E) to help to reduce some of the negative not consider or rely on these future Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitats. effects of human development and planning efforts in this rule. BLM’s 2014 Based on our analysis, we find that infrastructure on Gunnison sage-grouse. IM for Gunnison sage-grouse in some existing regulatory mechanisms Continuation and enhancement of these Colorado provides a more consistent are in place to conserve Gunnison sage- efforts across the species’ range will be foundation for the management and grouse, but individually or collectively necessary for conservation of the conservation of the species on BLM land they do not fully address the substantial

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69288 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

threats faced by Gunnison sage-grouse Background section above, the exception of the Cerro Summit- across their range. Further, while these Gunnison Basin is the largest Cimarron-Sims Mesa population which existing regulatory mechanisms may population of Gunnison sage-grouse appears to be relatively stable to help reduce current threats to the (3978 individuals in 2014) and, while increasing, and Pin˜ on Mesa, which is at species, they are insufficient to fully showing variation over the period of its highest over the 19 year period reduce or eliminate the increase in record, has been relatively stable since (Figure 3). However, some of the recent threats that may act on the species in 1996, based on lek count data (Figure 2). increases in population sizes may be the future. However, as discussed later in this attributable to translocation and survey section, demographic data indicate this efforts, rather than an actual increase in E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors population may not be quite as stable as the population, which may be the case Affecting Its Continued Existence suggested by lek count data (Davis 2012, with Pin˜ on Mesa. For example, the 2014 Other factors potentially affecting the p. 38). The Gunnison Basin population estimated population for Pin˜ on Mesa Gunnison sage-grouse’s continued declined during the period 2005–2010, was 182 birds (CPW 2014, p. 6), much existence include small population size as shown by rates of growth estimated greater than the 2012 estimate of 54 and structure; drought, recreational from demographic parameter estimates birds. This increase could be, in part, a activities, pesticides and herbicides, and measured during that time period (Davis product of the 93 birds translocated to contaminants. 2012, entire), and from lek count indices Pin˜ on Mesa population between the Small Population Size and Structure (CPW 2014e, entire). In addition to this, spring of 2010 and spring of 2013 (CPW an integrated population model that 2014c, entire) and the discovery of two Negative effects on population used this short term demographic data new leks in 2012 (CPW 2012a, pp. 2–3). viability, such as reduced reproductive in conjunction with the longer time For all six satellite populations, success or loss of genetic variation and series of lek count data estimated a rate population estimates from 1996 to 2014 diversity, become more evident as of growth slightly less than 1.0 (lambda are below population targets (based on populations decline or become more = 0.984) with confidence intervals that a 10-year average), as set forth by the isolated. In this section, we evaluate the overlapped 1.0 (0.879–1.179) for the RCP (CPW 2013, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, pp. issue of small and declining population period 1996–2012 (Davis et al. in press). 255–302) (see Current Distribution and size and structure in Gunnison sage- This 1996–2012 estimate was not Population Estimates and Trends in the grouse, and associated genetic risks and statistically significantly different from Background section for more details). other effects. We also evaluate existing a lambda of 1.0, suggesting the The RCP identified population targets as population viability analyses for the population is currently largely stable. attainable population sizes sufficient to species. Finally, we synthesize this The Gunnison Basin population conserve Gunnison sage-grouse in those information to assess resiliency, comprises about 84 percent of the population areas (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). redundancy, and representation of the rangewide population of Gunnison sage- This constitutes the current and best individual Gunnison sage-grouse grouse and includes 63 percent of available information on population populations and the species as a whole. rangewide occupied habitat. targets for Gunnison sage-grouse. Relevant Species Information In contrast, the remaining six Combined, the satellite populations populations, also referred to in this final comprise about 16 percent of the In general, while various natural rule as satellite populations, were rangewide population of Gunnison sage- factors would not limit sage-grouse generally in decline from 1996 until grouse and include approximately 37 populations across large geographic 2010; however, increases in several percent of rangewide occupied habitat. scales under historical conditions or in populations have been observed Small population size and population larger populations, they may contribute recently (Figure 3) and could be a structure occur in all of the six satellite to local population declines or product of numerous factors including populations, or across approximately 37 extirpations when populations are but not limited to population cycles, percent of occupied range for the small, isolated, or when weather translocation efforts, and increased species. The small sizes of the satellite patterns, habitats, or mortality rates are access to leks. The San Miguel and populations of Gunnison sage-grouse altered. When coupled with mortality Pin˜ on Mesa populations are currently make them particularly sensitive to stressors related to human activity and the largest of the satellite populations, stochastic and demographic significant fluctuations in annual with 206 and 182 birds, respectively, in fluctuations, and this vulnerability is population size, long-term persistence 2014. The Monticello-Dove Creek and exacerbated by other threats such as of small populations (in general) is Crawford populations currently have drought (GSRSC 2005, p. G–22). Small unlikely (Traill et al. 2010, entire). Sage- less than 160 birds. Population population size, declining population grouse have low reproductive rates and estimates in 2014 for the two smallest trends, and apparent isolation indicate high annual survival rates (Schroeder et populations, Cerro Summit-Cimarron- long-term population persistence and al. 1999, pp. 11, 14; Connelly et al. Sims Mesa and Poncha Pass, were 74 evolutionary potential are compromised 2000a, pp. 969–970), resulting in a long and 16, respectively (CPW 2014, p.6). in the satellite populations (see Genetic recovery period from disturbances due The 16 radio-telemetered birds known Risks). to slower potential or intrinsic at Poncha Pass in summer 2014 are the Genetic Risks population growth rates than is typical remainder of 27 birds translocated from of other game birds. Also, as a Gunnison Basin in fall of 2013 and Small populations face three primary consequence of their site fidelity to spring of 2014. genetic risks: Inbreeding depression; seasonal habitats (Lyon and Anderson Based on lek count-based population loss of genetic variation; and 2003, p. 489), measurable population estimates, some satellite populations accumulation of new mutations. In effects may lag behind negative changes have increased slightly over the last general, these negative genetic in habitat (Harju et al. 2010, entire; several years, or intermittently over consequences influence a species’ Wiens and Rotenberry 1985, p. 666). time. However, the last 19 years (1996 fitness, or ability to reproduce and As described in the Current to 2014) of lek count data as a whole survive in the face of environmental Distribution and Population Estimates indicate that the satellite populations pressures. Inbreeding can have and Trends subsection in the are in decline, with the possible individual and population level

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69289

consequences by either increasing the within the satellite populations (with populations surrounding the larger phenotypic expression of recessive, the potential exception of the Poncha Gunnison Basin population. deleterious alleles (the expression of Pass population since it consists of birds Additionally, another potential harmful genes through the physical from the Gunnison Basin) may be disperser into Crawford was found from appearance) or by reducing the overall critical to maintaining adaptability in the Gunnison Basin (Oyler-McCance et fitness of individuals in the population the face of issues such as climate change al. 2005, p. 636). This result is not (GSRSC 2005, p. 109 and references or other environmental change. All surprising given their close geographic therein). populations sampled were found to be proximity. The genetic makeup of the Gunnison sage-grouse have low levels genetically discrete units (Oyler- outlying Monticello-Dove Creek and of genetic diversity, particularly in McCance et al. 2005, p. 635), so the loss Pin˜ on Mesa populations were comparison to greater sage-grouse of any of them would result in a consistently distant from all other (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). decrease in genetic diversity of the populations and from each other. This There is no consensus regarding how species. In addition, having multiple and other tests indicated that geographic large a population must be in order to populations across a broad geographic distances (or separation) are correlated prevent inbreeding depression. area (population redundancy) provides with the genetic distance between However, the San Miguel Basin satellite insurance against catastrophic events, populations of Gunnison sage-grouse population has an effective population such as prolonged drought, and the (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). size (the number of individuals in a aggregate number of individuals across Movement of local (not translocated) population that contribute their genes to all populations increases the probability birds between the Monticello and Dove the next generation) that is below the of demographic persistence and Creek populations has not been level at which inbreeding depression preservation of overall genetic diversity documented. In 2011, five translocated has been observed to occur (Stiver et al. by providing an important genetic and radio-collared hens released in 2008, p. 479). Since the remaining reservoir (GSRSC 2005, p. 179). The Dove Creek during the spring were Gunnison sage-grouse satellite satellite populations are important to recorded in Utah during the breeding populations are smaller than the San the long-term viability of Gunnison season (Messmer 2013, p. 4). These Miguel population, they are likely small sage-grouse because they: (1) Increase movements may not be representative of enough to induce inbreeding species abundance rangewide; (2) typical behavior of local birds, however, depression, and thus could be losing minimize the threat of catastrophic since translocated birds have been adaptive potential (Stiver et al. 2008, p. events to the species since the known to make erratic or irregular 479). populations are widely distributed movements following translocation. Population structure of Gunnison across the landscape; and (3) provide While we acknowledge there are likely benefits from translocating sage-grouse was investigated using additional genetic diversity not found in mitochondrial DNA sequence (mtDNA, Gunnison sage-grouse from the the Gunnison Basin (GSRSC 2005, p. maternally-inherited DNA located in Gunnison Basin to satellite populations 199). cellular organelles called mitochondria) (see Scientific Research and Related and nuclear microsatellite data from six Habitat loss and decline can lead to Conservation Efforts in Factor B), such geographic areas (Crawford, Gunnison range contraction and population efforts may have diluted the genetic Basin, Curecanti area of the Gunnison extinction (see Factor A). As a species’ makeup and potentially unique Basin, Monticello-Dove Creek, Pin˜ on range contracts and distances between characteristics of some of the receiving Mesa, and San Miguel Basin) (Oyler- populations increase, opportunities for populations (e.g., Pin˜ on Mesa, which is McCance et al. 2005, entire). The Cerro gene flow are reduced. Historically, the thought to be more unique genetically). Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa Monticello-Dove Creek, San Miguel, However, more research is needed to population was not included in the Crawford, and Pin˜ on Mesa populations determine the success of translocations, analysis due to inadequate sample sizes. were larger and were connected through what the effect is on genetic make-up The Poncha Pass population also was more contiguous areas of sagebrush within populations, and whether not included as it is composed of habitat. The loss and fragmentation of translocations should continue in all individuals translocated from Gunnison sagebrush habitat between the late satellite populations. Basin. Levels of genetic diversity were 1950s and the early 1990s led to the In northwestern Colorado, dispersal of highest in the Gunnison Basin, which current isolation of these populations, juvenile male greater sage-grouse had had more alleles and many but not all which is reflected in low amounts of more influence on genetic diversity in of the alleles present in other gene flow and isolation by distance populations than dispersal of females populations. All other populations had (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). (Thompson 2012, p. 256). Based on much lower levels of diversity. The However, Oyler-McCance et al. (2005, p. observed bird dispersal, gene flow and lower diversity levels were thought to 636) noted that a few individuals in connectivity in greater sage-grouse can be the result of small population sizes their analysis appeared to have the likely be maintained for populations 5 and a high degree of geographic genetic characteristics of a population to 10 km apart (most dispersals were isolation (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, other than their own, suggesting they less than 10 km) and possibly as far as entire). were dispersers from a different 20 km (the maximum dispersal distance Collectively, the smaller populations population. Two probable dispersers of birds studied) (Thompson 2012, p. contained 24 percent of the genetic were individuals moving from the San 285–286). If genetic diversity and diversity of the species. Individually, Miguel Basin population into dispersal mechanisms operate similarly each of the satellite populations may not Monticello-Dove Creek and Crawford. in Gunnison sage-grouse populations be crucially important genetically to the The San Miguel population itself (typical dispersals less than 10 km), it survival of the species, but collectively appeared to have a mixture of is unlikely that gene flow and genetic it is reasonable to assume that 24 individuals with differing probabilities diversity is currently being maintained percent of the genetic diversity is of belonging to different clusters. This due to the distance between these important to the future rangewide information suggests that the San populations. The seven Gunnison sage- survival and adaptability of the species. Miguel population may act as a conduit grouse populations are generally more Some of the genetic makeup contained of gene flow among the satellite than 10 km apart from each other (based

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69290 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

on mapped occupied habitat), and most 5,000 greater sage-grouse may be based on information available at that are 20 km apart or more (Figure 1). necessary to maintain an effective time. The model did not incorporate Lowered hatching success is a well- population size of 500 birds (Aldridge certain factors including habitat loss documented indicator of inbreeding in and Brigham, 2003, p. 30). Other recent and fragmentation, density-dependent wild bird populations. In one study, it recommendations also suggest reproduction, effects of disease, or was suggested that the low hatching populations of at least 5,000 individuals inbreeding depression, all of which may success rates observed in Gunnison to deal with evolutionary and affect the demographic rates and, sage-grouse may have been due to demographic constraints (Traill et al. therefore, status of a given population inbreeding depression (Stiver et al. 2009, p. 3, and references therein). (GSRSC 2005, p. 170). Furthermore, 2008, p. 479, and references therein). While the persistence of wild while Gunnison sage-grouse Other bird species that had undergone populations is usually influenced more demographic data were used where genetic bottlenecks have had similar by ecological rather than by genetic available, the PVA also applied greater hatchability rates. Independent of effects, once populations are reduced in sage-grouse demographic data, as genetic pressures or differences in a size, genetic factors become increasingly needed (GSRSC 2005, p. 169). We given population, some eggs fail to important (Lande 1995, p. 318). believe it is appropriate to apply greater hatch because they are infertile or Population viability analysis (PVA) is sage-grouse data where Gunnison sage- simply do not develop fully. Based on a risk assessment tool used to predict grouse data are not available or limited. a review of sage-grouse research in the relative probability of extinction for However, this may weaken inferences in Colorado, an estimated 10 percent of a species, population, or various assessing the viability of Gunnison sage- eggs produced will likely fail to hatch, population sizes under different grouse due to the species’ unique even in healthy populations (CPW management scenarios to aid in behavioral and genetic characteristics 2013b, p. 12). However, we expect that decision-making for conservation and (Young et al. 2000b, entire) and hatch failure rates would likely increase management. Fundamentally, potentially different vital rates, such as above that level in smaller populations population viability and persistence annual survival (Davis 2012, p. 63) and where inbreeding is more likely to depends on a population’s growth rate nesting success rates (Davis 2012, p. 11). occur. (births and deaths) and the recruitment In contrast, another more recent PVA of individuals through immigration and Effective Population Size and applied only Gunnison sage-grouse emigration. PVA does not predict the Population Viability Analyses demographic data (Davis 2012, entire) real or absolute risk of extinction for a (see Davis Population Viability Effective population size (Ne) is an species or population, only their relative Analysis), and thus it is likely more important parameter in conservation extinction risk under various scenarios, reliable in terms of assessing the biology. It is defined as the number of and thus should be interpreted and viability of the species. individuals contributing their genes to applied with caution. To date, three the next generation. In technical terms, population viability analyses or studies This 2005 PVA indicated that, in the effective population size is an idealized have been conducted for Gunnison sage- absence of additional habitat loss and population size of breeding adults that grouse: (1) A PVA developed as part of fragmentation and the factors noted would experience the same rate of (1) the RCP in 2005 by Dr. Phil Miller above, stable populations in excess of loss of heterozygosity (the amount and through CPW (GSRSC 2005, Appendix 500 birds had an extinction risk of less number of different genes within G); (2) a PVA developed for the Service than 5 percent within the next 50 years individuals in a population), (2) change in 2005 by Dr. Edward Garton (Garton following the study (that is, through in the average inbreeding coefficient (a 2005, entire); and (3) a demographic 2055) and may be considered ‘‘secure’’ calculation of the amount of breeding by study and PVA developed by Dr. Amy (GSRSC 2005, p. 170; GSRSC 2005, p. closely related individuals), or (3) Davis at Colorado State University G–21). The PVA found that the change in variance in allele (one (Davis 2012, entire). Each of these probability of the Gunnison Basin member of a pair or series of genes studies and their results are described in population going extinct within the next occupying a specific position in a detail below. 50 years was less than approximately 1 specific chromosome) frequency percent (GSRSC 2005, p. G–21). The through genetic drift (the fluctuation in RCP Population Viability Analysis Gunnison Basin population was gene frequency occurring in an isolated Dr. Phillip Miller prepared a approximately 3,000 individuals around population) as the actual population population viability analysis (PVA) for the time the PVA was developed (2005). (Wright 1930, entire). the Gunnison sage-grouse for CPW as If the model were re-run, with The effective size of a population is part of the RCP (GSRSC 2005, Appendix approximately 3,978 birds as of 2014, often much less than its actual size or G). The purpose of this PVA was to the predicted risk of extinction would number of individuals. As effective assist the CPW in evaluating the relative be even lower due to this population population size decreases, the rate of risk of extinction for each population increase (Phillips 2013, p. 2). This view loss of allelic diversity via genetic drift under the conditions at that time (i.e., does not take into account, however, increases. Two consequences of this loss the risk of extinction if nothing other new information that could be of genetic diversity, reduced fitness changed), to estimate relative extinction incorporated into an updated model re- through inbreeding depression and probabilities and loss of genetic run, such as the Gunnison sage-grouse reduced response to sustained diversity over time for various demographic data collected by Davis directional selection (‘‘adaptive population sizes, and to determine the (2012, entire). The model concluded potential’’), are thought to elevate sensitivity of Gunnison sage-grouse that the Gunnison Basin population, extinction risk (Stiver et al., 2008, p. 472 population growth rates to various and therefore the species, is likely to and references therein). While no demographic parameters (GSRSC 2005, survive over the long term (GSRSC consensus exists on the population size p. 169). The PVA was used by the RCP 2005, p. 179), barring catastrophic needed to retain a level of genetic as a tool to predict the relative, not events such as disease or prolonged diversity that maximizes evolutionary absolute or precise, probability of drought (assuming a degree of potential (i.e., the ability to adapt to extinction for the different populations consistency of environmental influences local changes) for a given species, up to under various management scenarios on sage-grouse demography) or a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69291

significant reduction in carrying using male lek count data from the variable, with some of that variability capacity through habitat loss. preceding 50 years from CPW and the likely attributed to different sampling In contrast, the analysis found that UDWR. Due to inconsistencies in data methods rather than actual population small populations (<25 to 50 birds) are collection over time, the analysis was change. The shorter analysis period at high risk of extinction within the next conducted for two time periods—long- (1995–2005) yielded the same results, 50 years (through the year 2055) term lek data collected since 1957 for although the variability was reduced, (assuming some degree of consistency of CPW, and since 1976 for UDWR, likely due to more consistent data environmental influences on sage- through 2005; and short-term lek data collection methods. Individual grouse demography), even if these from 1995–2005 when sampling populations reflected the trends in the populations are expected to increase methodologies were standardized and rangewide analysis, in that some over the long-term (GSRSC 2005, pp. became more consistent. Relative populations were slightly increasing 170 and G–27). A stable population of population size from past years was and some were slightly decreasing. 50 birds had an extinction probability of calculated by setting the most recent As observed in similar analyses 59 percent within the next 50 years; a population estimate at the time (in conducted for the greater sage-grouse stable population of 25 birds had an 2005) to 100 and calculating the (Connelly et al. 2004, entire), density- extinction probability of 86 percent previous years’ population size relative dependent models appeared to more within the next 50 years. The analysis to that, so that it could be viewed as a accurately describe observed population also found that the probability of percentage of the 2005 population level. trends in Gunnison sage-grouse. extinction was higher yet for declining Garton’s (2005, pp. 3–4) analysis Garton’s study suggested an apparent populations of this size (GSRSC 2005, p. indicated that the rangewide population inverse density-dependent pattern of G–27). However, the model found that varied between a low of 40 percent of population change in Gunnison sage- augmentation of birds (approximately the 2005 lek count in 1991 and 1993; to grouse, resulting in a low probability 10 birds every five years) would a high of 140 percent of the 2005 lek (less than 1 percent) that the population considerably reduce the probability of count in 1969. He suggested that will decline to low abundances (below extinction (to near zero) for these unusual counts, which represented at 25 percent of the 2005 population smaller populations (GSRSC 2005, pp. least a 50 percent change in abundance, index), provided environmental factors 176–179). were preceded or followed by more (e.g., catastrophic drought, disease, Based on the RCP PVA (GSRSC 2005, typical count indices, and that these continuing habitat loss) do not reduce Appendix G), in the absence of outlier data probably reflect equilibrium population size or increase intervention such as translocating of measurement errors rather than actual the variability in population change birds, the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims changes population size. For instance, (Garton 2005, pp. 4–5). Mesa (74 birds) and Dove Creek (24 lek count data collected for 2005 show Of the populations studied, Gunnison birds) populations are currently at high a considerable increase in the number of Basin and Pin˜ on Mesa showed slightly risk of extirpation (GSRSC 2005, pp. males attending leks, with an increasing trends in abundance of 168–179). Likewise, the Poncha Pass approximate 50 percent increase from Gunnison sage-grouse; San Miguel population has remained below 50 birds 2004 estimates of rangewide abundance. Basin, Crawford, and Monticello since 1999, and has generally declined This aberration is thought to be the showed slightly decreasing trends in over this period (Figure 3), indicating result of unusual weather conditions abundance from 1995 to 2005 (Table 13 this population is also at high risk of during that period and, consequently, below). The short-term analysis (1995– extirpation, based on this PVA. Zero possible double- or triple-counting of 2005) indicated that the San Miguel birds were counted at leks in the spring males across multiple lek sites at Basin population was declining rapidly, of 2013 for the Poncha Pass population. various elevations (Garton 2005, pp. 2– as much as a 10 percent decline per However, 17 birds were translocated 3, and references therein). Because of year, though there was uncertainty in into the population in the fall of 2013, this, the analyses were conducted both this prediction due to possible sampling with 16 surviving in the spring of 2014 with and without 2005 data. Including errors. Declines were also evident in the and 10 more birds were translocated in the 2005 data in the long-term analysis Monticello population. the spring of 2014 (see Scientific (since 1957) resulted in a slightly Research and Related Conservation increasing population trend; without the TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF POPULATION Efforts in Factor B). Considerable 2005 count data, the analysis showed a TRENDS FOR THE GUNNISON SAGE- translocation efforts from 2010 to 2013 slightly decreasing population trend, have likely contributed to increased which Garton (2005, p. 4) suggested was GROUSE FROM 1995 TO 2005 population estimates in the Crawford a better descriptor of observed trends in (GARTON 2005, ENTIRE) and Pin˜ on Mesa populations (see population estimates. Statistical [Values are the finite rate of change in the Current Distribution and Population analyses of the Cerro Summit-Cimarron- population, where 1 is no change, numbers less than 1 indicate a decline, and numbers Estimates and Trends; and Scientific Sims Mesa and Dove Creek populations greater than 1 indicate an increase] Research and Related Conservation could not be completed due to low lek Efforts). Without the recent increases in counts and inconsistencies in sampling Finite rate bird numbers, Crawford and Pin˜ on Mesa over time. Likewise, the small Poncha Population of change population would also likely be at Pass population was not analyzed 1995–2005 serious risk of population extinction because it had been surveyed for only 6 Gunnison Basin ...... 1.05 (i.e., around 50 birds and a 59 percent years and the population was Pin˜on Mesa ...... 1.09 or greater probability of extinction), augmented with birds from Gunnison San Miguel Basin ...... 0.902 based on this PVA. Basin during that time. Crawford ...... 0.999 The long-term analysis (1957–2005) Monticello ...... 0.99 Garton Population Viability Analysis by Garton (2005, entire) found that the Rangewide ...... 1.049 To estimate population viability, rangewide population of Gunnison sage- Garton (2005, entire) analyzed trends in grouse was stable, neither increasing nor Six peer reviewers evaluated the abundance for Gunnison sage-grouse decreasing, during that time period. report by Garton (2005, entire). We populations and the species rangewide Annual rates of change were highly received comments from five of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69292 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

reviewers, three generally favorable next 30 years (Davis 2012, p. 79). These contributing to the study’s observed towards the report and its conclusions demographic data were combined with population declines in the Gunnison and two expressing concerns regarding longer-term lek count data from 1996 to Basin (birds from the San Miguel limitations in the data sets, 2011 (lek count protocols were population were not included in the assumptions, and/or analyses. For standardized in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. juvenile survival analysis, as none example, one would have to assume that 46)) in the Gunnison Basin to model survived to 31 days), and that the habitat availability over time would that population. The purpose of the population may not be as stable as has remain stable in order to conclude that model (i.e., an integrated model that been suggested. However, study results Gunnison sage-grouse numbers are combined the two datasets) was to may be due to the limited sample size unlikely to experience a decline in the reduce potential weaknesses and biases (duration) of the study, and a longer future. Also, while the conclusions in both datasets—high variability and study may indicate that declines showed that the number of males per uncertainty with the lek count data, and observed are fluctuations within a larger lek remained relatively stable over time, the small sample size of the shorter-term cyclical time series (Davis 2012, p. 38). the proportion of leks on which males demographic data—thereby statistically Adult and yearling survival rates were were counted appeared to have improving estimates and predictions also analyzed within and between the declined, which could be indicative of (Davis 2012, pp. 125–126). Key methods two populations. The effect of harsh population declines. Peer reviewers also and findings of this study are winter conditions on these demographic recommended that more appropriate summarized below. rates was also studied. Male survival statistical tests would need to be The demographic component of the rates were lower during the lekking applied to come to any conclusion about study found no apparent difference in season (March—April), and female potential population trends and that nest success rates or adult survival survival rates were lower during the emphasis should be on an independent between the San Miguel and Gunnison nesting and chick rearing season (May- analysis of each geographically isolated Basin populations (Davis 2012, p. 37). August) (Davis 2012, p. 55). Harsh population because each population However, the results may be due in part winters (as indicated by above normal exhibits independent population to the limited duration and small snow depth), which occurred during dynamics. Population trend analyses sample size of the study, especially in 2007 and 2008 in the Gunnison Basin, were conducted on a population basis as the San Miguel population (Davis 2012, and during 2009 and 2010 in the San well as rangewide. There was concern p. 92). Nest success from 2005 to 2011 Miguel Basin, had minimal effect on expressed that habitat loss over time varied widely between 21 and 60 Gunnison sage-grouse survival (Davis was not accounted for, that population percent, with an average of 39 percent 2012, pp. 55, 65). The study found no declines would go unnoticed, and that (Davis 2012, p. 9). Contrary to differences in adult and yearling population trends would appear far too expectations, nest site vegetation survival between the San Miguel and optimistic. characteristics did not have a strong Gunnison Basin populations. This was influence on nest success in the surprising, given the apparent decline in Davis Demographic Study and Gunnison Basin and San Miguel bird numbers in the San Miguel Population Viability Analysis populations (Davis 2012, p. 10). population based on lek count The Davis PVA (2012, entire) utilized Temporal factors appeared to have the estimates, suggesting declines are likely demographic data specific to Gunnison greatest influence on nesting success, as due to reduced recruitment and juvenile sage-grouse populations and earlier season nesting tended to be more survival rates rather than reduced adult incorporated other variables such as successful than later season nesting, and survival (Davis 2012, p. 66). extreme weather, fire, disease, and the longer that incubation occurred, the The Davis PVA applied the derived predation known to affect survival and greater the risk of nest failure (Davis baseline demographic data for survival reproduction rates in Gunnison sage- 2012, p. 1). No yearlings were observed and reproduction rates to estimate grouse. This is in contrast to the RCP in the San Miguel population during the population growth of Gunnison sage- PVA (GSRSC 2005, Appendix G) which study (Davis 2012, p. 12). grouse, including an analysis of viability combined greater and Gunnison sage- Juvenile recruitment was also and extinction risk. The study also grouse demographic data and did not evaluated within and between the two evaluated the effects of bird account for environmental variation populations (Davis 2012, p. 27). Chick translocation efforts on the survival of (fire, disease, predation) other than survival (hatching to 30 days of age) was the San Miguel (destination) population simulating a 3-year drought resulting in higher in the Gunnison Basin than the and the Gunnison Basin (source) increased mortality; and the Garton PVA San Miguel population (Davis 2012, p. population (Davis 2012, p. 79, 87). (Garton 2005, entire) which only 44). Although sample size in the San Based on the six years of demographic examined lek count-based population Miguel Basin was small (eight chicks data collected from 2005 to 2010 in the estimates and trends to estimate were studied), none survived to 30 days Gunnison Basin, and four years of viability. To estimate and project of age, meaning no recruitment (survival demographic data collected from 2007 Gunnison sage-grouse population of bird from hatching to breeding age) to 2010 in the San Miguel population, trends, Davis (2012, pp. 1, 18) occurred over a 4-year period (Davis deterministic population models conducted a demographic study of the 2012, p. 37). Of 282 chicks studied in indicated that both the Gunnison Basin Gunnison Basin and San Miguel the Gunnison Basin, 124 (44 percent) and San Miguel populations were populations, the two largest survived to 30 days of age (Davis 2012, declining during those time periods, populations. CPW acknowledged that pp. 37–38). A slight negative trend in with more pronounced declines in the this study represents the most current chick survival and stronger negative latter (Davis 2012, p. 87). For the four and longest set of demographic data trend in juvenile survival in the years when data was collected in both collected for Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison Basin population occurred populations (2007–2010), population (Phillips 2013, p. 2). Demographic from 2005 to 2010 (Davis 2012, p. 27). growth rates (l) ranged from 0.65 to 0.91 parameters (survival and reproduction Juvenile recruitment declined from 26 in the Gunnison Basin, and 0.52 to 0.68 rates) from both populations collected percent in 2005 to 5 percent in 2010. in the San Miguel population (Davis from 2005 to 2010 were used to estimate These results indicate that lower 2012, pp. 87–88). A l value of 1.0 population size and viability over the juvenile recruitment may be indicates a stable population; values

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69293

less than 1.0 indicate a declining 2012, pp. 88, 106). However, looking improved for the population to persist population; and values greater than 1.0 further out, demographic stochastic on its own (Davis 2012, p. 97). indicate an increasing population. Of simulations resulted in mean extinction To further evaluate population the six years of study (2005–2010) in the time of 58 years for the Gunnison Basin viability, Davis (2012, pp. 125–126) two populations combined, population population, without removing any birds combined baseline demographic data growth rates ranged from 0.65 in 2010, for translocation efforts (removal of and lek count data from the Gunnison to 1.14 in 2006 (Davis 2012, p. 134). Of birds decreased the mean extinction Basin in a separate, integrated the six years of study in the Gunnison time) (Davis 2012, pp. 111, 137). These population model. Short-term Basin alone (from 2005 to 2010), four of demographic projections indicate the demographic data were combined with these years indicated population Gunnison Basin population is relatively long-term lek count data from 1996 to declines and two years indicated stable, but may be in decline (Davis 2011 (16 years) to reduce potential population growth (Davis 2012, p. 87). 2012, p. 137–138). However, see weaknesses in both datasets—high Incorporating environmental discussion involving the integrated variability and uncertainty with the lek stochasticity (variability in population model below. Additionally, Davis also count data and small sample size of the growth rates due to external factors such (2012, p. 92) noted that if the study had demographic data—with the goal of as weather, fire, disease, and predation) been conducted just a few years earlier statistically improving estimates and and demographic stochasticity or later, a different trend across time predictions (Davis 2012, pp. 125–126). (variability in population growth rates could have resulted, because it was Lek count protocols were standardized due to survival and reproduction rates), based on a 6-year period of time when in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 46); prior to model simulations also predicted the population was experiencing a slight that time, data showed high variability population declines in the future (Davis decline. and uncertainty and, therefore, were not 2012, pp. 105–106). Combining the six Davis (2012, p. 96) also examined the included in the analysis (Davis 2012, years of demographic data (2005 to periodic removal of birds from the pp. 139, 143). The analysis indicated 2010) from both populations, Gunnison Basin and whether a long- that the Gunnison Basin population has environmental stochastic simulations term translocation effort would be declined slightly over the past 16 years, resulted in a minimum extinction time sustainable since it could negatively with a mean annual population growth of 31 years for both populations. affect the viability of that population rate of 0.94, with a 95 percent Minimum extinction time is the earliest depending upon the number of birds confidence interval of 0.83 to 1.04. This time at which population extinction translocated each time and the growth range was found to be narrower occurred among the various modeled frequency of translocations. Results (more accurate) than growth estimates simulations in this study. This is in indicated that, in general, more frequent based on lek count data alone (0.79– contrast to the mean extinction time, the removal of birds from the source 1.92, with a mean of 1.04) or average time of all modeled simulations population had a greater effect than demographic data alone (0.65–1.14, at which population extinction removing a larger number less with a mean of 0.89) (Davis 2012, p. occurred. Mean or expected extinction frequently. 134). On average, the population time in this PVA for the Gunnison Basin If trends observed during the study appeared to be relatively stable over the population is 58 years (Davis 2012, p. continue into the future, declines in 16-year period, but the end of the time 137). Davis also (2012, p. 92) noted, both the San Miguel and Gunnison series showed a slight decline (Davis however that if the study had been Basin populations are expected to occur 2012, p. 138). However, it was noted conducted just a few years earlier or over the next 30 years (i.e., by 2042). that results of the study are preliminary, later, a different trend across time could However, the results may be due in part and further testing is needed to validate have resulted, because it was based on to the limited duration and small the model (Davis 2012, p. 140). a 6-year period of time when the sample size of the study (Davis 2012, p. More recently, incorporating an population was experiencing a slight 92) (see also discussion involving the additional year of lek count data into decline. integrated model below.) Davis (2012, their integrated model (1996–2012), Assuming and incorporating an pp. 89, 93) indicated that adult survival Davis et al. (in press) states that the additional year of increasing, constant, may be the most important vital rate for Gunnison Basin population is ‘‘slightly or declining population growth into steeply declining populations, such as declining’’ and the growth rate of this these simulations to model demographic the San Miguel population, while population has been variable, but is stochasticity resulted in minimum juvenile survival is most important for ‘‘near stable.’’ The updated growth rate extinction times of 41, 29, and 20 years, increasing or slightly declining was calculated to be 0.988, with the 95 respectively for both populations populations, such as the Gunnison percent confidence interval also combined (Davis 2012, p. 88). Basin population. including stable and slightly increasing Additionally, the extinction risk (i.e., An evaluation of translocation efforts growth rates (0.893 to 1.079). proportion of simulations that went indicated that more frequent Davis (2012, p. 139) cautioned against extinct within 30 years) was translocations would increase making conclusions and population substantially larger for San Miguel than population persistence in the San estimates based on lek count data for Gunnison Basin (0.53 for San Miguel population, but with negative collected prior to 1996, due to the data’s Miguel, 0 for Gunnison Basin) (Davis effects on the Gunnison Basin, or high variability and uncertainty. The 2012, p. 88). Demographic stochastic source, population (decreased mean and number of lek areas surveyed in simulations for the Gunnison Basin minimum extinction times) (Davis 2012, Colorado increased beginning in 1996, population approached extinction, but p. 91). Frequent translocations would when lek count protocols were none went extinct over the 30-year avoid extinction of the San Miguel standardized (GSRSC 2005, p. 46), period. Therefore, the estimated population, based on the population indicating increases in abundance that extinction risk was 0.00 for the models, although this would mean may not be accurate (Davis 2012, p. Gunnison Basin population over this maintaining a population of 143). Even standardized lek counts period, indicating a low probability of translocated birds (Davis 2012, p. 96). show high variability and uncertainty extinction over the next 30 years due to Furthermore, juvenile recruitment in and, therefore, should not be used alone demographic stochasticity alone (Davis that population would need to be to estimate or project Gunnison sage-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69294 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

grouse populations (Davis 2012, p. 165). suggest. Davis (2012, pp. 134, 136) The study did not estimate extinction Demographic data showed consistently found that lek count data resulted in probabilities. We are concerned with the lower population growth rates than extremely high values of population current relevance of the Garton (2005, indicated by standardized lek count growth that were not realistic based on entire) study, however, as nine data, suggesting an imperfect demographic data for the Gunnison additional years of lek count data have relationship between the two data types. Basin population. Davis 2012 (p. 138) become available since the study was Lek count data sometimes resulted in and Davis et al. in press state, however, conducted. These new lek count data, extremely high values of population that the Gunnison Basin population has combined with other data from 1996 to growth that were not realistic based on shown only a slight decline since 1996, 2010 (per Davis 2012, entire), provide a demographic analyses (Davis 2012, pp. which they also describe as currently more precise estimate of population 134, 136). being ‘‘relatively stable’’ and ‘‘near- levels and trends than from information stable.’’ that was available in 2005. As discussed Discussion of All Population Viability In contrast, the earliest population Analyses earlier, lek count protocols were first viability analysis for Gunnison sage- standardized in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. The most current and comprehensive grouse from the RCP (GSRSC 2005, 46), and lek count data collected prior demographic study and population Appendix G) indicated a low probability to that year were prone to high viability analysis for Gunnison sage- of extinction (less than 1 percent) for the variability and uncertainty (Davis 2012, grouse (Davis PVA) indicated that the Gunnison Basin population (with p. 139). Based on lek count population San Miguel population is showing a approximately 3,000 birds at the time); estimates, relatively stable trends in the decline, and the Gunnison Basin and a low extinction risk (less than 5 Gunnison Basin population 1996 to population has been relatively stable percent) for smaller populations (more 2014 match that of the findings in over the past 16 years (up to 2011), with than 500 birds) over the next 50 years Garton (2005, entire). However, a a slight decline towards the end of the (i.e., to 2055) (GSRSC 2005, p. G–21). relatively stable rangewide population, study period (Davis 2012, entire). This model concluded that the as indicated by Garton (2005, entire), is Incorporating environmental and Gunnison Basin population, and not supported by recent declines in demographic stochasticity into the therefore the species, is likely to survive several of the satellite populations from models also predicted declines in both over the long term (GSRSC 2005, p. 1996 to 2014 (Figure 3; also see Relevant of these populations in the future (Davis 179). We are concerned, however, with Species Information above). The 2012, pp. 105–106). Combining the reliability of the estimated apparent rangewide stability of demographic data from both extinction probabilities and conclusions Gunnison sage-grouse under the 2005 populations, environmental stochastic from this study, for reasons noted above Garton PVA is influenced primarily by simulations resulted in a minimum and as follows. Applying the extinction the largest population (the Gunnison extinction time of 31 years (i.e., 2043) probabilities from this study, some Basin—about 63 percent of the species’ for the two populations combined satellite populations would have been range) (Figure 2). However, based on (Davis 2012, p. 88). For the San Miguel considered relatively secure in recent overall declining trends in several of the population, demographic stochastic years based on estimated abundance. satellite populations (encompassing simulations indicated a high probability For example, the San Miguel and about 37 percent of the species’ (0.53) of extinction over the next 30 Monticello populations, with occupied range; and 16 percent of the years (2042) (Davis 2012, p. 88). approximately 200 to 400 birds or more known birds), as well as the questions Demographic stochastic simulations for in recent years (see Figure 3), would raised by the Davis PVA regarding the the Gunnison Basin population have had a relatively low risk of long-term stability of the Gunnison approached extinction over this period, extinction over the 50 years ending in Basin population, we do not agree that but none went extinct over the 30-year 2055 according to the RCP PVA. the species is stable rangewide. Finally, period (extinction risk of 0.00) (Davis However, these populations have in contrast to the Davis PVA, the Garton 2012, pp. 88, 106). However, looking declined since 2005 (Figure 3; also see PVA only examined lek count-based further out, demographic simulations Relevant Species Information in this population estimates and trends to resulted in a mean extinction time of 58 section) to a point that their survival estimate viability, and did not consider years for the Gunnison Basin population and long-term viability is currently at demographic or environmental factors (without removing any birds for risk. This suggests that the extinction translocation efforts) (Davis 2012, pp. risk for individual Gunnison sage- or stochasticity. 111, 137), or by about 2070. Davis (2012, grouse populations, including the Each of these population viability p. 92) noted, however, that if the study Gunnison Basin, and the entire species models has its own limitations and had been conducted just a few years is higher than was estimated in this weaknesses, as described above. Again, earlier or later, a different trend across study (i.e., the study may have a PVA does not predict the real or time could have resulted, because it was overestimated the viability of Gunnison absolute risk of extinction for a species based on a 6-year period of time when sage-grouse). This PVA combined or population, only their relative the population was experiencing a slight greater and Gunnison sage-grouse extinction risk under various scenarios, decline. demographic data and did not account and thus should be interpreted and The Davis PVA also suggested that the for environmental variation (such as applied with caution. Further, the Gunnison Basin population may not be fire, disease, and predation), in contrast available PVAs for Gunnison sage- as stable as previously thought (Davis to the Davis PVA. grouse have resulted in somewhat 2012, p. 38). Based on an integrated Long-term (1957–2005) and short- disparate findings. The two earlier PVAs analysis of 16 years of lek count and term analyses (1996–2005) from Garton (GSRSC 2005, entire; Garton 2005, demographic data, the Gunnison Basin (2005, entire) found that the rangewide entire) collectively suggest most population may be declining slightly population of Gunnison sage-grouse was Gunnison sage-grouse populations are (Davis 2012, p. 137). Further, based on generally stable, neither increasing nor relatively stable and that the species is Davis’s findings, we infer that the decreasing during that time period. likely to persist into the future, Gunnison Basin population may not be Accordingly, some populations were attributable primarily to the large size as large as lek count-based estimates declining and some were increasing. and apparently stable trend of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69295

Gunnison Basin population. On the the ability of a species to compensate for Factor E analysis). Davis also (2012, p. other hand, the Davis model (2012, fluctuations in or loss of populations 92) noted, however, that if the study had entire) showed that the second largest across the species’ range such that the been conducted just a few years earlier population, the San Miguel population, loss of a single population has little or or later, a different trend across time is at risk of extinction, with 53 percent no lasting effect on the structure and could have resulted, because it was of model simulations reaching functioning of the species as a whole. based on a 6-year period of time when extinction in the next 30 years (by 2042) Representation refers to the the population was experiencing a slight (Davis 2012, p. 88), and that even the conservation of the diversity of a decline. largest Gunnison Basin population is species, including genetic makeup. While population redundancy declining with a mean extinction time Small population sizes, declining currently exists across the species’ of 58 years from now, or by about 2070, population trends, low genetic diversity, range, the best available information due to demographic stochasticity alone geographic isolation, and overall low indicates the six satellite populations (Davis 2012, pp. 111, 137). Davis (2012, viability (see preceding discussions in are at risk of extirpation in p. 92) noted, however, that if the study this section) indicate that long-term approximately 30 years (see preceding had been conducted just a few years persistence and evolutionary or discussions in this section). Maintaining earlier or later, a different trend across adaptive potential are compromised in multiple satellite populations is time could have resulted, because it was the six satellite populations. This, in important to the long-term viability of based on a 6-year period of time when turn, suggests that resiliency is very low Gunnison sage-grouse because they: (1) the population was experiencing a slight in the satellite populations, meaning Increase species abundance rangewide; decline. Based on recent population they are less likely to tolerate or adapt (2) minimize the threat of catastrophic trend data and related information, we to the changes and effects from current events to the species since the identified concerns with the two earliest and future threats (see discussions in populations are widely distributed PVAs and their current relevance and Factors A through C, and E). For across the landscape; and (3) provide reliability for assessing the status of example, drought conditions from 1999 additional genetic diversity not found in Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the through about 2003 (with residual the Gunnison Basin (GSRSC 2005, p. future. effects lasting through about 2005) were 199). With the loss of any population, For the reasons stated above and here, closely associated with reductions in population redundancy will be lowered, we find that Davis (2012, entire) and the sizes of all Gunnison sage-grouse thereby decreasing the species’ chances Davis et al. (in press) represent the most populations (CDOW 2009b, entire; CPW of survival in the face of environmental, current and best available scientific 2013c, p. 9) (Figures 2 and 3) and lower demographic, and genetic stochastic information regarding the viability of nest success (CPW 2013c, p. 2). To date, factors and catastrophic events (extreme Gunnison sage-grouse. We recognize most of the smaller satellite populations drought, fire, disease, etc.). Therefore, that absolute extinction probabilities have not rebounded from declines multiple populations across a broad provided in the Davis PVA are around that time (Figure 3) (see Drought geographic area are required to provide uncertain. However, based on that study and Extreme Weather in this Factor E insurance against catastrophic events, (Davis 2012, entire), the survival and discussion below). and the aggregate number of individuals persistence of the San Miguel In contrast, resilience currently across multiple populations increases population appears to be at risk, with a appears to be relatively high in the the probability of demographic 53 percent chance of extinction by about Gunnison Basin population, likely due persistence and preservation of overall 2042. Based on this finding, it is to a large effective population. For genetic diversity by providing an reasonable to assume that the viability instance, drought has coincided with important genetic reservoir of the remaining satellite populations is declines in the Gunnison Basin (representation) (GSRSC 2005, p. 179). also at similar risk due to their small population (CDOW 2009b, entire; Figure Five physiographic zones or divisions size, though we recognize that 2), including declines at many of the lek are recognized in the Gunnison Basin environmental, demographic, genetic, complex areas (USFWS 2013c, pp. 1–2), population area for the purposes of and other factors likely vary between but the population has since rebounded monitoring and management actions populations, and that these differences to pre-drought levels (see Drought and (CSGWG 1997, pp. 6–7). It has been will influence survival and viability Extreme Weather in this section below suggested that these zones represent rates. Due to demographic fluctuations for a detailed discussion). However, as subpopulations, or relatively discrete alone, the Davis PVA also indicated that the effects from drought, climate breeding populations, and that they the Gunnison Basin population’s change, disease, and other substantial provide adequate population viability is at risk in the future, with a threats increase in the future, it is redundancy and insurance against mean extinction time of 58 years, or by uncertain whether resilience in this environmental disturbances such as about 2070. population will be sufficient to offset drought (CPW 2013c, pp. 2, 9–10; declines (see Drought and Extreme Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 137–138; Resiliency, Redundancy, and Weather (Factor E discussion below), 169–170; Gunnison County 2013b, p. Representation Climate Change (Factor A), and Disease 43). In this rule (see Drought and In this section, we synthesize the (Factor C)). As discussed earlier, model Extreme Weather in this Factor E information above to evaluate simulations of environmental and analysis), we present information which resiliency, redundancy, and demographic stochasticity (natural indicates that, while some local representation as they relate to the fluctuations) resulted in extinction of redundancy may exist in the Gunnison viability of Gunnison sage-grouse. the Gunnison Basin population in 31 Basin population, it is not at a large Resiliency refers to the capacity of an years (minimum extinction time) and 58 enough scale to withstand ecosystem, population, or organism to years (mean extinction time), environmental pressures. While recover quickly from disturbance by respectively. This analysis suggested the geographic and microclimatic variation tolerating or adapting to changes or Gunnison Basin population may not be in the Gunnison Basin likely provide effects caused by a disturbance or a as stable (i.e., resilient) as previously some degree of local variation and, combination of disturbances. thought (Davis 2012, entire) (see Davis perhaps, local population redundancy Redundancy, in this context, refers to Population Viability Analysis in this to resist environmental pressures, past

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69296 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

drought has had apparently extensive population, the largest population, may will persist longer than the satellite impacts on this population, as indicated be declining slightly and may not be populations, Davis (2012, entire) by concurrent negative trends in the quite as stable as previously thought indicated that its future viability is also majority of lek complexes (see Drought (Davis et al. in press; Davis 2012, pp. at risk due to natural environmental and and Extreme Weather in this Factor E 134, 38). Furthermore, because lek demographic fluctuations. analysis). This information suggests that count data tend to overestimate Small population size, declining population redundancy in the Gunnison populations (Davis 2012, pp. 134, 136) population trends, and apparent Basin is limited, and is inadequate at the Gunnison Basin population may not isolation indicate long-term population the landscape scale necessary to be large as has been estimated. persistence and evolutionary potential withstand more environmental Based on small effective population (i.e., resiliency) are compromised in the pressures than those experienced to sizes, the satellite populations are at risk satellite populations. In general, while date, such as prolonged drought, climate of inbreeding depression and could be various natural factors would not limit change effects, disease, or any losing evolutionary or adaptive sage-grouse populations across large combination of those threats. potential (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 479). geographic scales under historical As discussed above, representation Lower levels of genetic diversity were conditions or in larger populations, they across the species’ range is currently apparent in studied satellite populations may contribute to local population low due to apparently isolated of Gunnison sage-grouse, thought to be declines or extirpations when populations and limited gene flow. the result of small population sizes and populations are small or when weather Genetic diversity is highest in the a high degree of geographic isolation patterns, habitats, or mortality rates are Gunnison Basin population, but low in (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, entire). All altered. Multiple populations across a the studied satellite populations (Oyler- satellite populations sampled were broad geographic area provide insurance McCance et al. 2005, entire). If found to be genetically discrete units against catastrophic events (population population sizes continue declining, (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 635), so redundancy), such as prolonged genetic diversity will likely decrease as their loss would result in a decrease in drought, and the aggregate number of well (see Genetic Risks above in this genetic diversity of the species. The individuals across all populations Factor E analysis). only population currently providing increases the probability of Based on the information above, we individuals for translocation is the demographic persistence and find that resiliency, redundancy, and Gunnison Basin population; however, preservation of overall genetic diversity representation in Gunnison sage-grouse we believe care should be taken to by providing an important genetic are inadequate overall to ensure the ensure that this population can sustain reservoir (representation) (GSRSC 2005, species’ long-term viability. In the loss of individuals required by a p. 179). As discussed above, the best particular, the best available long-term translocation program to other available information indicates the information indicates population populations. viability of the six satellite populations redundancy will be more limited in the Historically, the satellite populations is currently at risk due to small near future, due to the extirpation of one were larger and better connected population size and structure, and those or more satellite populations, thereby through more contiguous areas of cover 37 percent of the species occupied decreasing the species’ chances of sagebrush habitat. The loss and range. Loss of as much as 37 percent of survival in the face of limiting factors. fragmentation of sagebrush habitat the species’ occupied range would Current and future threats to the between the late 1950’s and the early impact the species’ overall viability. The Gunnison Basin population (in 1990’s led to the current isolation of cumulative effects of ongoing and future particular, see Drought and Extreme these populations, as indicated by the threats, such as habitat loss (Factor A) Weather (Factor E discussion below), low amounts of gene flow and isolation and drought (discussed below), will Climate Change (Factor A), and Disease by distance (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, further contribute to declining and (Factor C)) combined with the probable p. 635). Genetic information suggests increasingly isolated populations and, loss of one or more satellite populations gene flow is limited between all ultimately, smaller population size and and overall reduction of range indicate populations (Oyler-MCance et al. 2005, structure. the long-term persistence of Gunnison entire) (see Genetics discussion above in Based on the best available sage-grouse is at risk. this section). information, we determined that Available PVAs for Gunnison sage- resiliency, redundancy, and Summary of Small Population Size and grouse have resulted in somewhat representation in Gunnison sage-grouse Structure disparate findings, each with their own are inadequate, or will be inadequate in Negative effects on population limitations or weaknesses. We found the near term, to ensure the species’ viability, such as reduced reproductive that Davis (2012, entire) represents the long-term viability. The best available success or loss of genetic variation and best available scientific information information indicates population diversity are a concern as populations regarding the viability of Gunnison sage- redundancy, in particular, will be decline and become smaller or more grouse. This represents the longest and limited or compromised in the near isolated. Small population size and most current demographic study and term, due to the probable extirpation of population structure occur in all of the population viability analysis for one or more satellite populations, six satellite populations, or across Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on that thereby decreasing the species’ chances approximately 37 percent of occupied study, the Gunnison Basin and San of survival in the face of limiting factors. range for the species (see Relevant Miguel populations, the two largest The rangewide cumulative effects of Species Information in this section). Lek populations, are declining, with more ongoing and future threats (Factors A count data for the last 19 years (1996 to pronounced declines in the latter (Davis through C, and E) will further 2014) as a whole indicate that several 2012, p. 87). The survival and compromise resiliency, redundancy, satellite populations are in decline persistence of the San Miguel and representation of the species. (despite increases in numbers in some population, and likely the smaller Current and future threats to the populations in the last several years satellite populations as well, appear to Gunnison Basin population (in Figure 3). Integrating lek count data and be at risk in the near future. Though we particular, see Drought (Factor E demographic data, the Gunnison Basin expect the Gunnison Basin population discussion below), Climate Change

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69297

(Factor A), and Disease (Factor C)) Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) found populations. It also indicates that combined with the probable loss of that the number of severe droughts from resiliency is currently limited in the satellite populations and overall 1950 to 2003 had a weak negative effect satellite populations (see Resiliency, reduction of range indicate the long- on patterns of greater sage-grouse Redundancy, and Representation). The term persistence of Gunnison sage- persistence. However, they cautioned small sizes of the satellite populations grouse is at risk. that drought may have a greater of Gunnison sage-grouse make them influence on future sage-grouse particularly sensitive to stochastic and Drought and Extreme Weather populations as temperatures rise over demographic fluctuations, and this Drought and extreme weather such as the next 50 years, and synergistic effects vulnerability is intensified by drought severe winters have the potential to of other threats affect habitat quality (GSRSC 2005, p. G–22). impact the survival and, therefore, (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 992). Drought Overall, habitat appeared to be persistence of Gunnison sage-grouse. has also been shown to have a negative negatively affected by drought Drought is a common occurrence effect on chick survival rates in greater conditions across a broad area of the throughout the range of the Gunnison sage-grouse (Aldridge 2005, entire), a Gunnison sage-grouse’s range from 1999 and greater sage-grouse (Braun 1998, p. key factor in sage-grouse population through about 2003, though those effects 148) and is considered a universal reproduction, survival, and persistence varied by population area (see our April ecological driver across the Great Plains (GSRSC 2005, p. 173). Populations on 18, 2006, finding (71 FR 19954) for a region (Knopf 1996, p. 147). Infrequent, the periphery of the range may suffer detailed discussion). Defoliation and severe drought may cause local extirpation during a severe and mortality of sagebrush plants, and the extinctions of annual forbs and grasses prolonged drought (Wisdom et al. 2011, loss of grass and forb understories, was that have invaded stands of perennial pp. 468–469). In eastern Nevada, annual reported in 2003 across the range of species, and recolonization of these recruitment of greater sage-grouse was Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. areas by native species may be slow higher in years with higher 143, and references therein), and in (Tilman and El Haddi 1992, p. 263). precipitation, based on annual 2013 in the Gunnison Basin and Dry Drought reduces vegetation cover precipitation, annual rainfall, and Creek Basin area of the San Miguel (Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly et al. average winter snow depth. Likewise, population (CPW 2013c, p. 10, and 2004, p. 7–18), potentially resulting in greater sage-grouse population growth references therein). However, the increased soil erosion and subsequent was positively correlated with annual reduction of sagebrush density, allowing reduced soil depths, decreased water rainfall and mean monthly winter for greater herbaceous growth and infiltration, and reduced water storage snowpack in the study area. Annual stimulating the onset of sagebrush seed capacity. Drought also can exacerbate survival of adult male greater sage- crops, may have been beneficial to other natural events such as defoliation grouse was negatively affected by high sagebrush habitats in certain areas over of sagebrush by insects. For example, summertime temperatures (i.e., higher the long term (GSRSC 2005, p.143; CPW 2013c, p. 10). Nonetheless, as indicated approximately 2,544 km2 (982 mi2) of survival rates occurred in years with by declining Gunnison sage-grouse sagebrush shrublands died in Utah in relatively low maximum temperatures) populations during and following 2003 as a result of drought and (Blomberg et al. 2012, pp. 7, 9). In drought periods, the negative impacts of infestations with the Aroga (webworm) contrast, adult survival rates of drought appear to outweigh any positive moth (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5–11). Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison effects. Basin were not apparently influenced by Sage-grouse are affected by drought The above information indicates that drought conditions in 2005 (CPW 2013c, through the loss of vegetative habitat regional drought has operated at large components, reduced insect production p. 9; Davis 2012, p. 55). enough scales to impact all populations (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 9), and Drought conditions from 1999 of Gunnison sage-grouse. Furthermore, increased risk of West Nile virus through about 2003 (with residual it appears that past drought has had infections as described in the Factor C effects lasting through about 2005) were broad-scale, measurable impacts on discussion above. These habitat closely associated with reductions in even the Gunnison Basin population, component losses can result in the sizes of all populations of Gunnison despite its larger geographic area and declining sage-grouse populations due sage-grouse (CDOW 2009b, entire; CPW population size. Figure 4 below shows to increased nest predation and early 2013c, p. 9) (Figures 2 and 3) and lower changes in high male sage-grouse counts brood mortality associated with nest success (CPW 2013c, p. 2). The at lek complexes in the Gunnison Basin decreased nest cover and food driest summer on record in the from 2001 to 2003. Based on lek count availability (Braun 1998, p. 149; Gunnison Basin occurred in 2002 data, the largest declines in the Moynahan et al. 2007, p. 1781). (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 112, 141). Gunnison Basin occurred during this Greater sage-grouse populations Based on population trends from lek time (Figure 2). Of 25 total lek declined during the 1930s period of count data, the Gunnison Basin complexes in the Gunnison Basin (not drought (Patterson 1952, p. 68; Braun population declined by about 30 percent including leks where no birds were 1998, p. 148). Drought conditions in the from 2001 to 2003, but has since observed or where counts did not late 1980s and early 1990s also rebounded to pre-drought numbers occur), approximately 68 percent coincided with a period when sage- (USFWS 2013c, p. 1; Figure 2). declined from 2001 to 2003, including grouse populations were at historically Therefore, larger populations of many of the larger complex areas with low levels (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. Gunnison sage-grouse may be capable of typically more birds. The largest lek 8). Although drought has been a enduring moderate or severe, but complex in the Gunnison Basin, Ohio consistent and natural part of the relatively short-term, drought. However, Creek, declined by about 34 percent, sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, drought to date, most of the smaller satellite from 530 birds in 2001 to 348 birds in impacts on sage-grouse can be populations have not rebounded from 2003 (USFWS 2013c, pp. 1–2). The eight exacerbated when combined with other declines around that time (Figure 3). lek complexes that remained stable or habitat impacts, such as human This information highlights the increased during this period (32 percent developments, that reduce cover and potential significance of drought and its of total lek complexes) were typically food (Braun 1998). influence on Gunnison sage-grouse smaller lek complexes with fewer birds

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69298 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(Lost Canyon, Gold Basin, Iola, North only minor increases in bird numbers Gulch, Eagle Ridge) (USFWS 2013c, p. Parlin, and Sugar Creek); or, if larger, were observed (Antelope, Hartman 3). b a McCabe Lek Graph -100.0% 100.0% -80.0% -60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 40.0% 80.0% 60.0% 20.0% 0.0% complex, does Lane, not <( .... E c 0 Needle or include lek a:; <( .... a. c 0 QJ areas, :; Creek, ..r:::. ..r:::. u (!) u u ro c QJ lek ""C ti"o UJ C2 are ro D.O QJ QJ complexes Ninemile, comprised 0 ""C ·v; (!) CD ro c :; ..r:::. :r: (!) .... E .... u ro ro c where and ...... :r: ·c.. Vl a. 3: QJ QJ QJ of Willow several 0 no - ro counts ·v; :..:: CD L. ro ro N c c QJ Creek geographically u --' .... Ill ro c 0 0 > occurred lek :; ..r:::. (!) ~ Ill u c c 0 0 areas. -;:: ..r:::. Cl.. z .... L. ro c 0 or grouped where ..lo<: ..r:::. u 0 L. 0 QJ QJ ..lo<: u i:i: ~ ro c QJ QJ Ill L. QJ QJ zero birds or ..lo<: u 0::: proximate .... L. ro 0 QJ QJ N ""C ..lo<: ·s: u i:S 0::: ...... ro N 0 QJ QJ QJ were Cl 0::: E L. ro N 0 0 QJ leks. observed ..r:::. ·c.. z Vl .... L. L. ro c 0 0 QJ ..r:::. ·c.. Vl Vl .... ro 0 0 QJ ::I L. c from Vi ~ QJ X 2001 -;:: ..r:::. Cl.. Vl .... ::I ro c 0 to ..lo<: u Vl ::I L. ro .... D.O QJ QJ 2003. ..r:::. .E > I- u ro D.O 0 QJ These include ~ .... ro ro c ::I :; ""C ..r:::. (!) ~ Ill u 0 0 ,

Figure 4. Change in High Male Counts at Lek Complexes a in the Gunnison Basin From 2001 to 2003 (USFWS 2013c, pp. 1–2) b

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 ER20NO14.003 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69299

While geographic and microclimatic rangewide, both now and into the Recreation from OHVs, hikers, variation in the Gunnison Basin likely future. mountain bikes, campers, snowmobiles, provides a degree of local variation and, bird watchers, and other sources has Recreation perhaps, local population redundancy affected many parts of the range, to resist environmental pressures, past Nonconsumptive recreational especially portions of the Gunnison drought had apparent widespread activities can degrade wildlife Basin and Pin˜ on Mesa population areas impacts on this population, as indicated resources, water, and the land by (BLM 2005a, p. 14; BLM 2005d, p. 4; by negative trends in the majority of lek distributing refuse, disturbing and BLM 2009a, p. 36). These activities can complexes during that time. This displacing wildlife, increasing animal result in abandonment of lekking suggests that population redundancy in mortality, and simplifying plant activities and nest sites by Gunnison the Gunnison Basin is limited, and is communities (Boyle and Samson 1985, sage-grouse, energy expenditure inadequate at the landscape scale pp. 110–112). Sage-grouse response to reducing survival, and greater exposure necessary to withstand more substantial disturbance may be influenced by the to predators (GSRSC 2005). environmental pressures such as type of activity, recreationist behavior, Recreation is a significant use on prolonged drought, climate change predictability of activity, frequency and lands managed by BLM (Connelly et al. effects, disease, or a combination of magnitude, timing, and activity location 2004, p. 7–26). For example, those threats. The drought from 2001 to (Knight and Cole 1995, p. 71). We do recreational activities within the 2003 was severe but relatively short in not have any published literature Gunnison Basin are widespread, occur duration. More severe, prolonged, or concerning measured direct effects of during all seasons of the year, and have frequent drought would likely have recreational activities on Gunnison or expanded as more people move to the more serious impacts. The species’ greater sage-grouse, but can infer area or travel there to recreate (BLM apparent sensitivity to drought effects in potential impacts on Gunnison sage- 2009a, pp. 36–37). Four wheel drive, all populations, including the Gunnison grouse from studies on related species OHV, motorcycle, and other Basin and across most lek complexes in and from research on nonrecreational mechanized travel has been increasing that population, suggests the species activities. Displacement of male sharp- rapidly. The number of annual OHV would have limited capacity to tailed grouse has been reported at leks registrations in Colorado increased from withstand or adapt to more significant due to human presence, resulting in loss 12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 in 2007 (BLM drought and the interacting effects of of reproductive opportunity during the 2009a, p. 37). Recreational activities can climate change, disease, and other time of disturbance (Baydack and Hein have direct and indirect impacts to the threats. Drought is also discussed under 1987, p. 537). Female sharp-tailed Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat the Climate Change (Factor A); and grouse were observed at undisturbed (BLM 2009a, p. 36). The Grand Mesa, Resiliency, Redundancy, and leks while absent from disturbed leks Uncompaghre, and Gunnison (GMUG) Representation (Factor E) sections. during the same time period (Baydack National Forest is the fourth most visited National Forest in the Rocky Harsh or severe winters appear to and Hein 1987, p. 537). Disturbance of Mountain Region of the USFS (Region have minimal influence on Gunnison incubating female sage-grouse could 2), and is the second most heavily sage-grouse survival. Davis (2012, p. 55) cause displacement from nests, visited National Forest on the western increased predator risk, or loss of nests. evaluated the effect of harsh winter slope of Colorado (DEIS Gunnison Basin Disruption of sage-grouse during conditions (as indicated by above Federal Lands Travel Management 2009, vulnerable periods at leks, or during normal snow depth) on adult and p. 137). However, it is unknown what nesting or early brood-rearing could yearling survival rates in the Gunnison percentage of the visits occurs within affect reproduction or survival (Baydack Basin and San Miguel populations. The Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on the and Hein 1987, pp. 537–538). winter of 2007 to 2008 was one of the Gunnison Ranger District (DEIS most severe winters on record in the Recreational use of off-highway Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Gunnison Basin, with snow depths that vehicles (OHVs) is one of the fastest- Management 2009, p. 137). With human exceeded records for all but 2 winters in growing outdoor activities. In the populations expected to increase in the last 50 years (CPW 2013c, p. 2; western United States, greater than 27 towns and cities within and adjacent to Gunnison County 2013a, p. 112). Severe percent of the human population used the Gunnison Basin and nearby winter conditions during 2007 and 2008 OHVs for recreational activities between populations (see Factor A analysis), the in the Gunnison Basin, and during 2009 1999 and 2004 (Knick et al. 2011, p. impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse from and 2010 in the San Miguel Basin, had 217). Knick et al. (2011, p. 219) reported recreational use will continue to minimal effect on Gunnison sage-grouse that widespread motorized access for increase. survival in both populations; and, in the recreation facilitated the spread of The BLM, USFS, CPW, and Gunnison Gunnison Basin, the highest nesting predators adapted to humans and the County currently close 36 roads at 47 success during the study was observed spread of invasive plants. Any high- closure points in the Gunnison Basin to the following spring (Davis (2012, p. 55; frequency human activity along all motorized traffic from March 15 to CPW 2013c, p. 2). established corridors can affect wildlife May 15 to minimize impacts during the Data are not available to evaluate through habitat loss and fragmentation breeding season. Six road closures by whether the observed population (Knick et al. 2011, p. 219). The effects the USFS extend to June 15 to protect declines are due to drought alone. of OHV use on sagebrush and sage- nesting Gunnison sage-grouse. These Drought likely intensifies other stressors grouse have not been directly studied closures limit motorized access to all such as predation (Factor C), invasive (Knick et al. 2011, p. 216). However, known leks and adjacent habitats on plants (Factor A), and fire (Factor A). Gunnison sage-grouse local working public lands in the Gunnison Basin However, based on the best available groups and conservation plans (Gunnison County 2013a, pp. 78, 127). information, drought has contributed to considered recreational uses, such as While road closures may be violated in substantial declines in all Gunnison off-road vehicle use and biking, to be a a small number of situations, road sage-grouse populations. Therefore, we risk factor in many areas (see Factor D closures are having a beneficial effect on conclude that drought is a substantial discussion, Multi-County and Gunnison sage-grouse through threat to Gunnison sage-grouse Rangewide Efforts). avoidance or minimization of impacts

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69300 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

during the breeding season. result of ingestion of alfalfa sprayed and dieldrin exhibited depression, Conservation measures from the CCA with organophosphorus insecticides dullness, slowed reactions, irregular (BLM 2013b, entire), including road (Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Blus and flight, and uncoordinated walking closure and reclamation, seasonal road Connelly 1998, p. 23). In one case, a (McEwen and Brown 1966, p. 689). closures, and over-snow travel area field of alfalfa was sprayed with Although no research has explicitly closures during severe winters, are methamidophos and dimethoate when studied the indirect levels of mortality expected to ameliorate impacts from approximately 200 greater sage-grouse from sublethal doses of insecticides some recreational activities on Federal were present; 63 of these sage-grouse (e.g., predation of impaired birds), it lands in the Gunnison Basin (see were later found dead, presumably as a was inferred to be the cause of mortality Conservation Programs and Efforts result of insecticide exposure (Blus et among some study birds (McEwen and Related to Habitat Conservation section al. 1989; p. 1142, Blus and Connelly Brown 1966 p. 609; Blus et al. 1989, p. in Factor A for more details). 1998, p. 23). Both methamidophos and 1142; Connelly and Blus 1991, p. 4). Dispersed camping occurs at a low dimethoate remain registered for use in Both Post (1951, p. 383) and Blus et al. level on public lands in all of the the United States (Christiansen and Tate (1989, p. 1142) located depredated sage- population areas, particularly during the 2011, p. 125), but we found no further grouse carcasses in areas that had been hunting seasons for other species. records of sage-grouse mortalities from treated with insecticides. Exposure to However, we have no information their use. In another case in 1950, these insecticides may have predisposed indicating that these camping activities rangelands treated with toxaphene and sage-grouse to predation. Sage-grouse are impacting Gunnison sage-grouse. chlordane bait to control grasshoppers mortalities also were documented in a Domestic dogs accompanying in Wyoming resulted in game bird study where they were exposed to recreationists or associated with mortality of 23.4 percent (Christiansen strychnine bait used to control small residences can disturb, harass, displace, and Tate 2011, p. 125). Forty-five greater mammals (Ward et al. 1942 as cited in or kill Gunnison sage-grouse. Dogs, sage-grouse deaths were recorded, 11 of Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). While we whether under control, on leash, or which were most likely related to the do not have specific information on loose, have been shown to result in insecticide (Christiansen and Tate 2011, these effects occurring in Gunnison significant disturbance responses by p. 125, and references therein). Greater sage-grouse, the effects observed in various wildlife species (Sime 1999, sage-grouse who succumbed to vehicle greater sage-grouse can be expected if entire, and references therein). The collisions and mowing machines in the similar situations arise within Gunnison primary consequence of dogs being off same area also were likely compromised sage-grouse habitat. leash is harassment, which can lead to from insecticide ingestion (Christiansen Cropland spraying may affect physiological stress as well as the and Tate 2011, p. 125). Neither populations that are not adjacent to separation of adult and young birds, or toxaphene nor chlordane has been agricultural areas, given the distances flushing incubating birds from their registered for grasshopper control since traveled by females with broods from nest. However, we have no data the early 1980’s (Christiansen and Tate nesting areas to late brood-rearing areas indicating that this activity is impacting 2011, p. 125, and references therein) (Knick et al. 2011, p. 211). The actual Gunnison sage-grouse populations. and thus they are not a threat to footprint of this effect cannot be Recreational activities as discussed Gunnison sage-grouse. estimated, because the distances sage- above do not singularly pose a threat to Infestations of Russian wheat aphids grouse travel to get to irrigated and Gunnison sage-grouse. However, there (Diuraphis noxia) have occurred in sprayed fields is unknown (Knick et al. may be certain situations where Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range in 2011, p. 211). Similarly, actual recreational activities are impacting Colorado and Utah (GSRSC 2005, p. mortalities from insecticides may be local concentrations of Gunnison sage- 132). Disulfoton, a systemic underestimated if sage-grouse disperse grouse, especially in areas where habitat organophosphate that is extremely toxic from agricultural areas after exposure. is already fragmented such as in the six to wildlife, was routinely applied to Much of the research related to satellite populations and in certain areas over a million acres of winter wheat pesticides that had either lethal or within the Gunnison Basin. crops to control the aphids during the sublethal effects on greater sage-grouse late 1980s. We have no data indicating was conducted on pesticides that have Pesticides and Herbicides there were any adverse effects to been banned or have had their use Insects are an important component of Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. restricted for more than 20 years due to sage-grouse chick and juvenile diets 132). More recently, an infestation of their toxic effects on the environment (GSRSC 2005, p. 132 and references army cutworms (Euxoa auxiliaries) (e.g., dieldrin). We currently do not therein). Insects, especially ants occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse have any information to show that the (Hymenoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera), habitat along the Utah-Colorado State banned pesticides are having negative can comprise a major proportion of the line. Thousands of acres of winter wheat impacts to sage-grouse populations diet of juvenile sage-grouse and are and alfalfa fields were sprayed with through either illegal use or residues in important components of early brood- insecticides such as permethrin, a the environment. For example, sage- rearing habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. 132 chemical that is toxic to wildlife, by grouse mortalities were documented in and references therein). Most pesticide private landowners to control them a study where they were exposed to applications are not directed at control (GSRSC 2005, p. 132), but again, we strychnine bait used to control small of ants and beetles. Insecticides are used have no data indicating any adverse mammals (Ward et al. 1942 as cited in primarily to control insects causing effects to Gunnison sage-grouse. Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). According damage to cultivated crops on private Game birds that ingested sublethal to the U.S. Environmental Protection lands and to control grasshoppers levels of insecticides have been Agency (EPA), above-ground uses of the (Orthoptera) and Mormon crickets observed exhibiting abnormal behavior rodenticide strychnine were prohibited (Mormonius sp.) on public lands. that may lead to a greater risk of in 1988 and those uses remain Few studies have examined the effects predation (Dahlen and Haugen 1954, p. temporarily cancelled today. We do not of pesticides to sage-grouse, but at least 477; McEwen and Brown 1966, p. 609; know when, or if, above-ground uses two pesticides have caused direct Blus et al. 1989, p. 1141). Wild sharp- will be permitted to resume. Currently, mortality of greater sage-grouse as a tailed grouse poisoned by malathion strychnine is registered for use only

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69301

below-ground as a bait application to have been banned in the United States Gunnison sage-grouse from such spills, control pocket gophers (Thomomys sp.; for more than 20 years. We currently do and we do not expect they are a EPA 1996, p. 4). Therefore, the current not have any information to show that significant source of mortality or threat legal use of strychnine baits is unlikely either the illegal use of banned to the species because these types of to present much of an exposure risk to pesticides or residues in the spills occur infrequently and may sage-grouse. No information on illegal environment are presently having involve only a small area within the use, if it occurs, is available. We have negative impacts to Gunnison sage- occupied range of the species. no other information regarding grouse populations. While the reduction Summary of Factor E: Other Natural or mortalities or sublethal effects of in insect availability via insecticide Manmade Factors strychnine or other banned pesticides application has not been documented to on sage-grouse. affect overall population numbers in Based on the information above, we Although a reduction in insect sage-grouse, it appears that insect find that small population size and population levels resulting from reduction, because of its importance to structure is a threat to the six satellite insecticide application can potentially chick production and survival, could be populations of Gunnison sage-grouse, affect nesting sage-grouse females and having as yet undetected negative both now and into the future. Although chicks (Willis et al. 1993, p. 40; impacts in populations with low genetic consequences of low Gunnison Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16), there is no population numbers. At present, sage-grouse population numbers have information as to whether insecticides however, there is no information not been definitively detected to date, are impacting survivorship or available to indicate that either the results from Stiver et al. (2008, p. productivity of the Gunnison sage- herbicide or insecticide applications 479) suggest that six of the seven grouse. pose a threat to the species. populations may have effective sizes Use of insecticides to control low enough to induce genetic mosquitoes is infrequent and probably Contaminants deterioration, and that all seven could does not have detrimental effects on Gunnison sage-grouse exposure to be losing adaptive potential. While sage-grouse. Available insecticides that various types of environmental some of these consequences may be kill adult mosquitoes include synthetic contaminants may potentially occur as a ameliorated by translocations, pyrethroids such as permethrin, which result of agricultural and rangeland information indicates the long-term are applied at very low concentrations management practices, mining, energy viability of Gunnison sage-grouse is and have very low vertebrate toxicity development and pipeline operations, compromised by this situation, (Rose 2004). Organophosphates such as and transportation of materials along particularly when combined with malathion have been used at very low highways and railroads. threats discussed in other Factors. rates to kill adult mosquitoes for We expect that the number of sage- Therefore, we have determined that decades, and are judged relatively safe grouse occurring in the immediate genetics risks related to the small for vertebrates (Rose 2004). vicinity of wastewater pits associated population size of Gunnison sage-grouse Herbicide applications can kill with energy development would be are a threat to the species. sagebrush and forbs important as food small due to the small amount of energy Available PVAs for Gunnison sage- sources for sage-grouse (Carr 1968 in development within the species’ range, grouse have resulted in somewhat Call and Maser 1985, p. 14). The greatest the typically intense human activity in disparate findings, each with their own impact resulting from a reduction of these areas, the lack of cover around the limitations or weaknesses. We found either forbs or insect populations is to pits, and the fact that sage-grouse do not that Davis (2012, entire) represents the nesting females and chicks due to the require free standing water. Most bird best available scientific information loss of potential protein sources that are mortalities recorded in association with regarding the viability of Gunnison sage- critical for successful egg production wastewater pits are water-dependent grouse. This represents the longest and and chick nutrition (Johnson and Boyce species (e.g., waterfowl), whereas dead most current demographic study and 1991, p. 90; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. ground-dwelling birds (such as the sage- population viability analysis for 16). A comparison of applied levels of grouse) are rarely found at such sites Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on that herbicides with toxicity studies of (Domenici 2008, pers. comm.). study, the Gunnison Basin and San grouse, chickens, and other gamebirds However, if the wastewater pits are not Miguel populations, the two largest (Carr 1968, in Call and Maser 1985, p. appropriately screened, sage-grouse may populations, are declining, with more 15) concluded that herbicides applied at have access to them and could ingest pronounced declines in the latter (Davis recommended rates should not result in water and/or become oiled while 2012, p. 87). The survival and sage-grouse poisonings. pursuing insects. If these birds then persistence of the San Miguel In summary, historically insecticides return to sagebrush cover and die, their population, and likely the smaller have been shown to result in direct carcasses are unlikely to be found as satellite populations as well, appear to mortality of individuals, and also can only the pits are surveyed. be at risk in the near future. Though we reduce the availability of food sources, A few gas and oil pipelines occur expect the Gunnison Basin population which in turn could contribute to within the San Miguel population. will persist longer than the satellite mortality of sage-grouse. Despite the Exposure to oil or gas from pipeline populations, Davis (2012, entire) potential effects of pesticides, we could spills or leaks could cause mortalities or indicated that its future viability is also find no information to indicate that the morbidity to Gunnison sage-grouse. at risk due to natural environmental and use of these chemicals, at current levels, Similarly, given the network of demographic fluctuations. negatively affects Gunnison sage-grouse highways and railroad lines that occur Small population size, declining population numbers. Schroeder et al.’s throughout the range of the Gunnison population trends, and apparent (1999, p. 16) literature review found that sage-grouse, there is some potential for isolation indicate long-term population the loss of insects can have significant exposure to contaminants resulting from persistence and evolutionary potential impacts on nesting females and chicks, spills or leaks of hazardous materials (i.e., resiliency) are compromised in the but those impacts were not detailed. being conveyed along these satellite populations. In general, while Many of the pesticides that have been transportation corridors. We found no various natural factors would not limit shown to have an effect on sage-grouse documented occurrences of impacts to sage-grouse populations across large

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

geographic scales under historical grouse. The most likely impact of grouse. We consider the five factors conditions or in larger populations, they insecticides on Gunnison sage-grouse is identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act in may contribute to local population the reduction of insect prey items. determining whether the Gunnison declines or extirpations when However, we could find no information sage-grouse meets the Act’s definition of populations are small or when weather to indicate that use of insecticides, in an endangered species (section 3(6)) or patterns, habitats, or mortality rates are accordance with their label instructions, a threatened species (section 3(20)). altered. Multiple populations across a is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. We Section 3 of the Act defines an broad geographic area (population similarly do not have information ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species redundancy) provide insurance against indicating that contaminants, as which is in danger of extinction catastrophic events, such as prolonged described above, are a threat to the throughout all or a significant portion of drought, and the aggregate number of species. its range,’’ and defines a ‘‘threatened individuals across all populations species’’ as ‘‘any species which is likely Cumulative Effects From Factors A increases the probability of to become an endangered species within through E demographic persistence and the foreseeable future throughout all or preservation of overall genetic diversity Many of the threats described in this a significant portion of its range.’’ by providing an important genetic finding may cumulatively or Although these statutory definitions are reservoir (representation) (GSRSC 2005, synergistically impact Gunnison sage- similar, there is a crucial temporal p. 179). As discussed, viability of the six grouse beyond the scope of each distinction between them. The statutory satellite populations is currently at risk, individual threat. For example, grazing definition of an ‘‘endangered species,’’ a and those cover 37 percent of the practices inconsistent with local species that ‘‘is in danger of extinction,’’ species occupied range. Loss of as much ecological conditions alone may only connotes an established, present as 37 percent of the species’ occupied affect portions of Gunnison sage-grouse condition. The statutory definition of a range would impact the species’ overall habitat. However, grazing practices ‘‘threatened species,’’ a species that is viability. The cumulative effects of inconsistent with local ecological ‘‘likely to become an endangered ongoing and future threats, such as conditions, combined with invasive species within the foreseeable future,’’ habitat loss (Factor A) and drought plants, drought, and recreational connotes a predicted or expected future (discussed above), will further activities may collectively result in condition. Thus, a key statutory contribute to declining and increasingly substantial habitat decline across large difference between a threatened and isolated populations and, ultimately, portions of the species’ range. In turn, endangered species is the time of when smaller population size and structure. climate change may exacerbate those a species may be in danger of extinction, Based on the best available effects, further diminishing habitat and either now (endangered) or in the information, we determined that increasing the isolation of already foreseeable future (threatened). resiliency, redundancy, and declining populations, making them As a result of new information and representation in Gunnison sage-grouse more susceptible to genetic comments received on the proposed are inadequate, or will be inadequate in deterioration, disease, or catastrophic rule, we have reconsidered our prior the future, to ensure the species’ long- events such as drought and fire. determination that the Gunnison sage- term viability. The best available Drought, a substantial threat to grouse is currently in danger of information indicates population Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide, likely extinction and therefore meets the redundancy, in particular, will be intensifies other threats such as definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ limited or compromised in the future, predation, invasive plants, habitat loss, under the Act. This reconsideration due to the probable extirpation of one or and fire. The impact of residential focuses on the principal threat relied more satellite populations, thereby development is increased by the upon in the proposed rule, the threat to decreasing the species’ chances of additional disturbance footprint and the species posed by current residential survival in the face of limiting factors. area of species’ avoidance of other development and associated The rangewide cumulative effects of infrastructure such as roads, powerlines, infrastructure, especially in the critical ongoing and future threats (see and fences. Further, predation on Gunnison Basin population area. discussions in Factors A through C, and Gunnison sage-grouse may increase as a In the proposed rule, we reported that E) will further compromise resiliency, result of the increase in human the results of a GIS analysis of parcel redundancy, and representation of the disturbance and development. The ownership and development in species. Current and future threats to impact of residential development can occupied habitat in Gunnison County the Gunnison Basin population (in be increased by other anthropogenic indicated that the current level of particular, see Drought, Climate Change, stressors resulting in habitat loss and residential development in this habitat and Disease sections) combined with decline, such as powerlines, roads, and was strongly decreasing the likelihood the probable loss of one or more satellite other infrastructure. Numerous threats of Gunnison sage-grouse using 49 populations and overall reduction of are likely acting cumulatively to further percent of this land area as nesting range indicate the long-term persistence increase the likelihood that the species habitat. This analysis was based on a of Gunnison sage-grouse is at risk. will become extinct in the future. The model indicating Gunnison sage-grouse While sage-grouse have evolved with cumulative effects of ongoing and future tend to select nest sites in larger drought, population trends suggest that threats (Factors A through E), and small landscapes (1.5 km [0.9 mi] radii) with drought is at least correlated with, and and declining population size and a low density of residential likely an underlying cause of, observed structure, in particular, are likely to development (Aldridge 2012, p. 10). We declines. We found that drought is a further reduce resiliency, redundancy, considered the results of applying this current and future threat to Gunnison and representation of the species. modeling to the current level of sage-grouse. Based on the best available residential development to be information, pesticides are being used Determination particularly concerning given the close infrequently enough and in accordance We have carefully assessed the best link of nesting habitat to early brood with manufacturer labeling such that scientific and commercial information rearing habitat and the sensitivity of the they are not adversely affecting available regarding the past, present, species population dynamics during populations of the Gunnison sage- and future threats to the Gunnison sage- these life history stages. In assessing the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69303

risk posed by current levels of interaction among climate change, within the foreseeable future. As noted residential development, we also noted invasive plants and drought/weather) in the 2009 Department of the Interior that the GSRSC (2005, pp. 160–61) are still current threats to the species, Solicitor’s opinion on foreseeable hypothesized that residential density in but when considered individually and future, ‘‘in some cases, quantifying the excess of one housing unit per 1.3 km2 cumulatively with other current threats foreseeable future in terms of years may (0.5 mi2) could cause declines in (including the lower level of the threat add rigor and transparency to the Gunnison sage-grouse populations, and of development to the Gunnison Basin Secretary’s analysis if such information that under this hypothesis residential population), they do not support a is available. Such definitive development is limiting the species in finding that the species is currently in quantification, however, is rarely approximately 18 percent of its habitat danger of extinction. Based on the possible and not required for a in Gunnison County. preceding analysis, we have determined foreseeable future analysis’’ (M–37021, Since our proposed listing rule, we that Gunnison sage-grouse is not an January 16, 2009; p. 9). In some specific reevaluated residential development endangered species as defined in the cases where extensive data are available and found it to be a current threat to the Act. to allow for the modeling of extinction species as a whole, but that it is a lower However, considering both our probability over various time periods magnitude threat to the Gunnison Basin analysis of the species’ status here and (e.g., the PVAs performed on the population than we previously thought. in the proposed listing rule, and new Gunnison sage-grouse), the Service has Our reevaluation of residential information and comments received provided quantitative estimates of what development in the Gunnison Basin following publication of the proposed may be considered to constitute the (Factor A above) found that human rule, we find that Gunnison sage-grouse foreseeable future. developments in occupied Gunnison qualifies as a threatened species under We consider foreseeable future in this sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison County the Act because it is likely to become in final rule to be 40–60 years based on the occur and have increased over time. Our danger of extinction throughout all of its following: overall conclusion, however, was that range in the foreseeable future. (1) The most current and current development in the Gunnison The Act does not define the term comprehensive demographic study and Basin population area is a threat of low ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ In a general sense, population viability analysis (Davis magnitude to the persistence of this the foreseeable future is the period of 2012). In contrast to the RCP PVA Gunnison sage-grouse population. The time over which events can reasonably described below, this study exclusively Gunnison Basin population is currently be anticipated. In the context of the used demographic information from relatively stable, based on population definition of ‘‘threatened species,’’ the Gunnison sage-grouse and included trends since 1996. It is also the most Service interprets the foreseeable future environmental stochastic factors such as important population for the species’ as the extent of time over which the fire, disease, and drought. This analysis survival with approximately 63 percent Secretary can reasonably rely on was done for the Gunnison Basin (2005– of occupied habitat, approximately 60 predictions about the future in making 2010) and the San Miguel populations percent of the leks, and 84 percent of determinations about the future (2007–2010), the two largest the rangewide population occurring in conservation status of the species. It is populations (Davis 2012, entire). The Gunnison Basin. Thus the current level important to note that references to study concluded that the small San of threat of residential development in ‘‘reliable predictions’’ are not meant to Miguel Basin population had a high the Gunnison Basin is not causing the refer to reliability in a statistical sense probability (53 percent chance) of going rangewide population to trend towards of confidence or significance; rather the extinct in the next 30 years. For the extinction. words ‘‘rely’’ and ‘‘reliable’’ are Gunnison Basin population, the model Based on the factors presented in the intended to be used according to their found a minimum extinction time of 31 Residential Development Section above common, non-technical meanings in years and a mean extinction time of 58 (Factor A), outside of the Gunnison ordinary usage. In other words, we years, based on a six-year data set Basin, residential development is likely consider a prediction to be reliable if it during a period with a slightly declining to have the greatest impact on the San is reasonable to depend upon it in population. However, because the study Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims making decisions, and if that prediction occurred during a drought period and Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations of does not extend past the support of the overall population declined during Gunnison sage-grouse. For the scientific data or reason so as to venture this period, which is inconsistent with remaining three Gunnison sage-grouse into the realm of speculation. the long-term record of stability for this populations, we found that current In considering threats to the species population, we are also utilizing the residential development may impact and whether they rise to the level such RCP PVA in our consideration of the individual birds or areas of habitat, but that listing the species as a threatened foreseeable future. is a threat of low magnitude at the or endangered species is warranted, we (2) A second population viability population level at the present time. assess factors such as the imminence of analysis done in conjunction with the Although residential development is a the threat (is it currently affecting the RCP. This PVA found that small current and future threat to the San species or, if not, when do we expect populations of birds (< 25 and 25 to 50 Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims the effect from the threat to commence, birds) are at a high risk of extinction Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations, we and whether it is reasonable to expect within the next 50 years (2055) with an do not believe that it is a significant the threat to continue into the future), 86 percent and 59 percent chance of threat to the species rangewide such the scope or extent of the threat, the extinction respectively (GSRSC 2005, that it meets the definition of an severity of the threat, and the synergistic pp. 170 and G–27). For the Gunnison endangered species. effects of all threats combined. If we Basin population, this PVA found the We find that the other factors that we determine that the species is not probability of extinction in the next 50 identified as threats in the proposed currently in danger of extinction, then years was less than 1 percent (GSRSC rule (inadequate regulatory we must determine whether, based 2005, p. G–21). mechanisms, genetic issues and small upon the nature of the threats, it is (3) The Gunnison Basin Climate population sizes, predation, improper reasonable to anticipate that the species Change Vulnerability Assessment (The grazing management, and the may become in danger of extinction Nature Conservancy (TNC) et al. 2011,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

p. 4), which uses a timeframe of 50 populations and potential connectivity exclusively used demographic years to project the likely effects of between the Gunnison Basin and information from Gunnison sage-grouse climate change in the Gunnison Basin. satellite populations to the west. and incorporated environmental As noted in the proposed listing rule, Although our reevaluation found the stochasticity (variability in population we anticipate that current threats to the threat of current residential growth rates due to external factors such species will increase over time development in the Gunnison Basin to as weather, fire, disease, and predation) throughout the species’ range. Based on be of a lower magnitude than previously and demographic stochasticity the analysis of the listing Factors A–E thought, we believe that the level of (variability in population growth rates described above, we now find that the impact and threat from residential due to survival and reproduction rates). Gunnison sage-grouse is ‘‘likely to development will increase in the Model simulations predicted population become endangered throughout all or a Gunnison Basin population in the declines in the future (Davis 2012, pp. significant portion of its range within future. 105–106). Combining the six years of the foreseeable future’’ based on the The collective influences of demographic data (2005 to 2010) from following continuing, new, and fragmentation and disturbance from both populations, environmental increasing threats, which are acting on roads (Factor A) reduce the amount of stochastic simulations resulted in a the species individually and effective habitat, as roads are largely minimum extinction time of 31 years cumulatively, contributing to the avoided by sage-grouse. Powerlines and and a mean or expected extinction time challenges faced by Gunnison sage- fences (Factor A) also fragment habitat in this PVA of 58 years. Although this grouse in the foreseeable future: and are avoided by sage-grouse. They model shows that the extinction (1) Small population size and are also sources of direct mortality probability for the Gunnison Basin population structure (Factor E) occur in through strikes, electrocution, and by population is farther into the future, it all of the six satellite populations, or attracting and increasing the predator still supports a determination that the across approximately 37 percent of population. species is likely to become endangered occupied range for the species. Without (3) Drought (Factor E) has contributed in the foreseeable future. concerted management effort, one or to substantial declines in all Gunnison (7) We have found the above-listed more of the satellite populations are sage-grouse populations. Drought likely factors to be significant threats that are likely to go extinct in the next 50 years. intensifies other stressors such as acting on Gunnison sage-grouse Satellite populations are isolated and predation, invasive plants, and fire. populations rangewide and collectively small, with generally declining trends, Based on the best available information, are likely to increase over time. We low resilience, and low genetic we concluded that drought is a further examined whether these threats diversity. The small sizes of the satellite substantial threat to Gunnison sage- to the Gunnison sage-grouse are populations of Gunnison sage-grouse grouse rangewide, both now and into adequately addressed by existing make them particularly sensitive to the future. regulatory mechanisms (Factor D). We stochastic and demographic (4) Warming is occurring more rapidly evaluated the adequacy of existing local, fluctuations, and this vulnerability is in the southwestern region of the United State, and Federal plans, laws, and exacerbated by other threats such as States, including western Colorado, than regulations currently in place across the drought. Having multiple populations elsewhere in the country. Based on the range of the species and determined that across a broad geographic area best available information on climate while they will help to reduce the (population redundancy) is needed to change projections over the next 35 negative effects of human development provide insurance against such years or so, climate change (Factor A) and infrastructure on Gunnison sage- catastrophic events. has the potential to alter important grouse in some respects, and that (2) Gunnison sage-grouse require large seasonal habitats and food resources of continuation of these efforts across the areas of sagebrush for long-term Gunnison sage-grouse, the distribution species’ range will be necessary for persistence, and thus are affected by and extent of sagebrush, and the conservation of the species, factors that occur at the landscape scale. occurrence of invasive weeds and cumulatively the existing regulatory Habitat decline, including habitat loss, associated fire frequencies. Climate mechanisms are not being appropriately degradation, and fragmentation of change effects, including increased implemented such that land-use sagebrush habitats (Factor A), is a drought, are predicted in all practices result in habitat conditions primary cause of the decline of populations. that adequately support the life-history Gunnison sage-grouse populations. (5) West Nile virus (Factor C) is needs of the species. Existing plans, Habitat loss due to residential and present throughout most of the range of laws, and regulations are not effective at infrastructural development (including Gunnison sage-grouse. Although the ameliorating the threats resulting from roads, powerlines, and fences) is a disease has not yet been documented in small population size and structure, significant threat to Gunnison sage- any Gunnison sage-grouse, it has caused habitat decline, drought, climate grouse across its range. Due to habitat large mortality events and has also change, and disease as discussed above. decline, the seven individual caused the deaths of other gallinaceous Further, while these regulatory populations are now mostly isolated, birds including greater sage-grouse. The mechanisms may help reduce current with limited migration and gene flow effects of drought and increased threats to the species, they are among populations, increasing the temperatures will contribute to the insufficient to fully reduce or eliminate likelihood of population extirpations. prevalence and spread of West Nile the increase in threats that may act on a. Thirty-two percent of occupied virus and, therefore, the exposure of the species in the future. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat rangewide Gunnison sage-grouse to this disease. (8) Other current and future threats to is at risk of residential development We concluded that West Nile virus is a the species identified in this final rule, (Factor A). Residential development is a future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse including grazing management substantial risk to the San Miguel, rangewide. inconsistent with local ecological Poncha Pass, and Cerro-Cimarron-Sims (6) The Davis PVA (2012) is the most conditions, fences, invasive plants, fire, populations, and the effects of current and comprehensive mineral development, pin˜ on-juniper residential development will likely demographic study and population encroachment, large scale water reduce connectivity among satellite viability analysis. This study development (all in Factor A); predation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69305

(primarily associated with structure, drought, climate change, and The primary purpose of the Act is the anthropogenic disturbance and habitat disease. While some efforts have conservation of endangered and decline)(Factor C); and recreation provided conservation benefits at the threatened species and the ecosystems (Factor E) are acting at a more localized rangewide scale, such as the CCAA and upon which they depend. The ultimate level, and while individually may affect CEs, these and other conservation efforts goal of such conservation efforts is the some populations more than others, are limited in scope and therefore recovery of these listed species, so that they do not individually or limited in their ability to effectively they no longer need the protective cumulatively rise to the level of a reduce or remove the threats to the measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of significant rangewide threat. However, species and its habitat across its range. the Act requires the Service to develop the current impacts of these threats do Thus, although ongoing conservation and implement recovery plans for the contribute to the overall status of the efforts are a positive step toward conservation of endangered and species as ‘‘likely to become endangered conserving Gunnison sage-grouse, and threatened species. The recovery in the foreseeable future’’. As discussed some have undoubtedly reduced the planning process involves the under the Threat Factors sections above, severity of certain threats to the species, identification of actions that are we also expect that many of these on the whole we find that current necessary to halt or reverse the species’ threats will increase in the future. conservation efforts are not sufficient to decline by addressing the threats to its offset the full scope of threats to survival and recovery. The goal of this Summary of the Threatened Gunnison sage-grouse or prevent the process is to restore listed species to a Determination increase in threats that result in the point where they are secure, self- In summary, multiple threats affecting species likely becoming in danger of sustaining, and functioning components Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat are extinction in the foreseeable future. of their ecosystems. occurring and interacting Therefore, we cannot conclude that the Recovery planning includes the synergistically, resulting in increasingly species is not warranted for listing. development of a recovery outline fragmented habitat and other threats. Therefore, on the basis of the best shortly after a species is listed, and We expect all of these threats to increase available scientific and commercial preparation of a draft and final recovery in the future. The components of human information, we are listing Gunnison plan. The recovery outline guides the infrastructure, once present on the sage-grouse as threatened in accordance immediate implementation of urgent landscape, become virtually permanent with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the recovery actions and describes the features, fragmenting sagebrush habitats, Act. process to be used to develop a recovery and resulting in the reduction or The Gunnison sage grouse is plan. The recovery plan identifies site- elimination of proactive and effective restricted in its range and the threats specific management actions that set a management alternatives. We anticipate occur throughout its range. Therefore, trigger for a review of the five factors other threats such as drought, climate we assessed the status of the species that control whether a species remains change, invasive species, and fire throughout its entire range. Under the endangered or threatened or may be frequency to increase in the future and Act and our implementing regulations, downlisted or delisted, and methods for to act synergistically to become greater a species may warrant listing if it is monitoring recovery progress. Revisions threats to Gunnison sage-grouse. We endangered or threatened throughout all of the plan may be made to address anticipate renewable energy or a significant portion of its range. continuing or new threats to the species, development, particularly geothermal Because we have determined that as new substantive information becomes and wind energy development, to Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened available. Incorporating or adapting increase in some population areas. throughout all of its range, no portion of components of the Gunnison sage- Taken cumulatively, the ongoing and its range can be ‘‘significant’’ for grouse RCP for a recovery outline will future habitat-based impacts in all purposes of the definitions of be considered. Recovery plans also populations will likely act to fragment ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened establish a framework for agencies to and further isolate populations of the species.’’ See the Final Policy on coordinate their recovery efforts and Gunnison sage-grouse. As these threats Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant provide estimates of the cost of increase, one or more of the satellite Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered implementing recovery tasks. Recovery populations are likely to go extinct due Species Act’s Definitions of teams (composed of species experts, to small population size, genetic factors, ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened Federal and State agencies, and stochastic environmental events Species’’ (79 FR 37577). nongovernmental organizations, and and the remaining populations will stakeholders) are often established to Available Conservation Measures become in danger of extinction. develop recovery plans. When Therefore, we find that Gunnison Conservation measures provided to completed, the recovery outline, draft sage-grouse is likely to become species listed as endangered or recovery plan, and the final recovery endangered throughout all of its range threatened under the Act include plan will be available on our Web site in the foreseeable future, and thus is a recognition, recovery actions, (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or threatened species as defined by the requirements for Federal protection, and from our Western Colorado Field Office Act. prohibitions against certain practices. (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As noted above, in determining that Recognition through listing results in Implementation of recovery actions Gunnison sage-grouse is a threatened public awareness and conservation by generally requires the participation of a species, we also considered ongoing Federal, State, Tribal, and local broad range of partners, including other conservation efforts and existing agencies, private organizations, and Federal agencies, States, Tribes, regulatory mechanisms. Based on the individuals. The Act encourages nongovernmental organizations, best available information (Factor A and cooperation with the States and requires businesses, and private landowners. Factor D), such conservation efforts are that recovery actions be carried out for Examples of recovery actions include not currently adequate to address the all listed species. The protection habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of full scope of threats to Gunnison sage- required by Federal agencies and the native vegetation), research, captive grouse, particularly habitat loss and prohibitions against certain activities propagation and reintroduction, and decline, small population size and are discussed, in part, below. outreach and education. The recovery of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

many listed species cannot be maintenance of roads or highways by habitat to agricultural land use; habitat accomplished solely on Federal lands the Federal Highway Administration. improvement or restoration projects because their range may occur primarily The Act and its implementing involving mowing, brush-beating, Dixie or solely on non-Federal lands. To regulations set forth a series of general harrowing, disking, plowing, achieve recovery of these species prohibitions and exceptions that apply Tebuthiuron (Spike) and other herbicide requires cooperative conservation efforts to all endangered and threatened applications, or prescribed burning; and on private, State, and Tribal lands. wildlife. The prohibitions of section fire suppression activities. Funding for recovery actions may be 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR (3) Actions that would result in the available from a variety of sources, 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, loss or reduction in native herbaceous including Federal budgets, State make it illegal for any person subject to understory plant cover or height, and a programs, and cost share grants for non- the jurisdiction of the United States to reduction or loss of associated Federal landowners, the academic take (includes harass, harm, pursue, arthropod communities. Such activities community, and nongovernmental hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, could include, but are not limited to, organizations. In addition, pursuant to or collect; or to attempt any of these), livestock grazing, the application of section 6 of the Act, the States of import, export, ship in interstate herbicides or insecticides, prescribed Colorado and Utah will be eligible for commerce in the course of commercial burning and fire suppression activities; Federal funds to implement activity, or sell or offer for sale in and seeding of nonnative plant species management actions that promote the interstate or foreign commerce any that would compete with native species protection and recovery of the Gunnison listed species. Under the Lacey Act (18 for water, nutrients, and space. sage-grouse. Information on our grant U.S.C. 42–43; 16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), it (4) Actions that would result in programs that are available to aid is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, Gunnison sage-grouse avoidance of an species recovery can be found at: http:// carry, transport, or ship any such area during one or more seasonal www.fws.gov/grants. wildlife that has been taken illegally. periods. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, the construction Please let us know if you are Certain exceptions apply to agents of the of vertical structures such as power interested in participating in recovery Service and State conservation agencies. We may issue permits to carry out lines, fences, communication towers, efforts for this species. Additionally, we otherwise prohibited activities buildings; motorized and non-motorized invite you to submit any new involving endangered and threatened recreational use; and activities such as information on this species whenever it wildlife species under certain well drilling, operation, and becomes available and any information circumstances. Regulations governing maintenance, which would entail you may have for recovery planning permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for significant human presence, noise, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION purposes (see endangered species, and at 17.32 for infrastructure. CONTACT). threatened species. With regard to Questions regarding whether specific Section 7(a) of the Act requires endangered wildlife, a permit must be activities would constitute a violation of Federal agencies to evaluate their issued for the following purposes: for section 9 of the Act should be directed actions with respect to any species that scientific purposes, to enhance the to the Western Colorado Field Office is proposed or listed as endangered or propagation or survival of the species, (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). threatened and with respect to its and for incidental take in connection Requests for copies of the regulations critical habitat, if any is designated. with otherwise lawful activities. concerning listed animals and general Regulations implementing this It is our policy, as published in the inquiries regarding prohibitions and interagency cooperation provision of the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR permits may be addressed to the U.S. Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 34272), to identify to the maximum Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered When a species is listed, section 7(a)(2) extent practicable at the time a species Species Permits, Denver Federal Center, of the Act requires Federal agencies to is listed, those activities that would or P.O. Box 25486, Denver, Colorado, ensure that activities they authorize, would not constitute a violation of 80225–0489 (telephone (303) 236–4256; fund, or carry out are not likely to section 9 of the Act. The intent of this facsimile (303) 236–0027). jeopardize the continued existence of policy is to increase public awareness of Under section 4(d) of the ESA, the the species or destroy or adversely the effect of a listing on proposed and Secretary has discretion to issue such modify its critical habitat. If a Federal ongoing activities within the range of regulations as he deems necessary and action may affect a listed species or its listed species. The following activities advisable to provide for the critical habitat, the responsible Federal could potentially result in a violation of conservation of threatened species. Our agency must enter into consultation section 9 of the Act; this list is not implementing regulations (50 CFR with the Service. comprehensive: 17.31) for threatened wildlife generally Federal agency actions within the (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, incorporate the prohibitions of section 9 species’ habitat that may require possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, of the Act for endangered wildlife, consultation as described in the or transporting of the species, including except when a ‘‘special rule’’ preceding paragraph include import or export across State lines and promulgated pursuant to section 4(d) of management and any other landscape- international boundaries, except for the Act has been issued with respect to altering activities on Federal lands properly documented antique a particular threatened species. In such administered by the Bureau of Land specimens of these taxa at least 100 a case, the general prohibitions in 50 Management, U.S. Forest Service, and years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) CFR 17.31 would not apply to that National Park Service; issuance of of the Act. species, and instead, the special rule section 404 Clean Water Act permits by (2) Actions that would result in the would define the specific take the Army Corps of Engineers; loss of sagebrush overstory plant cover prohibitions and exceptions that would construction and management of gas or height. Such activities could include, apply for that particular threatened pipeline and power line rights-of-way but are not limited to, the removal of species, which we consider necessary by the Federal Energy Regulatory native shrub vegetation by any means and advisable to conserve the species. Commission; and construction and for any infrastructure construction The Secretary also has the discretion to project; direct conversion of sagebrush prohibit by regulation with respect to a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69307

threatened species any act prohibited by Targeting Satellite Populations for Overarching Conservation Objectives section 9(a)(1) of the ESA. Exercising Conservation Efforts We recommend protections that this discretion, which has been should apply rangewide and could be delegated to the Service by the The Gunnison Basin is the largest population (approximately 3,978 birds achieved on Federal and non-Federal Secretary, the Service has developed lands. general prohibitions that are appropriate in 2014) and, while showing variation for most threatened species in 50 CFR from 1996 to 2014, has been relatively Protection of Gunnison Sage-Grouse 17.31 and exceptions to those stable. However, redundancy to the Habitat That Is Currently Occupied, or prohibitions in 50 CFR 17.32. We Gunnison Basin population is a That Becomes Occupied Through continue to evaluate the appropriateness necessary element to have confidence in Future Expansion the conservation of the Gunnison sage- of issuing a special rule for the Any further loss of habitat quality or grouse. Confidence in redundancy Gunnison sage-grouse in the future. quantity of habitat will decrease the provided by a satellite population is long-term viability of Gunnison sage- Conservation Measures for Gunnison based on whether the satellite grouse. In addition, current occupied Sage-Grouse Recovery population is able to withstand habitat is not of sufficient quality or perturbations and recover and persist. quantity to provide confidence in We want to work cooperatively with We recommend developing a recovery and to support the ongoing conservation conservation of the Gunnison sage- strategy that will be built around the grouse. Therefore the goal should be to efforts of the many public and private resilience of multiple satellite partners across the range. Our desire is protect all habitat that is occupied or populations to provide redundancy to that becomes occupied through future to build on the important existing the Gunnison Basin population. conservation efforts of many partners to expansion from future loss and/or The total abundance of Gunnison degradation, including temporary bring the species to a point where listing sage-grouse is an important indicator of degradation related to indirect impacts will no longer be necessary. species-level resiliency. Of the six of surface occupancy and/or disruptive In 2005, the Gunnison sage-grouse satellite populations, Poncha Pass and activities. Range-wide Conservation Plan (RCP) Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa A 4-mile restriction on surface (Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide have very low population numbers to disturbance (e.g. No Surface Occupancy) Steering Committee 2005) identified the extent that their potential to provide for all surface-disturbing activities conservation actions for the Gunnison redundancy would be very limited around a lek should be enforced. If there sage-grouse. In 2013, the counties without extraordinary conservation are circumstances that preclude No belonging to the County Coalition for actions taking place over a long period Surface Occupancy within 4 miles Gunnison sage-grouse indicated that of time. Therefore, to maximize the around a lek, such as existing they would work with Colorado Parks & potential to achieve resilience in the disturbances, disruptive activities, or Wildlife (CPW) to update and revise the satellite populations that would provide valid existing fluid or locatable mineral RCP in the near future to better reflect redundancy to the Gunnison Basin rights in occupied habitat, permitted best available science and conservation population, our initial activities should follow the mitigation progress made to date. Our partners, the recommendations for conservation hierarchy of avoiding impact to the counties, and the public asked the measures focus on the Pin˜ on Mesa, degree possible, minimizing impact, and Service for our perspective on what Crawford, San Miguel, and Dove Creek- providing compensatory mitigation to conservation actions would be Monticello satellite populations. In offset any unavoidable impacts. In necessary to conserve the Gunnison addition, the Service agrees with the addition, for those areas where No sage-grouse. In advance of the revision RCP assertion that the Cerro Summit- Surface Occupancy is precluded, the following recommendations apply: of the RCP, and in advance of recovery Cimarron-Sims Mesa area is needed for • planning for the species, the Service the conservation of Gunnison sage- Limit permitted surface gathered the best available information grouse, as it has and should continue to disturbances to 1 per section with no more than 3 percent surface and conferred with our partners to provide an important habitat linkage to disturbance, factoring in existing and outline conservation recommendations the other satellite populations. new impacts, in that section. that, if achieved, would improve the However, the Service recommends Protect breeding habitat and leks from focusing limited conservation resources Service’s confidence in the conservation future loss and/or degradation, on the four larger satellite populations of Gunnison sage-grouse. The including temporary degradation related while still protecting the Cerro Summit- conservation recommendations to indirect impacts of surface occupancy Cimarron-Sims Mesa area. This identified here are intended to update, and/or disruptive activities. approach should yield the quickest modify, and build on the conservation • Leks and the area within 0.6 miles conservation results and improve the strategies in the 2005 RCP and to be must be avoided and protected from discussed in the context of an upcoming resilience of the species as a whole. surface occupancy and disruptive revision to the RCP. The approach and Summary of Service Recommendations activities. actions identified in this section, if Æ If avoidance and/or disturbance completed, would help increase the As soon as possible, we want to work is not possible due to pre-existing valid satellite populations’ redundancy to the with CPW and UDWR to convene rights, adjacent development, or split Gunnison Basin population, thereby science experts to identify targets for estate issues, development and/or increasing the resiliency of the species. population numbers, habitat acreage, disruptive activities should only be The Service further recommends that a sagebrush cover, and limiting factors for allowed in non-habitat areas with an recovery strategy include population the above-identified satellite adequate buffer to preclude impacts to and habitat targets for the Gunnison populations. Development of the targets sage-grouse habitat from noise and other Basin and the satellite populations will guide recovery efforts and improve human activities. using a scientifically defensible, peer- confidence in the conservation of the Protect nesting habitat from any reviewed approach. species as they are achieved. future loss and/or degradation,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

including temporary degradation related RCP and are representative of the pre- limiting habitat types and prioritize to indirect impacts of surface occupancy disturbance habitat type. habitat restoration efforts. The Gunnison and/or disruptive activities. Basin Sage-Grouse Habitat Prioritization Range-Wide Mitigation Strategy • The area from 1 to 6.5 km (0.6 to Tool (HPT) identifies sage-grouse 4.0 mi) around a lek must be protected In the Gunnison Basin and the habitat and then discounts the value of between March 1st and July 15th. satellite populations, any development the habitat based on distance to Outside of this period, some disturbance and/or disruptive activities in occupied structures, roads, and power lines. may occur, but only if the disturbance habitat will impact Gunnison sage- However, the HPT covers only the does not exceed the disturbance cap, all grouse. We recommend the Gunnison Basin and does not possess feasible measures are taken to minimize development of land-use regulations the functionality to determine habitat impacts, and it is determined that the that prescribe the following mitigation quality. A tool should be developed for cumulative impact does not negatively hierarchy of avoid, minimize, and all of the populations to monitor and affect reproductive success or reduce an compensate for unavoidable impacts, at detect changes to habitat quality and individual’s physiological ability to the State or local level. seasonal habitat availability. A habitat cope with environmental stress, and If avoidance of surface disturbance mapping tool could help identify where will not in the future. and disruptive activities around leks and how to improve habitat quality, Protect winter habitat from any future cannot be achieved, efforts to minimize prioritize habitat improvement projects, loss and/or degradation, including and compensate for impacts will not evaluate development threats and temporary degradation related to offset impacts. Avoidance of direct and/ protection needs, and adaptively indirect impacts of surface occupancy or indirect disturbance of the area manage Gunnison sage-grouse for the and/or disruptive activities. within 0.6 miles of existing leks is satellite populations. critical, due to sage-grouse site fidelity • Winter habitats need to be Reduce Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment identified by CPW or UDWR and (Connelly 2000). If land use regulations quantify the Pinyon-juniper encroachment protected from October 1st to March 1st. negative impacts of surface disturbance degrades and, if untreated, eliminates If winter habitat and winter refuge areas and disruptive activities on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Treatment of phase are not identified, all potential winter sage-grouse and then require an offset I and phase II encroachment levels of habitat must be protected from October that provides a net conservation benefit, pinyon-juniper adjacent to occupied 1st to March 1st. Outside of this period, that would help ensure that negative habitat is often the quickest and least some disturbance may occur, but only if impacts do not overshadow expensive method to restore sagebrush the disturbance does not exceed the conservation efforts. To be effective, habitat for sage-grouse. Under the disturbance cap, all feasible measures mitigation policy must require Natural Resource Conservation Service are taken to minimize impacts, and if it avoidance of impacts as the highest (NRCS) Sage-Grouse Initiative (SGI), a is determined that the cumulative priority, then minimization of impacts geo-spatial analysis of potential pinyon- impact does not remove or negatively and finally offset of unavoidable juniper removal is being completed for impact the stands of sage-brush impacts through conservation actions. each of the Western Association of Fish necessary for Gunnison sage-grouse The San Miguel and Dove Creek- & Wildlife Association (WAFWA) sage- winter survival. Monticello satellite populations may be grouse Management Zones (MZ). The Maintain summer brood-rearing impacted by oil and gas development. range of the Gunnison sage-grouse is in habitat. In grazed areas, require grazing To manage the potential impact of oil MZ VII. Once the analysis is completed management appropriate to local and gas development, mitigation policy for MZ VII, phase I and II encroaching ecological conditions to promote and should specify best management pinyon-juniper should be removed, achieve habitat characteristics practices and conservation measures to starting within 6.5 km (4 mi) of representative of healthy sagebrush minimize impacts of oil and gas occupied habitat and expanding out by ecosystems and sage-grouse habitat. • development to Gunnison sage-grouse 6.5 km (4 mi) as restored habitat is Areas within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of and their habitat. occupied until habitat targets are known late summer/brood-rearing achieved for each satellite population. habitat must be maintained or enhanced Conservation Actions Recommended to represent habitat characteristics for San Miguel, Dove Creek-Monticello, Road Closures representative of brood-rearing habitats Crawford, and Pin˜ on Mesa Satellite Disturbance from roads and vehicular described in the RCP. Populations traffic near leks during the breeding Prevent noise disturbance during the The following are near-term high- season must be reduced and/or breeding season. priority recommendations for four of the minimized. Road closures, seasonal • Do not allow any disruptive satellite populations. timing restrictions, and proper siting of activities or surface occupancy that will new roads should be used to eliminate Assess Existing Habitat Availability and increase noise levels 10 dBa above or minimize disturbance. In the Pin˜ on Quality ambient noise level measured at sunrise Mesa population, a seasonal closure and at the perimeter of leks during the Habitat loss and degradation are time of day restrictions for the section breeding season (March 1st to May recognized as causes of the decline in of MS County Road that is directly 31st). abundance and distribution of Gunnison adjacent to one of the leks will remove sage-grouse. The Service agrees with the Increase Occupied Habitat a significant source of potential 2005 RCP recommendation that disturbance to that population. Reclaim and restore degraded habitat Gunnison sage-grouse seasonal habitat to meet characteristics of functional, should be identified, habitat quality Grazing Management Appropriate to seasonal sage-grouse habitats. assessed, and changes in habitat Ecological Conditions • Existing disturbances should meet monitored over time. If CPW and UDWR Overgrazing that is not appropriate for reclamation standards that are aimed at identify seasonal habitat types and ecological conditions on the range can restoring disturbances to functional assess habitat quality, it will improve lead to habitat degradation. Continued sage-grouse habitat as described in the their ability to identify potential enrollment of ranchers into the NRCS

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 69309

SGI will improve grazing management. Gunnison sage-grouse with sufficient (2) A waiver to exceed the 25 percent Landowners and land managers who protections can be considered as cropland limit to allow increased CRP manage cattle on both private and providing habitat protection. enrollment and incentive to create public lands should be encouraged to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat; and (3) Candidate Conservation Agreement manage across ownerships for sage- The addition of sagebrush and more With Assurances (CCAA) grouse conservation. The Service will forbs to the CRP seed mix would consider lands already enrolled in the Private lands already enrolled under improve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat Candidate Conservation Agreement with the Candidate Conservation Agreement more quickly than relying on natural Assurances, implementation of NRCS for Gunnison sage-grouse that is reestablishment. practices on private rangelands that administered by Colorado Parks & In Dolores County, Colorado, 6,431 follow Conference Opinion guidance, Wildlife will be considered as providing acres of occupied habitat and 10,869 and lands subject to other programs that habitat protection. acres of potentially suitable habitat are currently enrolled in CRP. In San require signed commitments to manage Enrollment in the Sage-Grouse Initiative Miguel County, Colorado, 303 acres of grazing appropriate to ecological (SGI) conditions when assessing the acreage occupied habitat and 4,742 acres of being grazed in a manner appropriate to Private lands managed under potentially suitable habitat are currently ecological conditions in a satellite Conservation Plans that follow the enrolled in CRP. The 2005 RCP population. guidance of the Natural Resource identified the lack of sagebrush as an Conservation Service’s Sage-Grouse issue and recommends that CRP target Prioritize Translocations Initiative (SGI) will be considered as establishment of 5,000 acres of The small population size and providing habitat protection. sagebrush within 3 miles of leks in Utah structure of the six satellite populations Enrollment in the Conservation Reserve and 3,000 acres of sagebrush within 6.5 of Gunnison sage-grouse raises concerns Program (CRP) km (4 mi) of leks in Colorado. about the probability of extirpation of the satellite populations and extinction The Service will consider private Protection Under Conservation of the species due to demographic and/ lands enrolled in the Farm Service Easements or environmental stochasticity. Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program Conservation easements with Colorado Parks & Wildlife has indicated (CRP) within the Dove Creek– provisions that protect Gunnison sage- that recent translocations have had a Monticello satellite population as grouse habitat will be considered as positive influence on the population providing habitat protection based on its providing habitat protection on private counts seen in 2012–2013. In order to assessment of the quality of habitat lands. The Service recommends that maximize the population augmentation provided by CRP practices. efforts to increase acreage under benefits of translocation, the Colorado The CRP State Acres for Wildlife conservation easements first prioritize Parks & Wildlife Trap and Transplant Enhancement (SAFE) program allows areas closest to active leks. Committee should revise the continuous sign-up and is designed to In San Miguel County and Montrose translocation strategy to allow for address State and regional high-priority County, new conservation easements prioritization of the Pin˜ on Mesa, wildlife objectives. Producers within a should focus on the Miramonte Basin, Crawford, San Miguel, and Dove Creek– SAFE area can submit offers to Iron Mesa, and Gurley Basin. Monticello satellite populations. The voluntarily enroll acres in CRP contracts In the Dove Creek–Monticello revision should address how timing for 10–15 years. In exchange, producers population, the majority of occupied (spring and/or fall), age class (adult or receive annual CRP rental payments, habitat is privately owned (87 percent in yearling), gender, and quantity of incentives, and cost-share assistance to Dove Creek; 95 percent in Monticello). transplants can increase the resilience of establish, improve, connect, or create Conservation easements in the Dove the Pin˜ on Mesa, Crawford, San Miguel, higher quality habitat. In Colorado, the Creek–Monticello population should and Dove Creek–Monticello satellite goal of the Colorado Western Slope prioritize landowners participating in populations. CPW should also continue Grouse CRP SAFE project is to restore the Conservation Reserve Program to evaluate the effectiveness of and enhance habitat for the Columbian (CRP), if the habitat is recognized as translocation strategies to maximize sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage-grouse, already providing a high conservation their effectiveness. and Gunnison sage-grouse. The project value for the population. seeks to enroll 12,600 acres in CRP. Targeted opportunities under the Protection of Targeted Occupied Habitat Enrollment in CRP is limited by FSA NRCS Agricultural Conservation The Service agrees with the RCP to 25 percent of cropland in a county, Easement Program (ACEP) could play a recommendation that 90 percent of unless a waiver is granted. The major role in restoring sagebrush and habitats currently occupied, or that enrollment caps for the Dove Creek– understory grasses and forbs to provide become occupied through future Monticello satellite population counties the protection levels needed for the expansion should be protected through are: San Juan County, Utah 33,550 acres; population persistence. a combination of voluntary agreements, Dolores County, Colorado, 22,152 acres; Summary land use planning, conservation and San Miguel County, Colorado, 5,404 easements, fee-title acquisition, or land acres. An updated conservation strategy for trades. We would consider a variety of Current enrollment in San Juan the Gunnison sage-grouse should reflect conservation efforts as providing County is 33,654 acres. Three additions the complexity of the species’ biology, protection of occupied habitat. For could be made in San Juan County, the distribution of the species across the example: Utah, to increase the Gunnison sage- landscape, and the diverse stakeholders grouse conservation value of the CRP who are critical to success. The Service BLM Lands With an RMP That Protects program: (1) The addition of a CRP will assess not only population and Gunnison Sage-Grouse SAFE program targeting Gunnison sage- habitat status and trends, but also the BLM lands that will be managed grouse would make continuous signup degree to which current and projected under the new range-wide Resource available and could also provide threats are addressed when determining Management Plan (RMP) amendment for additional incentives for landowners; the confidence in the long-term

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2 69310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse. (Government-to-Government Relations critical habitat designation (published The status and trend of the total with Native American Tribal elsewhere in today’s Federal Register). population size of Gunnison sage-grouse Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive as well as the status and trend of the Order 13175 (Consultation and References Cited Gunnison Basin and satellite Coordination With Indian Tribal A complete list of references cited in populations influence confidence in the Governments), and the Department of this rulemaking is available on the resilience and redundancy evaluation. the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we Internet at http://www.regulations.gov The Service also needs to know that readily acknowledge our responsibility and upon request from the Western sage-grouse habitat for the satellite to communicate meaningfully with Colorado Field Office (see FOR FURTHER populations are of sufficient quality and recognized Federal Tribes on a INFORMATION CONTACT). quantity to support populations with a government-to-government basis. In high likelihood of persistence. accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 Authors Sufficient habitat quality and quantity of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal combined with resilient population Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust The primary authors of this package levels could provide confidence that the Responsibilities, and the Endangered are the staff members of the Western relative extinction risk in the future for Species Act), we readily acknowledge Colorado Field Office. the satellite populations is sufficiently our responsibilities to work directly List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 low. Finally, an assessment of habitat with tribes in developing programs for quality and quantity for all the healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Endangered and threatened species, populations will highlight potential tribal lands are not subject to the same Exports, Imports, Reporting and limiting habitat factors and target controls as Federal public lands, to recordkeeping requirements, conservation to efforts that should yield remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Transportation. the highest and most expedient impact to make information available to tribes. on Gunnison sage-grouse populations. The Service consulted with the Ute Final Regulation Promulgation Mountain Ute Tribe (Tribe) on March Required Determinations 26, 2014, regarding the proposed listing Accordingly, we amend part 17, National Environmental Policy Act (42 of Gunnison sage-grouse and proposed subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) critical habitat designation, and Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: potential impacts to Tribal activities on We have determined that PART 17—[AMENDED] environmental assessments and Pinecrest Ranch (USFWS 2014d, entire). environmental impact statements, as Owned by the Tribe under restricted fee status, Pinecrest Ranch includes 18,749 ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 defined under the authority of the continues to read as follows: National Environmental Policy Act ac of land in the Gunnison Basin (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not population area west of Gunnison, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– be prepared in connection with listing Colorado, including approximately 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. 12,000 ac of occupied habitat for a species as an endangered or ■ threatened species under the Gunnison sage-grouse. The consultation 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an Endangered Species Act. We published was focused primarily on potential entry for ‘‘Sage-grouse, Gunnison’’ to a notice outlining our reasons for this exemptions from take of Gunnison sage- the List of Endangered and Threatened determination in the Federal Register grouse on the ranch and exclusion of the Wildlife in alphabetical order under on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). ranch from critical habitat designation. ‘‘Birds’’ to read as follows: In consideration of the information Government-to-Government § 17.11 Endangered and threatened provided by the Tribe and Tribal wildlife. Relationship With Tribes conservation efforts for Gunnison sage- In accordance with the President’s grouse (see discussion in Factor D), the * * * * * memorandum of April 29, 1994 Service is excluding the ranch from the (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population Historic range where Status When Critical Special Common name Scientific name endangered or listed habitat rules threatened

******* BIRDS

******* Sage-grouse, Gunni- Centrocercus mini- U.S.A. (AZ, CO, Entire ...... T 854 17.95(b) NA son. mus. NM, UT).

*******

* * * * * Dated: November 7, 2014. Daniel M. Ashe, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2014–27109 Filed 11–19–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 13:26 Nov 19, 2014 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\20NOR2.SGM 20NOR2 rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES2