Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Part II

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination for the Gunnison Sage-grouse as a Threatened or Endangered Species; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59804 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 2339, D. D.C.). Therefore, we did not 800–877–8339. need to respond to the petition. Fish and Wildlife Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 2003 CNOR, we elevated the listing priority number for Gunnison 50 CFR Part 17 Background sage-grouse from 5 to 2 (69 FR 24876; Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 May 4, 2004), as the imminence of the [DOCKET NO. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0080] U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for threats had increased. In the subsequent MO 92210-0-0008 any petition to revise the Federal Lists CNOR (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005), we of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife maintained the listing priority number Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial for Gunnison sage-grouse as a 2. A and Plants; Determination for the scientific or commercial information listing priority number of 2 is assigned Gunnison Sage-grouse as a that listing a species may be warranted, to species with high magnitude threats Threatened or Endangered Species we make a finding within 12 months of that are imminent. the date of receipt of the petition. In this Plaintiffs amended their complaint in AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, finding, we determine whether the May 2004, to allege that the Service’s Interior. petitioned action is: (a) Not warranted, warranted but precluded finding and ACTION: Notice of the results of a status (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but decision not to emergency list the review. immediate proposal of a regulation Gunnison sage-grouse were in violation implementing the petitioned action is of the Act. The parties filed a stipulated SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and precluded by other pending proposals to settlement agreement with the court on Wildlife Service (Service), announce our determine whether species are November 14, 2005, which included a 12–month finding on whether to list the threatened or endangered, and provision that the Service would make Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus expeditious progress is being made to a proposed listing determination by minimus) as threatened or endangered add or remove qualified species from March 31, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the under the Endangered Species Act of the Federal Lists of Endangered and plaintiffs agreed to a one-week 1973, as amended (Act). After reviewing Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section extension (April 7, 2006) for this the best available scientific and 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we determination. commercial information, we find that treat a petition for which the requested In April 2005, the Colorado Division the species is warranted for listing. action is found to be warranted but of Wildlife (CDOW) applied to the Currently, however, listing the precluded as though resubmitted on the Service for an Enhancement of Survival Gunnison sage-grouse is precluded by date of such finding, that is, requiring a Permit for the Gunnison sage-grouse higher priority actions to amend the subsequent finding to be made within pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 12 months. We must publish these 12– Act. The permit application included a Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication month findings in the Federal Register. proposed Candidate Conservation of this 12-month finding, we will add Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) the Gunnison sage-grouse to our Previous Federal Actions between CDOW and the Service. The candidate species list. We will develop On January 18, 2000, we designated standard that a CCAA must meet is that a proposed rule to list this species as the Gunnison sage-grouse as a candidate the ‘‘benefits of the conservation our priorities allow. We will make any species under the Act, with a listing measures implemented under a CCAA, determination on critical habitat during priority number of 5. However, when combined with those benefits that development of the proposed listing Candidate Notices of Review (CNOR) would be achieved if it is assumed that rule. are only published annually; therefore, conservation measures were also to be the Federal Register notice regarding implemented on other necessary DATES: The determination announced in this document was made on September this decision was not published until properties, would preclude or remove any need to list the species.’’ The CCAA, 28, 2010. December 28, 2000 (65 FR 82310). Candidate species are plants and the permit application, and the ADDRESSES: This finding is available on animals for which the Service has Environmental Assessment were made the Internet at http:// sufficient information on their available for public comment on July 6, www.regulations.gov at Docket Number biological status and threats to propose 2005 (70 FR 38977). The CCAA and FWS-R6-ES-2009-0080. Supporting them as endangered or threatened under Environmental Assessment were documentation we used in preparing the Act, but for which the development finalized in October 2006, and the this finding is available for public of a proposed listing regulation is associated permit was issued on October inspection, by appointment, during precluded by other higher priority 23, 2006. Landowners with eligible normal business hours at the U.S. Fish listing activities. A listing priority of 5 property in southwestern Colorado who and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado is assigned to species with high wish to participate can voluntarily sign Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. magnitude threats that are non- up under the CCAA and associated Fish and Wildlife Service, 764 Horizon imminent. permit through a Certificate of Inclusion Drive, Building B, Grand Junction, On January 26, 2000, American Lands by providing habitat protection or Colorado 81506-3946. Please submit any Alliance, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, enhancement measures on their lands. If new information, materials, comments, and others petitioned the Service to list the Gunnison sage-grouse is listed under or questions concerning this finding to the Gunnison sage-grouse (Webb 2000, the Act, the permit authorizes incidental the above address. pp. 94-95). In 2003, the U.S. District take of Gunnison sage-grouse due to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Court ruled that the species was otherwise lawful activities in Allan Pfister, Western Colorado designated as a candidate by the Service accordance with the terms of the CCAA Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section); by prior to receipt of the petition, and that (e.g., crop cultivation, crop harvesting, telephone at (970) 243-2778 ext. 29; or the determination that a species should livestock grazing, farm equipment by facsimile at (970) 245-6933. If you be on the candidate list is equivalent to operation, commercial/residential use a telecommunications device for the a 12-month finding (American Lands development, etc.), as long as the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Alliance v. Gale A. Norton, C.A. No. 00- participating landowner is performing

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59805

activities identified in the Certificate of Biology and Ecology of Gunnison Sage- as a distinct species. The current ranges Inclusion. Four Certificates of Inclusion grouse of the two species do not overlap (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369). Due to have been issued by the CDOW and Gunnison Sage-grouse Species the several lines of evidence separating Service to private landowners to date. Description the two species cited above, we On April 11, 2006, the Service Sage-grouse are the largest grouse in determined that the best available determined that listing the Gunnison North America. Sage-grouse (both information indicates that the Gunnison sage-grouse as a threatened or greater and Gunnison) are most easily sage-grouse is a valid taxonomic species endangered species was not warranted identified by their large size, dark and a listable entity under the Act. and published the final listing brown color, distinctive black bellies, determination in the Federal Register long pointed tails, and association with Life History Characteristics on April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19954). sagebrush habitats. They are dimorphic Gunnison and greater sage-grouse Consequently, we removed Gunnison in size, with females being smaller. Both depend on a variety of shrub-steppe sage-grouse from the candidate species sexes have yellow-green eye combs, habitats throughout their life cycle and list at the time of the final listing which are less prominent in females. are considered obligate users of several determination. On November 14, 2006, Sage-grouse are known for their species of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. Plaintiffs (the County of San Miguel, elaborate mating ritual where males 42; Braun et al. 1976, p. 168; Schroeder Colorado; Center for Biological congregate on strutting grounds called et al. 1999, pp. 4-5; Connelly et al. Diversity; WildEarth Guardians; Public leks and ‘‘dance’’ to attract a mate. 2000a, pp. 970-972; Connelly et al. Employees for Environmental During the breeding season, males have 2004, p. 4-1, Miller et al. in press, p. 10). Responsibility; National Audubon conspicuous filoplumes (specialized Dietary requirements of the two species Society; The Larch Company; Center for erectile feathers on the neck), and are also similar, being composed of exhibit yellow-green apteria (fleshy bare nearly 100 percent sagebrush in the Native Ecosystems; Sinapu; Sagebrush patches of skin) on their breasts winter, and forbs and insects as well as Sea Campaign; Black Canyon Audubon (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2, 18). sagebrush in the remainder of the year Society; and Sheep Mountain Alliance) Gunnison sage-grouse are smaller in (Wallestad et al. 1975, p. 21; Schroeder filed a Complaint for Declaratory and size, have more white barring in their et al. 1999, p. 5; Young et al. 2000, p. Injunctive relief, pursuant to the Act, tail feathers, and have more filoplumes 452). Gunnison and greater sage-grouse and on October 24, 2007, filed an than greater sage-grouse. do not possess muscular gizzards and, amended Complaint for Declaratory and Since Gunnison and greater sage- therefore, lack the ability to grind and Injunctive relief, alleging that the 12– grouse were only recognized as separate digest seeds (Leach and Hensley 1954, month finding on the Gunnison sage- species in 2000, the vast majority of the p. 389). grouse violated the Act. On August 18, research relative to the biology and In addition to serving as a primary 2009, a stipulated settlement agreement management of the two species has been year-round food source, sagebrush also and Order was filed with the court, with conducted on greater sage-grouse. provides cover for nests (Connelly et al. a June 30, 2010, date by which the Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage- 2000a, pp. 970-971). Thus, sage-grouse Service shall submit to the Federal grouse have similar life histories and distribution is strongly correlated with Register a 12–month finding, pursuant habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. the distribution of sagebrush habitats to 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B), that listing 44). In this finding, we use information (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 364). Connelly the Gunnison sage-grouse under the Act specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse et al. (2000a, p. 970-972) segregated is (a) warranted; (b) not warranted; or (c) where available but still apply scientific habitat requirements into four seasons: (1) breeding (2) summer - late brood- warranted but precluded by higher management principles found relevant for greater sage-grouse to Gunnison rearing (3) fall and (4) winter. priority listing actions. We published a sage-grouse management needs and Depending on habitat availability and notice of intent to conduct a status strategies, a practice followed by the proximity, some seasonal habitats may review of Gunnison sage-grouse on wildlife agencies that have be indistinguishable. The Gunnison November 23, 2009 (74 Fr 61100). The responsibility for management of both Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Court approved an extension of the June species and their habitat. Committee (GSRSC) (2005, p. 27-31) 30, 2010, deadline for the 12–month segregated habitat requirements into finding to September 15, 2010. Taxonomy three seasons: (1) breeding (2) summer– Gunnison sage-grouse and greater Additional Special Status late fall and (3) winter. For purposes of sage-grouse are members of the this finding, the seasons referenced in Considerations Phasianidae family. For many years, GSRSC (2005) are used because that The Gunnison sage-grouse has an sage-grouse were considered a single publication deals specifically with International Union for Conservation of species. Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse. Nature (IUCN) Red List Category of (Centrocercus minimus) were identified Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity ‘‘endangered’’ (Birdlife International as a distinct species based on (loyalty to a particular area) to seasonal 2009). NatureServe currently ranks the morphological (Hupp and Braun 1991, habitats, which includes breeding, pp. 257-259; Young et al. 2000, pp. 447- nesting, brood rearing, and wintering Gunnison sage-grouse as G1—Critically 448), genetic (Kahn et al. 1999, pp. 820- areas, even when the area is no longer Imperiled (Nature Serve 2010, entire). 821; Oyler-McCance et al. 1999, pp. of value (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-1). The Gunnison sage-grouse is on the 1460-1462), and behavioral (Barber Adult sage-grouse rarely switch among National Audubon Society’s WatchList 1991, pp. 6-9; Young 1994; Young et al. these habitats once they have been 2007 Red Category which is ‘‘for species 2000, p. 449-451) differences and selected, limiting their adaptability to that are declining rapidly or have very geographical isolation (Young et al. changes. Sage-grouse distribution is small populations or limited ranges, and 2000, pp. 447-451). Based on these associated with sagebrush (Schroeder et face major conservation threats.’’ differences, the American al. 2004 p. 364), although sagebrush is Ornithologist’s Union (2000, pp. 849- more widely distributed than sage- 850) accepted the Gunnison sage-grouse grouse because sagebrush does not

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

always provide suitable habitat due to (Schroeder 1997, p. 939). However, p. 38), and successful nests were found fragmentation and degradation adult male sage-grouse demonstrate in higher shrub density and greater forb (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 369, 372). strong yearly fidelity to lek sites and grass cover than unsuccessful nests Very little of the extant sagebrush in (Patterson 1952, p. 91; Dalke 1963 et al., (Young 1994, p. 39). The understory of North America is undisturbed, with up pp. 817-818), and some Gunnison sage- productive sage-grouse nesting areas to 50 to 60 percent having altered grouse leks have been used since the contains native grasses and forbs, with understories (forb and grass vegetative 1950s (Rogers 1964, pp. 35-40). horizontal and vertical structural composition under the sagebrush) or The pre-laying period is from late- diversity that provides an insect prey having been lost to direct conversion March to April. Pre-laying habitats for base, herbaceous forage for pre-laying (Knick et al. 2003, p. 612 and references sage-grouse need to provide a diversity and nesting hens, and cover for the hen therein). Mapping altered and depleted of vegetation including forbs that are while she is incubating (Schroeder et al. understories is challenging, particularly rich in calcium, phosphorous, and 1999, p. 11; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. in semi-arid regions, so maps depicting protein to meet the nutritional needs of 971; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-5–4-8). only sagebrush as a dominant cover type females during the egg development Shrub canopy and grass cover provide are deceptive in their reflection of period (Barnett and Crawford 1994, p. concealment for sage-grouse nests and habitat quality and, therefore, use by 117; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). young, and are critical for reproductive sage-grouse (Knick et al. 2003, p. 616 During the pre-egg laying period, female success (Barnett and Crawford 1994, pp. and references therein). As such, sage-grouse select forbs that generally 116-117; Gregg et al. 1994, pp. 164-165; variations in the quality of sagebrush have higher amounts of calcium and DeLong et al. 1995, pp. 90-91; Connelly habitats for sage-grouse (from either crude protein than sagebrush (Barnett et al. 2004, p. 4-4). Few herbaceous abiotic or anthropogenic events) are and Crawford 1994, p. 117). plants are growing in April when better reflected by sage-grouse Nesting occurs from mid-April to nesting begins, so residual herbaceous distribution and densities, rather than June. Average earliest nest initiation cover from the previous growing season by broad geographic scale maps of the was April 30, and the average latest nest is critical for nest concealment in most distribution of sagebrush. initiation was May 19, in the western areas (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 977). Sage-grouse exhibit a polygamous portion of the Gunnison Basin (Childers Nesting success for Gunnison sage- mating system where a male mates with 2009, p. 3). Radio-tracked Gunnison grouse is highest in areas where forb several females. Males perform sage-grouse nest an average of 4.3 and grass covers are found below a courtship displays and defend their leks kilometers (km ) (2.7 miles (mi)) from sagebrush canopy cover of 15 to 30 (Patterson 1952, p. 83). Lek displaying the lek nearest to their capture site, with percent (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). occurs from mid-March through late almost half nesting within 3 km (2 mi) These numbers are comparable to those May, depending on elevation (Rogers of their capture site (Young 1994, p. 37). reported for the greater sage-grouse 1964, p. 21; Young et al. 2000, p. 448). Nest sites are selected independent of (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). Nest Numerous researchers have observed lek locations, but the reverse is not true success for greater sage-grouse is that a relatively small number of (Bradbury et al. 1989, p. 22; Wakkinen greatest where grass cover is present dominant males account for the majority et al. 1992, p. 382). Thus, leks are (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971). Because of copulations on each lek (Schroeder et indicative of nesting habitat. Eighty- of the similarities between these two al. 1999, p. 8). However, an average of seven percent of all Gunnison sage- species, we believe that increased nest 45.9 percent (range 14.3 to 54.5 percent) grouse nests were located less than 6 km success in areas of forb and grass cover of genetically identified males in a (4 mi) from the lek of capture (Apa below the appropriate sagebrush canopy population fathered offspring in a given 2004, p. 21). While earlier studies cover is likely the case for Gunnison year (Bush 2009, p. 106). This more indicated that most greater sage-grouse sage-grouse as well. recent work suggests that males and hens nest within 3 km (2 mi) of a lek, Mean clutch size for Gunnison sage- females likely engage in off-lek more recent research indicated that grouse is 6.8 ± 0.7 eggs (Young 1994, p. copulations. Males do not incubate eggs many hens actually move much further 37). The mean clutch size for Gunnison or assist in chick rearing. from leks to nest based on nesting sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin was Lek sites can be located on areas of habitat quality (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6.3, with 94 percent of eggs in bare soil, wind-swept ridges, exposed 4-4). Female greater sage-grouse have successful nests hatching (Childers knolls, low sagebrush, meadows, and been documented to travel more than 20 2009, p. 3). Despite average clutch sizes other relatively open sites with good km (13 mi) to their nest site after mating of 7 eggs (Connelly et al. in press, p. 15), visibility and low vegetation structure (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). Female little evidence exists that populations of (Connelly et al. 1981, pp. 153-154; Gates Gunnison sage-grouse exhibit strong sage-grouse produce large annual 1985, pp. 219-221; Klott and Lindzey fidelity to nesting locations (Young surpluses (Connelly et al. in press, p. 15, 1989, pp. 276-277; Connelly et al. 2004, 1994, p. 42; Lyon 2000, p. 20, Connelly 24). The inability of sage-grouse to pp. 3-7 and references therein). In et al. 2004, p. 4-5; Holloran and produce large annual surpluses limits addition, leks are usually located on flat Anderson 2005, p. 747). The degree of their ability to respond under favorable to gently sloping areas of less than 15 fidelity to a specific nesting area environmental conditions to make up percent grade (Patterson 1952, p. 83; appears to diminish if the female’s first for population declines. Re-nesting rates Giezentanner and Clark 1974, p. 218; nest attempt in that area was following the loss of the original nest Wallestad 1975, p. 17; Autenrieth 1981, unsuccessful (Young 1994, p. 42). appear very low in Gunnison sage- p. 13). Leks are often surrounded by However, there is no statistical grouse, with one study reporting re- denser shrub-steppe cover, which is indication that movement to new nesting rates of 4.8 percent (Young used for escape, and thermal and nesting areas results in increased 1994, p. 37). Only one instance of re- feeding cover. Leks can be formed nesting success (Connelly et al. 2004, p. nesting was observed over a 5–year opportunistically at any appropriate site 3-6; Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. period during which a total of 91 within or adjacent to nesting habitat 748). nesting Gunnison sage-grouse hens were (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). Lek Gunnison sage-grouse typically select monitored (Childers 2009, p. 3). habitat availability is not considered to nest sites under sagebrush cover with Most sage-grouse eggs hatch in June, be a limiting factor for sage-grouse some forb and grass cover (Young 1994, with a peak between June 10 and June

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59807

20 (GSRSC, 2005, p. 24). Chicks are 79-81). However, broods in the Basin in 1984, less than 10 percent of precocial (mobile upon hatching) and Gunnison Basin typically do not use hay the sagebrush was exposed above the leave the nest with the hen shortly after meadows further away than 50 meters snow and available to sage-grouse hatching. Forbs and insects are essential (m) (165 feet (ft)) of the edge of (Hupp, 1987, pp. 45-46). In these nutritional components for sage-grouse sagebrush stands (Colorado Sage Grouse conditions, the tall and vigorous chicks (Klebenow and Gray 1968, pp. Working Group (CSGWG) 1997, p. 13). sagebrush typical in drainages was an 81-83; Peterson 1970, pp. 149-151; As fall approaches, sage-grouse move especially important food source. Johnson and Boyce 1991, p. 90; from riparian to upland areas and start Sage-grouse typically live between 3 Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-3). Therefore, to shift to a winter diet (GSRSC 2005, and 6 years, but individuals up to 9 early brood-rearing habitat for females p. 25). Movements to winter ranges are years of age have been recorded in the with chicks must provide adequate slow and meandering (Connelly et al. wild (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-12). cover adjacent to areas rich in forbs and 1988, p. 119). The extent of movement Adult female Gunnison sage-grouse insects to assure chick survival during varies with severity of winter weather, apparent survival rates from April this period (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971; topography, and vegetation cover. Sage- through September averaged 57 percent, Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-11). Gunnison grouse may travel short distances or and adult male survival averaged 45 sage-grouse chick dietary requirements many miles between seasonal ranges. In percent (Childers 2009, p. 2). From of insects and forbs also are expected to response to severe winters, Gunnison October through March, adult female be similar to greater sage-grouse and sage-grouse move as far as 27 km (17 mi) Gunnison sage-grouse apparent survival other grouse species (Apa 2005, pers. (Root 2002, p. 14). Flock size in winter rates averaged 79 percent, and adult comm.). is variable (15 to 100+), and flocks male survival averaged 96 percent The availability of food and cover are frequently consist of a single sex (Beck (Childers 2009, p.2). In one study, key factors that affect chick and juvenile 1977, p. 21). Gunnison sage-grouse survival from survival. During the first 3 weeks after From late autumn through early April 2002 through March 2003 was 48 hatching, insects are the primary food of spring, greater and Gunnison sage- (± 7) percent for males and 57 (± 7) chicks (Patterson 1952, p. 201; grouse diet is almost exclusively percent for females (Apa 2004, p. 22). Klebenow and Gray 1968, p. 81; sagebrush (Rasmussen and Griner 1938, Preliminary results from the Gunnison Peterson 1970, pp. 150-151; Johnson p. 855; Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 20; and San Miguel populations indicate and Boyce 1990, pp. 90-91; Johnson and Patterson 1952, pp. 197-198; Wallestad potential important temporal and spatial Boyce 1991, p. 92; Drut et al. 1994b, p. et al. 1975, pp. 628-629; Young et al. variation in demographic parameters, 93; Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 320; 2000, p. 452). Many species of with apparent annual adult survival Fischer et al. 1996a, p. 194). Diets of 4- sagebrush can be consumed (Remington rates ranging from approximately 65 to to 8-week-old greater sage-grouse chicks and Braun 1985, pp. 1056-1057; Welch 80 percent (CDOW 2009a, p. 8). were found to have more plant material et al. 1988, p. 276, 1991; Myers 1992, p. Gunnison sage-grouse female survival in as the chicks matured (Peterson 1970, p. 55). Characteristics of sage-grouse small isolated populations was 52 (± 8) 151). Succulent forbs are predominant winter habitats are also similar through percent, compared to 71 (± 11) percent in the diet until chicks exceed 3 months the range of both species (Connelly et al. survival in the Gunnison Basin, the only of age, at which time sagebrush becomes 2000a, p. 972). In winter, Gunnison population with greater than 500 a major dietary component (Klebenow sage-grouse are restricted to areas of 15 individuals (Apa 2004, p. 22). Higher 1969, pp. 665-656; Connelly and to 30 percent sagebrush cover, similar to adult survival has been observed in a Markham 1983, pp. 171-173; Fischer et the greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. lower elevation and warmer area (Dry al. 1996b, p. 871; Schroeder et al. 1999, 2000a, p. 972; Young et al. 2000, p. 451). Creek Basin of the San Miguel p. 5). However, they may also use areas with population – 90 percent) than in a Early brood-rearing habitat is found more deciduous shrubs during the higher elevation and colder, snowier, close to nest sites (Connelly et al. 2000a, winter (Young et al. 2000, p. 451). area (Miramonte portion of the San p. 971), although individual females Sagebrush stand selection in winter is Miguel population – 65 percent) (CDOW with broods may move large distances influenced by snow depth (Patterson 2009a, p.8). Other factors affecting (Connelly 1982, as cited in Connelly et 1952, pp. 188-189; Connelly 1982 as survival rates include climatic al. 2000a, p. 971). Young (1994, pp. 41- cited in Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 980) differences between years and age 42) found that Gunnison sage-grouse and in some areas, topography (Beck (Zablan 1993, pp. 5-6). with broods used areas with lower 1977, p. 22; Crawford et al. 2004, p. 5). Apparent chick survival from hatch to slopes than nesting areas, high grass and Winter areas are typically characterized the beginning of fall (30 September) forb cover, and relatively low sagebrush by canopy cover greater than 25 percent averaged 7 percent over a 5–year period cover and density. Broods frequently and sagebrush greater than 30 to 41 cm in the western portion of the Gunnison used the edges of hay meadows, but (12 to 16 in) tall (Shoenberg 1982, p. 40) Basin (Childers 2009, pp. 4-6). Apparent were often flushed from areas found in associated with drainages, ridges, or chick survival to 90 days of age has interfaces of wet meadows and habitats southwest aspects with slopes less than ranged from approximately 15 to 30 providing more cover, such as sagebrush 15 percent (Beck 1977, p. 22). Lower flat percent in the Gunnison Basin, with no or willow-alder (Salix-Alnus). areas and shorter sagebrush along ridge juvenile recruitment observed over By late summer and into the early fall, tops provide roosting areas. In extreme several years in the San Miguel individuals become more social, and winter conditions, greater sage-grouse population (CDOW 2009a, p. 8). Based flocks are more concentrated (Patterson will spend nights and portions of the on a review of many field studies, 1952, p. 187). Intermixing of broods and day burrowed into ‘‘snow burrows’’ juvenile survival rates range from 7 to flocks of adult birds is common, and the (Back et al. 1987, p. 488). 60 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3- birds move from riparian areas to Hupp and Braun (1989, p. 825) found 12). The variation in juvenile survival sagebrush-dominated landscapes that that most Gunnison sage-grouse feeding rates may be associated with sex, continue to provide green forbs. During activity in the winter occurred in weather, harvest rates (no harvesting of this period, Gunnison sage-grouse can drainages and on slopes with south or Gunnison sage-grouse is currently be observed in atypical habitat such as west aspects in the Gunnison Basin. permitted), age of brood female (broods agricultural fields (Commons 1997, pp. During a severe winter in the Gunnison with adult females have higher

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

survival), and with habitat quality (rates southwestern Kansas and western provide water storage and, to a certain decrease in poor habitats) (Schroeder et Oklahoma are not considered within the extent, facilitate agricultural activities al. 1999, p. 14; Connelly et al., in press, historic range of Gunnison sage-grouse that maintain the fragmentation and p. 20). (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 371). habitat lost historically throughout the Greater sage-grouse require large, The GSRSC (2005) modified the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. interconnected expanses of sagebrush historic range from Schroeder et al. In summary, a substantial amount of with healthy, native understories (2004), based on more complete sagebrush habitat within the range of (Patterson 1952, p. 9; Knick et al. 2003, information on historic and current the Gunnison sage-grouse had been lost p. 623; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 4-15; habitat and the distribution of the prior to 1960. The majority of the Connelly et al. in press, p. 10; Pyke in species (GSRSC 2005, pp. 34-35). Based remaining habitat is highly fragmented, press, p. 7; Wisdom et al. in press, p. 4). on this information, the maximum although to a lesser extent in the However, little information is available Gunnison sage-grouse historical Gunnison Basin than in the remainder regarding minimum sagebrush patch (presettlement) range is estimated to of the species habitat. sizes required to support populations of have been 55,350 square kilometers Current Distribution and Population greater or Gunnison sage-grouse. (km2) (21,370 square miles (mi2)) Estimates Gunnison sage-grouse have not been (GSRSC 2005, p. 32). To be clear, only observed to undertake the large seasonal a portion of the historical range would The historic and current geographic and annual movements observed in have been occupied at any one time, ranges of Gunnison’s and greater sage- greater sage-grouse. However, while all of the current range is grouse were quantitatively analyzed to movements of up to 24 km (15 mi) have considered occupied. Also, we do not determine the species’ response to been observed in individual Gunnison know what portion of the historical habitat loss and detrimental land uses sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin range was simultaneously occupied, or (Wisdom et al., in press, 2009, entire). population only (Phillips 2010, pers. what the total population was. A broad spectrum of biotic, abiotic, and comm.). Much of what was once Gunnison anthropogenic conditions were found to Sage-grouse typically occupy large sage-grouse sagebrush habitat was be significantly different between expanses of sagebrush-dominated already lost prior to 1958. A qualitative extirpated and occupied ranges habitats composed of a diversity of decrease in sagebrush was attributed to (Wisdom et al., in press, 2009, p. 1.). sagebrush species and subspecies. Use overgrazing from the 1870s until about Sagebrush area is one of the best of other habitats intermixed with 1934 (Rogers 1964, p. 13). Additional landscape predictors of sage-grouse sagebrush, such as riparian meadows, adverse effects occurred as a result of persistence (Wisdom et al., in press, agricultural lands, steppe dominated by newer range management techniques 2009, p. 17 and references therein). native grasses and forbs, scrub willow implemented to support livestock by the Because of the loss and fragmentation of (Salix spp.), and sagebrush habitats with Bureau of Land Management (BLM), habitat within its range, no expansive, some conifer or quaking aspen (Populus Soil Conservation Service, and U.S. contiguous areas that could be tremuloides), is not uncommon Forest Service (USFS) (Rogers 1964, p. considered strongholds (areas of (Connelly et al 2004, p. 4-18 and 13). In the 1950s, large areas of occupied range where the risk of references therein). Sage-grouse have sagebrush within the range of Gunnison extirpation appears low) are evident for been observed using human-altered sage-grouse were eradicated by Gunnison sage-grouse (Wisdom et al., in habitats throughout their range. herbicide spraying or burning (Rogers press, 2009, p. 24). We do not know the However, the use of non-sagebrush 1964, pp. 12-13, 22-23, 26). minimum amount of sagebrush habitat habitats by sage-grouse is dependent on About 155,673 hectares (ha) (384,676 needed by Gunnison sage-grouse to the presence of sagebrush habitats in ac) of sagebrush habitat was lost from ensure long-term persistence. However, close proximity (Connelly et a.lal 2004, 1958 to 1993 within southwestern based on Wisdom et al., in press, we do p. 4-18 and references therein). Colorado (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. know that landscapes containing large 327). Sagebrush loss was lower in the and contiguous sagebrush patches and Historic Range and Distribution of Gunnison Basin (11 percent) compared sagebrush patches in close proximity Gunnison Sage-grouse to all other areas in southwestern increase the likelihood of sage-grouse Based on historical records, museum Colorado (28 percent) (Oyler-McCance persistence. specimens, and potential habitat et al. 2001, p. 328). Considerable Gunnison sage-grouse currently occur distribution, Gunnison sage-grouse fragmentation of sagebrush vegetation in seven widely scattered and isolated historically occurred in southwestern was also quantitatively documented populations in Colorado and Utah, Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, during that same time period (Oyler- occu2pying 3,795 km2 (1,511mi2) northeastern Arizona, and southeastern McCance et al. 2001, p. 329). Sage- (GSRSC 2005, pp. 36-37; CDOW 2009b, Utah (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 370- grouse habitat in southwestern Colorado p. 1). The seven populations are 371). Accounts of Gunnison sage-grouse (the majority of the range of Gunnison Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, in Kansas and Oklahoma, as suggested sage-grouse) has been more severely Monticello–Dove Creek, Pı˜non Mesa, by Young et al. (2000, pp. 446-447), are impacted than sagebrush habitat Crawford, Cerro Summit–Cimarron– not supported with museum specimens, elsewhere in Colorado. Sims Mesa, and Poncha Pass (Figure 1). and Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 371) The Colorado River Storage Project A comparative summary of the land found inconsistencies with the (CRSP) resulted in construction of three ownership and recent population historical records and the sagebrush reservoirs within the Gunnison Basin in estimates among these seven habitat currently available in those the mid-late 1960s (Blue Mesa and populations is presented in Table 1 and areas. Applegate (2001, p. 241) found Morrow) and mid-1970s (Crystal). Table 2, respectively. Population trends that none of the sagebrush species Several projects associated with CRSP over the last nine years indicate that six closely associated with sage-grouse were constructed in this same general of the populations are in decline. The occurred in Kansas. He attributed timeframe to provide additional water Gunnison Basin population, while historical, anecdotal reports as mistaken storage and resulted in the loss of an showing variation over the years, has locations or misidentification of lesser unquantified, but likely small, amount been relatively stable through the period prairie chickens. For these reasons, of sagebrush habitat. These projects (CDOW 2009a p. 2). Six of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59809

populations are very small and on leks) (CDOW 2009a, p. 5). The San Figure 1. Locations of Current fragmented (all with less than 40,500 ha Miguel population, the second largest, Gunnison Sage-grouse Populations. (100,000 acres) of habitat likely used by comprises six fragmented grouse and less than 50 males counted subpopulations.

TABLE 1. PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF TOTAL GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIEDA HABITAT (FROM GSRSCB 2005, PP. D-3-D-6; CDOWC 2009B, P. 1)

Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Management and Ownership Population hectares acres CO d e f State State of BLM NPS USFS CDOW Land UT Private Board % % % % % % %

Gunnison Basin 239,953 592,936 51 2 14 3 <1 0 29

San Miguel Basin 41,022 101,368 36g 0 1 11 3g 0 49g

Monticello–Dove Creek (Combined) 45,275 111,877 7 0 0 3 0 <1 90

Dove Creek 16,706 41,282 11 0 0 8 0 0 81

Monticello 28,569 70,595 4 0 0 0 0 1 95

Pin˜on Mesa 15,744 38,904 28 0 2 19 0 0 51

Cerro Summit–Cimarron– Sims Mesa 15,039 37,161 13 <1 0 11 0 0 76

Crawford 14,170 35,015 63 12 0 2 0 0 23

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP28se10.000 59810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1. PERCENT SURFACE OWNERSHIP OF TOTAL GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE OCCUPIEDA HABITAT (FROM GSRSCB 2005, PP. D-3-D-6; CDOWC 2009B, P. 1)—Continued

Gunnison Sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Management and Ownership Population hectares acres CO d e f State State of BLM NPS USFS CDOW Land UT Private Board % % % % % % %

Poncha Pass 8,262 20,415 48 0 26 0 2 0 23

Rangewide 379,464 937,676 42 2 10 5 <1 <1 41 aOccupied 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). bGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee cColorado Division of Wildlife dBureau of Land Management eNational Park Service fUnited States Forest Service gEstimates reported in San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (2009 p. 28) vary by up to 2 percent in these categories from those reported here. We consider these differences insignificant.

TABLE 2. GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE POPULATION ESTIMATES BY YEAR DERIVED FROM THE FORMULA PRESENTED IN THE GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE RANGEWIDE CONSERVATION PLAN (GSRSCA 2005, PP. 44-45) APPLIED TO HIGH MALE COUNTS ON LEKS (CDOWB 2009A, P. 2).

Estimated Population Year Population 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Gunnison Basin 3,493 3,027 2,453 2,443 4,700 5,205 4,616 3,669 3,817 3,655

San Miguel Basin 392 383 250 255 334 378 324 216 162 123

Monticello– Dove Creek (Combined) 363 270 186 162 196 191 245 245 191 n/ac

Monticello 231 172 147 152 162 118 216 216 182 n/ac

Dove Creek 132 98 39 10 34 74 29 29 10 44

Pin˜on Mesa 152 132 123 142 167 152 123 108 78 74

Cerro Summit– Cimarron– Sims Mesa 59 39 29 39 25 49 34 10 39 5

Crawford 137 206 118 128 191 201 113 103 78 20

Poncha Pass 25 44 34 39 44 44 25 25 20 15

Totals 4,621 4,101 3,194 3,208 5,656 6,220 5,480 4,376 4,386 n/ac aGunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee bColorado Division of Wildlife c2010 lek count data for the Monticello group was not available at the time of publication

Gunnison Basin Population – The Elevations in the area range from 2,300 upland vegetation and has a highly Gunnison Basin is an intermontane to 2,900 m (7,500 to 9,500 ft). variable growth form depending on basin that includes parts of Gunnison Approximately 70 percent of the land local site conditions. In 2009, 83 leks and Saguache Counties, Colorado. The area is managed by Federal agencies (67 were surveyed for breeding activity in current Gunnison Basin population is percent) and CDOW (3 percent), and the the Gunnison Basin, and 42 of these leks distributed across approximately remaining 30 percent comprises were active (at least two males in 240,000 ha (593,000 ac), roughly primarily private lands. Big sagebrush attendance during at least two of four centered on the town of Gunnison. (Artemesia tridentata) dominates the 10–day count periods), 6 inactive

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59811

(inactive for at least 5 consecutive around Miramonte Reservoir (GSRSC 2009, 29.21 p. 1). The UDWR estimates years), 9 historic (inactive for at least 10 2005, p. 96). Sagebrush stands there are that Gunnison sage-grouse currently consecutive years), and 26 were of generally contiguous with a mixed grass occupy about 24,000 ha (60,000 ac) in unknown status (variability in counts and forb understory. Occupied habitat at the Monticello area. The 2009 resulted in lek not meeting requirements the Gurley Reservoir area (3,305 ha population estimate for Monticello was for active, inactive, or historic) (CDOW (7,500 ac)) is heavily fragmented by 182 individuals with three active and 2009d, pp. 28-30). Approximately 45 urban development, and the understory one inactive leks (UDWR 2009, p. 5). percent of leks in the Gunnison Basin is a mixed grass and forb community. The Dove Creek subpoulation is occur on private land and 55 percent on Farming attempts in the early 20th located primarily in western Dolores public land, primarily BLM (GSRSC century led to the removal of much of County, Colorado, north and west of 2005, p. 75). The 2010 population the sagebrush, although agricultural Dove Creek, although a small portion of estimate for the Gunnison Basin was activities are now restricted primarily to occupied habitat extends north into San 3,655 (CDOW 2010a, p. 2). Rogers (1964, the seasonally irrigated crops (hay Miguel County. Habitat north of Dove p. 20) stated that Gunnison County was meadows), and sagebrush has Creek is characterized as mountain one of five counties containing the reestablished in most of the failed shrub habitat, dominated by oakbrush majority of sage-grouse in Colorado in pastures. However, grazing pressure and interspersed with sagebrush. The area 1961. The vast majority (87 percent) of competition from introduced grasses west of Dove Creek is dominated by Gunnison sage-grouse are now found have kept the overall sagebrush sagebrush, but the habitat is highly only in the Gunnison Basin population. representation low (GSRSC 2005, pp. fragmented. Lek counts in the Dove San Miguel Basin Population – The 96-97). Sagebrush stands in the Iron Creek area were over 50 males in 1999, San Miguel Basin population is in Springs and Beaver Mesa areas (2,590 ha suggesting a population of about 245 Montrose and San Miguel Counties in and 3,560 ha (6,400 ac and 8,800 ac birds, but declined to 2 males in 2009 Colorado, and is composed of six small respectively)) are contiguous with a (CDOW 2009a, p. 71), suggesting a subpopulations using different areas— mixed grass understory. The Beaver population of 10 birds. A new lek was (Dry Creek Basin, Hamilton Mesa, Mesa area has numerous scattered found in 2010, and the 2010 population Miramonte Reservoir, Gurley Reservoir, patches of oakbrush (Quercus gambelii). estimate was 44 individuals on 2 leks Beaver Mesa, and Iron Springs) Rogers (1964, p. 9) reported that all big (CDOW 2010, p. 1). Low sagebrush occupying a total of approximately sagebrush-dominated habitats in San canopy cover, as well as low grass 41,000 ha (101,000 ac). Some of these Miguel and Montrose Counties were height, exacerbated by drought, may six areas are used year-round by sage- historically used by Gunnison sage- have led to nest failure and subsequent grouse, and others are used seasonally. grouse. population declines (Connelly et al. The overall acreage figure for this The 2010 population estimate for the 2000a, p. 974; Apa 2004, p. 30). Rogers population is heavily skewed by the entire San Miguel Basin was 123 (1964, p. 9) reported that all sagebrush- large percentage (approximately 62 individuals on nine leks (CDOW 20010, dominated habitats in Dolores and percent) of land in the Dry Creek Basin p. 3). With the exception of 2007, Montezuma Counties within Gunnison (San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage- CDOW has been translocating Gunnison sage-grouse range in Colorado were grouse Working Group 2009, p. 28). The sage-grouse from the Gunnison Basin to historically used by Gunnison sage- Dry Creek Basin area contains some of Dry Creek Basin on a yearly basis since grouse. the poorest habitat and smallest grouse the spring of 2006 (CDOW 2009a, p. Pı˜non Mesa Population – The Pı˜non populations in the San Miguel 133). In the spring of 2006, six Mesa population occurs on the population (San Miguel Basin Gunnison individuals were released near the northwest end of the Uncompahgre sage-grouse Conservation Plan 2009, pp. Desert Lek. An additional two Plateau in Mesa County, about 35 km 28, 36). Gunnison sage-grouse in the San individuals were released in the fall. (22 mi) southwest of Grand Junction, Miguel Basin move widely between Nine individuals were translocated in Colorado. The 2010 population estimate these areas (Apa 2004, p. 29; Stiver and the spring of 2008. An additional 30 for Pı˜non Mesa was 74 (CDOW 2010, p. Gibson 2005, p. 12). The area individuals were translocated in the fall 2). Of the ten known leks, only four encompassed by this population is of 2009. A 40 to 50 percent mortality were active in 2009 (CDOW, 2009a, p. believed to have once served as critical rate has been observed within the first 3). The Pı˜non Mesa area may have migration corridors between year after release, compared to an additional leks, but the high percentage populations to the north (Cerro average annual mortality rate of of private land, a lack of roads, and Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa) and to approximately 20 percent for heavy snow cover during spring make the south (Monticello-Dove Creek) (San radiomarked adult sage-grouse (CDOWa locating additional leks difficult. Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse 2009, p. 9). Gunnison sage-grouse likely occurred Working Group 2009, p. 9). Monticello–Dove Creek Population – historically in all suitable sagebrush Sagebrush habitat in the Dry Creek This population is divided into two habitat in the Pı˜non Mesa area, Basin area is patchily distributed, and disjunct subpopulations of Gunnison including the Dominguez Canyon area the understory is either lacking in grass sage-grouse. Currently, the largest group of the Uncompaghre Plateau, southeast and forb diversity or nonexistent. Where is near the town of Monticello, in San of Pı˜non Mesa proper (Rogers 1964, p. irrigation is possible, private lands in Juan County, Utah. Gunnison sage- 114). Their current distribution has been the southeast portion of Dry Creek Basin grouse in this subpopulation inhabit a substantially reduced from historic are cultivated. Sagebrush habitat on broad plateau on the northeast side of levels to 15,744 ha (38,904 ac) (GSRSC private land has been heavily thinned or the Abajo Mountains, with fragmented 2005, p. 87). removed entirely (GSRSC 2005, p. 96). patches of sagebrush interspersed with Crawford Population – The Crawford Gunnison sage-grouse use the Hamilton large grass pastures and agricultural population of Gunnison sage-grouse is Mesa area (1,940 ha (4,800 ac)) in the fields. The Utah Division of Wildlife in Montrose County, Colorado, about 13 summer, but use of Hamilton Mesa Resources (UDWR) estimated km (8 mi) southwest of the town of during other seasons is unknown. population numbers between 583 and Crawford and north of the Gunnison Gunnison sage-grouse occupy 1,050 individuals in 1972 and between River. Basin big sagebrush (Artemisia approximately 4,700 ha (11,600 ac) 178 and 308 individuals in 2002 (UDWR tridentata tridentata) and black

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59812 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

sagebrush (A. nova) dominate the mid- Sagebrush in this area is continuous of the species such that the species elevation uplands (GSRSC 2005, p. 62). with little fragmentation; sagebrush warrants listing as endangered or The 2010 population estimate for habitat quality throughout the area is threatened as those terms are defined in Crawford was 20 individuals (CDOW adequate to support the species the Act. 2010, p. 1) in 14,170 ha (35,015 ac) of (Nehring and Apa 2000 p. 25). San Luis The Gunnison Basin contains 87 occupied habitat. Four active leks are Creek runs through the area, providing percent of the current rangewide currently in the Crawford population on a year-round water source and lush, wet Gunnison sage-grouse population and BLM lands in sagebrush habitat adjacent meadow riparian habitat for brood- 62 percent of the area occupied by the to an 11-km (7-mi) stretch of road. This rearing. species. The remaining six populations area represents the largest contiguous A high male count of 3 males was cumulatively and individually have sagebrush-dominated habitat within the made in 2010 (CDOW 2009a, p. 121), substantially smaller population sizes Crawford boundary (GSRSC 2005, p. resulting in an estimated population and occupy substantially less habitat 64). size of 15 for the Poncha Pass than the Gunnison Basin population Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa population (CDOW 2010, p. 3). The only (see Table 2). Population – This population is divided current lek is located on BLM- into two geographically separated administered land. In 1992, a CDOW A. The Present or Threatened subpopulations, both in Montrose effort to simplify hunting restrictions Destruction, Modification, or County, Colorado. The Cerro Summit– inadvertently opened the Poncha Pass Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range Cimarron subpopulation is centered area to sage-grouse hunting, and at least Sagebrush habitats within the range of about 24 km (15 mi) east of Montrose. 30 grouse were harvested from this Gunnison sage-grouse are becoming The habitat consists of 15,039 ha population. Due to declining population increasingly fragmented as a result of (37,161 ac) of patches of sagebrush numbers since the 1992 hunt, CDOW various changes in land uses and the habitat fragmented by oakbrush and translocated 24 additional birds from expansion in the density and irrigated pastures. Five leks are the Gunnison Basin (Nehring and Apa distribution of invasive plant species currently known in the Cerro Summit– 2000, p. 11). In 2001 and 2002, an (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, pp. 329- Cimarron group, but only one additional 20 and 7 birds, respectively, 330; Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 372). individual was observed on one lek in were moved to Poncha Pass by the Habitat fragmentation is the separation 2010 resulting in a population estimate CDOW (GSRSC 2005, p. 94). or splitting apart of previously of 5 individuals for the population Translocated females have bred contiguous, functional habitat (CDOW 2010, p. 1). Rogers (1964, p. successfully (Apa 2004, pers. comm.), components of a species. Fragmentation 115) noted a small population of sage- and display activity resumed on the can result from direct habitat losses that grouse in the Cimarron River drainage, historic lek in spring 2001. leave the remaining habitat in non- but did not report population numbers. Summary of Information Pertaining to contiguous patches, or from alteration of He noted that lek counts at Cerro the Five Factors habitat areas that render the altered Summit in 1959 listed four individuals. The Sims Mesa area, about 11 km (7 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), patches unusable to a species (i.e., mi) south of Montrose, consists of small and implementing regulations (50 CFR functional habitat loss). Functional patches of sagebrush that are heavily 424), set forth procedures for adding habitat losses include disturbances that fragmented by pinyon-juniper, species to the Federal Lists of change a habitat’s successional state or residential and recreational Endangered and Threatened Wildlife remove one or more habitat functions; development, and agriculture. The one and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the physical barriers that preclude use of known lek in Sims Mesa has lacked Act, a species may be determined to be otherwise suitable areas; or activities Gunnison sage-grouse attendance for the endangered or threatened based on any that prevent animals from using suitable last six years, which indicates this of the following five factors: (1) The habitat patches due to behavioral population is likely extirpated (CDOW present or threatened destruction, avoidance. 2009a, p. 43). In 2000, the CDOW modification, or curtailment of its A variety of human developments translocated six Gunnison sage-grouse habitat or range; (2) overutilization for including roads, energy development, from the Gunnison Basin to Sims Mesa commercial, recreational, scientific, or and other factors that cause habitat (Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 12). Rogers educational purposes; (3) disease or fragmentation have contributed to or (1964, p. 95) recorded eight males in a predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing been associated with Gunnison and lek count at Sims Mesa in 1960. We do regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other greater sage-grouse extirpation (Wisdom not know if sage-grouse move between natural or manmade factors affecting its et al. in press, p. 18). Based on a the Cerro Summit–Cimarron and Sims continued existence. In making this quantitative analysis of environmental Mesa subpopulations. finding, information pertaining to the factors most closely associated with Poncha Pass Population – The Poncha Gunnison sage-grouse, in relation to the extirpation, no strongholds (areas where Pass Gunnison sage-grouse population five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the risk of Gunnison sage-grouse is located in Saguache County, the Act, is discussed below. extirpation is low) exist (Wisdom et al. approximately 16 km (10 mi) northwest In considering what factors might in press, p. 26). Estimating the impact of Villa Grove, Colorado. This constitute threats to a species, we must of habitat fragmentation on sage-grouse population was established through the look beyond the exposure of the species is complicated by time lags in response reintroduction of 30 birds from the to a factor to evaluate whether the to habitat changes (Garton et al., in Gunnison Basin in 1971 and 1972 species may respond to the factor in a press, p. 71), particularly since these during efforts to reintroduce the species way that causes actual impacts to the relatively long-lived birds will continue to the San Luis Valley (GSRSC 2005, p. species. If there is exposure to a factor to return to altered breeding areas (leks, 94). The known population distribution and the species responds negatively, the nesting areas, and early brood-rearing is in 8,262 ha (20,415 ac) of sagebrush factor may be a threat and we attempt areas) due to strong site fidelity despite habitat from the summit of Poncha Pass to determine how significant a threat it nesting or productivity failures (Rogers extending south for about 13 km (8 mi) is. The threat is significant if it drives, 1964, pp. 35-40; Wiens and Rotenberry on either side of U.S. Highway 285. or contributes to, the risk of extinction 1985, p. 666; Young 1994, p. 42; Lyon

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59813

2000, p. 20, Connelly et al. 2004, p. 45; grouse, the principal areas of sagebrush agricultural production. Habitat Holloran and Anderson 2005, p. 747). loss were in the Gunnison Basin, San conversion due to agricultural activities Habitat fragmentation can have an Miguel Basin, and areas near Dove is limited in the Crawford, Pı˜non Mesa, adverse effect on Gunnison sage-grouse Creek, Colorado. The authors point out and Poncha Pass populations, with 3 populations. Many of the factors that that the rate of loss in the Gunnison percent or less of the occupied range result in fragmentation may be Basin was lower than other areas of currently in agricultural production in exacerbated by the effects of climate sagebrush distribution in Colorado. The each of the population areas. change, which may influence long-term Gunnison Basin contains approximately Other than in Gunnison County, total habitat and population trends. The 250,000 ha (617,000 ac) of sagebrush; area of harvested cropland has declined following sections examine factors that this area partially comprises other over the past two decades in all counties can contribute to habitat fragmentation habitat types such as riparian areas and within the occupied range of Gunnison to determine whether they threaten patches of non-sagebrush vegetation sage-grouse (USDA NASS 2010, entire). Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat. types, including aspen forest, mixed- Information on the amount of land area devoted to cropland was not available Historic Modification of Gunnison Sage- conifer forest, and oakbrush (Boyle and for Gunnison County, most likely grouse Habitat Reeder 2005, p. 3-3). Within the portion of the Gunnison Basin currently because the majority of agricultural land The historic and current distribution occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse, use in the county is for hay production. of the Gunnison sage-grouse closely 170,000 ha (420,000 ac) comprises However, total area in hay production matches the distribution of sagebrush. exclusively sagebrush vegetation types, has correspondingly declined in Potential Gunnison sage-grouse range is as derived from Southwest Regional Gap Gunnison County over the past two estimated to have been 5,536,358 ha Analsis Project (SWReGAP) landcover decades (USDA NASS 2009, p. 1). (13,680,640 ac) historically (GSRSC data (multi-season satellite imagery Because of this long-term trend in 2005, p. 32). Gunnison sage-grouse acquired between 1999 and 2001) reduced land area devoted to currently occupy approximately 379,464 (USGS 2004, entire). agriculture, we do not expect a ha (937,676 ac) in southwestern significant amount of Gunnison sage- Colorado and southeastern Utah (CDOW Conversion to Agriculture grouse habitat to be converted to 2009b, p. 1; GSRSC 2005, p. 81), an area While sage-grouse may forage on agricultural purposes in the future. that represents approximately 7 percent agricultural croplands, they avoid Conservation Reserve Program – The of the species’ potential historic range. landscapes dominated by agriculture loss of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat to The following describes the factors (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 991). Influences conversion to agriculture has been affecting Gunnison sage-grouse and resulting from agricultural activities mitigated somewhat by the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat within the extend into adjoining sagebrush, and Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). current range of the species. include increased predation and The CRP is administered by the United The onset of EuroAmerican settlement reduced nest success due to predators States Department of Agriculture in the late 1800s resulted in significant associated with agriculture (Connelly et (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) and alterations to sagebrush ecosystems al. 2004, p. 7-23). Agricultural provides incentives to agricultural throughout North America (West and conversion can provide some limited landowners to convert certain cropland Young 2000, pp. 263-265; Miller et al. benefits for sage-grouse. Some crops, to more natural vegetative conditions. in press, p. 6), primarily as a result of such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and Except in emergency situations, CRP- urbanization, agricultural conversion, young bean sprouts (Phaseolus spp.), enrolled lands are not hayed or grazed. and irrigation projects. Areas that are eaten or used for cover by Gunnison Lands within the occupied range of supported basin big sagebrush sage-grouse (Braun 1998, pers. comm.). Gunnison sage-grouse enrolled into the (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata) However, crop monocultures do not CRP are limited to Dolores and San were among the first sagebrush provide adequate year-round food or Miguel counties in Colorado, and San community types converted to cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22-30). Juan County in Utah (USDA FSA 2010, agriculture because their typical soils Current Agriculture in All Gunnison entire). From 2000 to 2008, CRP- and topography are well suited for Sage-grouse Population Areas – The enrollment averaged 10,622 ha (26,247 agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). following estimates of land area ac) in Dolores County, 1,350 ha (3,337 In southwestern Colorado, Oyler- dedicated to agriculture (including ac) in San Miguel County, and 14,698 ha McCance et al. (2001, p. 326) found that, grass/forb pasture) were derived from (36,320 ac) in San Juan County (USDA between 1958 and 1993, 20 percent SWReGAP landcover data (USGS 2004, FSA 2010, entire). These CRP enrolled (155,673 ha (384,676 ac)) of sagebrush entire). Habitat conversion to agriculture areas potentially constitute was lost in Colorado, and 37 percent of is most prevalent in the Monticello– approximately 56 percent of the sagebrush plots examined were Dove Creek population area where Monticello–Dove Creek population and fragmented. In another analysis, it was approximately 23,220 ha (57,377 ac) or 3 percent of the San Miguel population; estimated that approximately 342,000 51 percent of Gunnison sage-grouse however, we are unsure of the ha (845,000 ac) of sagebrush, or 13 occupied range is currently in proportion of these CRP lands that are percent of the pre-EuroAmerican agricultural production. In the within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. settlement sagebrush extent, were lost in Gunnison Basin, approximately 20,754 Approximately 735 ha (1,816 ac) of Colorado, which includes both greater ha (51,285 ac) or 9 percent of the leases on these CRP-enrolled lands sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range is currently in expired on September 30, 2009, and habitat (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3-3). agricultural production. Approximately 10,431 ha (25,778 ac) are due to expire However, the authors noted that the 6,287 ha (15,535 ac) or 15 percent of the on September 30, 2010 (UDWR 2009, p. estimate of historic sagebrush area used occupied range in the San Miguel Basin 7). in their analyses was conservative, is currently in agricultural production. In San Juan County, Gunnison sage- possibly resulting in a substantial In the Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims grouse use CRP lands in proportion to underestimate of historic sagebrush Mesa population, approximately 14 their availability (Lupis et al. 2006, p. losses (Boyle and Reeder 2005, p. 3-4). percent (5,133 ha (2,077 ac)) of the 959). The CRP areas are used by grouse Within the range of Gunnison sage- occupied range is currently in primarily as brood-rearing habitat, but

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59814 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

these areas vary greatly in plant contributing to the fragmentation of relative economic importance of these diversity and forb abundance, and remaining habitat. activities diminishes (Theobald 1996, p. generally lack any shrub cover (Lupis et 413; Sammons 1998, p. 32; Gosnell and Water Development al. 2006, pp. 959-960). In response to a Travis 2005, pp. 191-192). Currently, severe drought, four CRP parcels Water Development in All Population agribusiness occupations constitute totaling 1,487 ha (3,674 ac) in San Juan Areas – Irrigation projects have resulted approximately 3 percent of the total job County, UT, were emergency grazed for in loss of sage-grouse habitat (Braun base in Gunnison County (CDOLAb a duration of 1 to 2 months in the 1998, p. 6). Reservoir development in 2009, p. 4). Recent conversion of farm summer of 2002 (Lupis 2006, p. 959). the Gunnison Basin flooded 3,700 ha and ranch lands to housing Largely as a result of agricultural (9,200 ac), or 1.5 percent of likely sage- development has been significant in conversion, sagebrush patches in the grouse habitat (McCall 2005, pers. Colorado (Odell and Knight 2001, p. Monticello–Dove Creek subpopulation comm.). Three other reservoirs 1144). Many large private ranches in the area have progressively become smaller inundated approximately 2 percent of Rocky Mountains, including the habitat in the San Miguel Basin and more fragmented, which has limited Gunnison Basin, are being subdivided population area (Garner 2005, pers. the amount of available nesting and into both high-density subdivisions and comm.). We are unaware of any plans winter habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 82, larger, scattered ranchettes with lots for additional reservoir construction. 276). Overall, the CRP has protected a typically greater than 14 ha (35 ac), Because of the small amount of portion of the Monticello–Dove Creek which encompass a large, isolated house Gunnison sage-grouse habitat lost to population from more intensive (Riebsame 1996, p. 399; Theobald 1996, water development projects and the agricultural use and development. p. 408). unlikelihood of future projects, we do However, the overall value of CRP lands The resulting pattern of residential not consider water development alone is limited because they largely lack development is less associated with to be a current or future significant sagebrush cover required by Gunnison existing town sites or existing threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse. subdivisions, and is increasingly sage-sage grouse throughout most of the However, we expect these existing exurban in nature (Theobald et al. 1996, year. The CRP was renewed under the reservoirs to be maintained indefinitely, pp. 408, 415; Theobald 2001, p. 546). Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of thus acting as another source of Exurban development is described as 2008. A new CRP sign-up for individual fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse low-density growth outside of urban landowners is not anticipated until 2012 habitat. and suburban areas (Clark et al. 2009, p. and the extent to which existing CRP 178; Theobald 2004, p.140) with less lands will be re-enrolled is unknown Residential Development than one housing unit per 1 ha (2.5 ac) (UDWR 2009, p. 4). Human population growth in the rural (Theobald 2003, p. 1627; Theobald Summary of Conversion to Agriculture Rocky Mountains is driven by the 2004, p. 139). The resulting pattern is availability of natural amenities, one of increased residential lot size and Throughout the range of Gunnison recreational opportunities, aesthetically the diffuse scattering of residential lots sage-grouse there is a declining trend in desirable settings, grandiose in previously rural areas with a the amount of land area devoted to viewscapes, and perceived remoteness premium placed on adjacency to federal agriculture. Therefore, although we (Riebsame 1996, p. 396, 402; Theobald lands and isolated open spaces expect a large proportion of land 1996, p. 408; Gosnell and Travis 2005, (Riebsame et al. 1996, p. 396, 398; currently in agricultural production to pp. 192-197; Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 6; Theobald 1996, pp. 413, 417; Theobald remain so indefinitely, we do not expect Hansen et al. 2005, pp. 1899-1901). This 2001, p. 546; Brown et al. 2005, p. significant additional, future habitat human population growth is occurring 1858). The residential subdivision that conversion to agriculture within the throughout much of the range of results from exurban development range of Gunnison sage-grouse. The loss Gunnison sage-grouse. The human causes landscape fragmentation (Gosnell of sagebrush habitat from 1958 to 1993 population in all counties within the and Travis 2005, p. 196) primarily was estimated to be approximately 20 range of Gunnison sage-grouse averaged through the accumulation of roads, percent throughout the range of a 70 percent increase since 1980 buildings, (Theobald 1996, p. 410; Gunnison sage-grouse (Oyler-McCance (Colorado Department of Local Affairs Mitchell et al. 2002, p. 3) and other et al. 2001, p. 326). The exception is the (CDOLA) 2009a, pp. 2-3). The year 2050 associated infrastructure such as power Monticello–Dove Creek population projected human population for the lines, and pipelines. In the East River where more than half of the occupied Gunnison River basin (an area that Valley of Gunnison County, residential range is currently in agriculture or other encompasses the majority of the current development in the early 1990s land uses incompatible with Gunnison range of Gunnison sage-grouse) is increased road density by 17 percent sage-grouse conservation. This habitat expected to be 2.3 times greater than the (Theobald et al. 1996, p. 410). The loss is being somewhat mitigated by the 2005 population (CWCB 2009, p. 15). habitat fragmentation resulting from this current enrollment of lands in the CRP. The population of Gunnison County, an development pattern is especially Even so, this relative scarcity of area that supports over 80 percent of all detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse sagebrush cover indicates a high risk of Gunnison sage-grouse, is predicted to because of their dependence on large population extirpation (Wisdom et al. in more than double to approximately areas of contiguous sagebrush (Patterson press, p. 19) for this population. 31,100 residents by 2050 (CWCB 2009, 1952, p. 48; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4- Because of its limited extent, we do not p. 53). 1; Connelly et al. in press a, p. 10; consider the conversion of sagebrush The increase in residential and Wisdom et al. in press, p. 4). habitats to agriculture alone to be a commercial development associated Residential Development in the current or future significant threat to with the expanding human population Gunnison Basin Population Area – Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. is different from historic land use Nearly three quarters (approximately 71 However, we recognize lands already patterns (Theobald 2001, p. 548). The percent) of the Gunnison Basin converted to agriculture are located allocation of land for resource-based population of Gunnison sage-grouse throughout all Gunnison sage-grouse activities such as agriculture and occurs within Gunnison County, with populations and are, therefore, livestock production is decreasing as the the remainder occurring in Saguache

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59815

County. Within Gunnison County, residential development is currently Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the approximately 30 percent of the compromising the likelihood of use by Gunnison Basin. We used the 20,236 ha occupied range of this species occurs on Gunnison sage-grouse for nesting habitat (50,004 ac) as an initial basis to assess private lands. We performed a GIS in these areas. the potential impacts of future analysis of parcel ownership data that Furthermore, since early brood- development. A lack of parcel data was focused on the spatial and temporal rearing habitat is often in close availability from surrounding counties pattern of human development within proximity to nest sites (Connelly et al. precluded expanding this analysis occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 2000a, p. 971), the functional loss of beyond Gunnison County; however, the Some of our analyses were limited to nesting habitat is closely linked with the analysis area constitutes 71 percent of the portion of occupied habitat in loss of early brood-rearing habitat. the Gunnison Basin population area. Gunnison County because parcel data Limitations in the quality and quantity Approximately 93 percent of occupied was only available for Gunnison County of nesting and early brood-rearing Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in and not for Saguache County. The habitat are particularly problematic Gunnison County consists of parcels cumulative number of human because Gunnison sage-grouse greater than 14.2 ha (35 ac), allowing developments has increased population dynamics are most sensitive exemptions from some county land dramatically in Gunnison County, during these life-history stages (GSRSC development regulations. Applying a especially since the early 1970s 2005, p. G-15). We recognize that the 1.7 percent average annual population (USFWS 2010a, p. 1). The number of potential percentages of habitat loss increase under a ‘‘middle’’ growth new developments averaged mentioned above, whether direct or scenario (CWCB 2009, p. 56) and an approximately 70 per year from the late functional, will not necessarily average 2.29 persons per household 1800s to 1969, increasing to correspond to the same percentage loss (CDOLA 2009b, p. 6) to the 2008 approximately 450 per year from 1970 in sage-grouse numbers. The recent Gunnison County human population to 2008 (USFWS 2010a, pp. 2-5). efforts to conserve Gunnison sage- estimate results in the potential addition Furthermore, there has been an grouse and their habitat within the of nearly 7,000 housing units to the increasing trend toward development Basin provide protection for the county by 2050. away from major roadways (primary and foreseeable future for several areas of Currently, approximately two-thirds secondary paved roads) into areas that high-quality habitat (see discussion in of the human population in Gunnison had previously undergone very limited Factor D). Nonetheless, given the large County occurs within the currently development in occupied Gunnison landscape-level needs of this species, mapped occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (USFWS 2010b, p. we expect this current level of habitat sage-grouse. Assuming this pattern will 7). Between 1889 and 1968, there were loss, degradation, and fragmentation, continue, two-thirds of the population approximately 51 human developments from residential development, as increase will occur within occupied located more than 1.6 km (1 mi) from a described above, to substantially limit Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. The major road in currently occupied the probability of persistence of above projection could potentially result Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Between Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison in the addition of approximately 4,630 1969 and 2008, this number increased to Basin. housing units and the potential for We also calculated a ‘‘lower’’ approximately 476 developments 25,829 ha (63,824 ac) of new habitat development impact scenario using the (USFWS 2010b, p. 7). loss, whether direct or functional, on smaller impact footprint hypothesized parcels that currently have no In order to assess the impacts of by the GSRSC (2005, pp. 160-161). This development. Based on the estimated existing residential development, we analysis assumed that residential area of impact determined by Aldridge relied on two evaluations of Gunnison density in excess of one housing unit et al. (2010), this potential functional sage-grouse response and habitat per 1.3 km2 (0.5 mi2) could cause habitat loss constitutes an additional availability in relation to development. declines in Gunnison sage-grouse impact of 15 percent of the current The first was a landscape-scale spatial populations. Within Gunnison County, extent of the Gunnison Basin population model predicting Gunnison sage-grouse 18 percent of the land area within the area (USFWS 2010b, p. 14). When nesting probability in the Gunnison range of Gunnison sage-grouse currently combined with the existing loss, Basin (Aldridge et al. 2010, entire). The has a residential density greater than whether direct or functional, of 49 model indicated that Gunnison sage- one housing unit per 1.3 km2 (0.5 mi2) percent of Gunnison sage-grouse nesting grouse select nest sites in areas with (USFWS 2010b, p. 8). Therefore, habitat, the total amount of habitat moderate shrub cover, and avoid according to the GSRSC estimate of subject to the indirect effects of residential development within a radius potential residential impacts, human residential development now and in the of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) (Aldridge et al. 2010, residential densities in the Gunnison foreseeable future increases to 64 p. 18). The model was applied to the Basin population area are such that we percent. entire Gunnison Basin population area expect they are limiting the Gunnison Using the same methodology as to predict the likelihood of Gunnison sage-grouse population in at least 18 discussed above, but applying the sage-grouse nesting based on data from percent of the population area. estimated area of impact determined by the western portion (Aldridge et al. We expect the density and GSRSC (2005, p. F-3), results in a future 2010, p. 16). We used Aldridge et al. distribution of human residences to potential functional habitat loss of 9 (2010)’s radius of 1.5 km (0.9 mi) expand in the future. Based on our GIS percent. When combined with the avoidance distance to calculate the analysis, we estimate that existing loss, whether direct or indirect effects likely from the current approximately 20,236 ha (50,004 ac) of functional, of 18 percent of Gunnison level of development within occupied private lands on approximately 1,190 sage-grouse habitat, an estimated 27 Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in parcels not subject to conservation percent of habitat will be functionally Gunnison County. We found that 49 easements currently lack human lost for Gunnison sage-grouse under this percent of the land area within the range development in occupied Gunnison minimum impact scenario. We believe of Gunnison sage-grouse has at least one sage-grouse habitat in Gunnison County that impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse housing unit within a radius of 1.5 km (USFWS 2010b, p. 11). These lands are implicit in even the lower or more (0.9 mi) (USFWS 2010b, p. 7). This scattered throughout occupied conservative estimates of direct and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59816 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

functional habitat loss are limiting the these ranges limit the persistence of in a dispersed exurban development persistence of the species. Gunnison sage-grouse. pattern throughout sagebrush habitats We also anticipate increased housing Residential Development in All Other will reduce the likelihood of sage-grouse density in many areas of occupied Population Areas – In 2004, within the persistence in these areas. Human Gunnison sage-grouse habitat because Crawford Population area, populations are increasing throughout the anticipated number of new housing approximately 951 ha (2,350 ac), or 7 the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, and units will exceed the number of percent of the occupied Gunnison sage- we expect this trend to continue. Given undeveloped parcels by nearly four grouse habitat, was subdivided into 48 the current demographic trends times (USFWS 2010b, p. 16). Some of parcels ranging in size from 14.2 ha (35 described above, we believe the rate of this anticipated development and ac) to 28.3 ha (70 ac) (CDOW 2009a, p. residential development in Gunnison subsequent functional habitat loss will 59). Local landowners and the National sage-grouse habitat will continue at least undoubtedly occur on parcels that Park Service (NPS) have ongoing efforts through 2050, and likely longer. The currently have existing human to protect portions of the subdivided resulting habitat loss and fragmentation development, which could lessen the area through conservation easements. from residential development is a effects to Gunnison sage-grouse. Residential subdivision continues to significant threat to Gunnison sage- However, the above calculation of an occur in the northern part of the Poncha grouse now and in the foreseeable increase in future housing units is likely Pass population area, and the CDOW future. an underestimate because it does not considers this to be the highest priority take into account the expected increase threat to this population (CDOW 2009a, Fences in second home development (CDOLA p. 124). The rate of residential The effects of fencing on sage-grouse 2009b, p. 7), which could increase development in the San Miguel Basin include direct mortality through negative effects to Gunnison sage- population increased between 2005 and collisions, creation of raptor and corvid grouse. The U.S. Census Bureau only 2008 but slowed in 2009 (CDOW 2009a, (Family Corvidae: crows, ravens, tallies the inhabitants of primary p. 135). However, a 429 ha (1,057 ac) magpies, etc.) perch sites, the potential residences in population totals. This parcel north of Miramonte Reservoir is creation of predator corridors along methodology results in an currently being developed as a retreat. fences (particularly if a road is underestimate of the population, The CDOW reports that potential maintained next to the fence), incursion particularly in amenity communities, impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse of exotic species along the fencing because of the increased number of part- resulting from the development may be corridor, and habitat fragmentation (Call time residents inhabiting second homes reduced by possibly placing a portion of and Maser 1985, p. 22; Braun 1998, p. and vacation homes in these areas the property into a conservation 145; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Beck (Riebsame 1996, p. 397; Theobald 2001, easement and the relocation of a et al. 2003, p. 211; Knick et al. 2003, p. p. 550, Theobald 2004, p. 143). In proposed major road to avoid occupied 612; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 1-2). Gunnison County, approximately 90 habitat (CDOW 2009a, p. 136). No recent Corvids are significant sage-grouse nest percent of vacant housing units were or planned residential developments are predators and were responsible for more seasonal-use units (CDOLA 2009c, p. 1). known for the Cerro Summit–Cimarron– than 50 percent of nest predations in The housing vacancy rate, which is Sims Mesa population area (CDOW Nevada (Coates 2007, pp. 26-30). Sage- computed by dividing the number of 2009a, p. 45), Monticello–Dove Creek grouse frequently fly low and fast across vacant housing units by the total population area (CDOW 2009a, p. 73), or sagebrush flats, and fences can create a housing units, was 42.5 percent in Pı˜non Mesa population area (CDOW collision hazard resulting in direct Gunnison County over the last two 2009a, p. 109). The remaining limited mortality (Call and Maser 1985, p. 22). decades (CDOLA 2009d, p. 2). amounts of habitat, the fragmented Not all fences present the same We expect some development to be nature of this remaining habitat, and the mortality risk to sage-grouse. Mortality moderated by the establishment of anticipated increases in exurban risk appears to be dependent on a additional voluntary landowner development within each of the six combination of factors including design conservation easements such as those smaller populations pose a significant of fencing, landscape topography, and currently facilitated by the CDOW and threat to these six populations. spatial relationship with seasonal land trust organizations. While habitats (Christiansen 2009). This conservation easements can minimize Summary of Residential Development variability in fence mortality rate and the overall impacts to Gunnison sage- Because Gunnison sage-grouse are the lack of systematic fence monitoring grouse, because less than 5 percent of dependent on expansive, contiguous make it difficult to determine the occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat areas of sagebrush habitat to meet their magnitude of impacts to sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin has been placed life-history needs, the development populations; however, in some cases the in conservation easements to date, we patterns described above have resulted level of mortality is likely significant to do not expect the amount of land in the direct and functional loss of localized areas within populations. potentially placed in future easements sagebrush habitat and have negatively Fences directly kill greater sage grouse will significantly offset the overall affected the species by limiting already (Call and Maser 1985, p. 22; affects of human development. scarce habitat, especially within the six Christiansen 2009, pp. 1-2); we assume Our analyses, based on the smaller populations. The collective that Gunnison sage-grouse are also evaluations of impacts to Gunnison influences of fragmentation and killed by fences but do not have species- sage-grouse discussed above, result in disturbance from human activities specific data. Although the effects of estimates of existing functional habitat around residences and associated roads direct strike mortality on populations loss of 18 to 49 percent of the Gunnison reduce the effective habitat around these are not fully analyzed, fences are Basin population area. Future estimates areas, making them inhospitable to ubiquitous across the landscape. Fence of functional habitat loss result in an Gunnison sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. collisions continue to be identified as a increase of 9 to 15 percent, for a 2010, pp. 24-25; Knick, et al. 2009, in source of mortality for Gunnison and cumulative total of 27 and 64 percent press, p. 25 and references therein; greater sage-grouse and we expect this loss of the Gunnison Basin population Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p.520). source of mortality to continue into the area. We believe that impacts within Human population growth that results foreseeable future (Braun 1998, p. 145;

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59817

Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Oyler- Roads also encroach into surrounding habitats McCance et al. 2001, p. 330; Connelly et Impacts from roads may include (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; al. 2004, p. 7-3). direct habitat loss, direct mortality, Forman 2000, p. 33; Gelbard and Belnap Fence posts create perching places for barriers to migration corridors or 2003, p. 427). In their study of roads on raptors and corvids, which may increase seasonal habitats, facilitation of the Colorado Plateau of southern Utah, their ability to prey on sage-grouse predation and spread of invasive Gelbard and Belnap (2003, p. 426) found (Braun 1998, p. 145; Oyler-McCance et vegetative species, and other indirect that improving unpaved four-wheel al. 2001, p. 330; Connelly et al. 2004, p. influences such as noise (Forman and drive roads to paved roads resulted in 13-12). We anticipate that the effect on Alexander 1998, pp. 207-231). Greater increased cover of exotic plant species sage-grouse populations through the sage-grouse mortality resulting from within the interior of adjacent plant creation of new raptor perches and collisions with vehicles does occur, but communities. This effect was associated predator corridors into sagebrush mortalities are typically not monitored with road construction and maintenance activities and vehicle traffic, and not habitats is similar to that of powerlines or recorded (Patterson 1952, p. 81). with differences in site characteristics. discussed below (Braun 1998, p. 145; Therefore, we are unable to determine The incursion of exotic plants into Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-3). Fences and the importance of this factor on sage- native sagebrush systems can negatively their associated roads also facilitate the grouse populations. We have no affect Gunnison sage-grouse through spread of invasive plant species that information on the number of direct habitat losses and conversions (see replace sagebrush plants upon which mortalities of Gunnison sage-grouse further discussion below in Invasive sage-grouse depend (Braun 1998, p. 145; resulting from vehicles or roads; Plants). Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 973; Gelbard however, because of similarities in their and Belnap 2003, p. 421; Connelly et al. Additional indirect effects of roads habitat and habitat use, we expect may result from birds’ behavioral 2004, p. 7-3). Greater sage-grouse similar effects as those observed in avoidance of habitat adjacent to fences, avoidance of road areas because of greater sage-grouse. Roads within noise, visual disturbance, pollutants, presumably to minimize the risk of Gunnison sage-grouse habitats have predation, effectively results in habitat and predators moving along a road. The been shown to impede movement of landscape-scale spatial model fragmentation even if the actual habitat local populations between the resultant is not removed (Braun 1998, p. 145). predicting Gunnison sage-grouse nest patches, with road avoidance site selection showed strong avoidance Because of similarities in behavior and presumably being a behavioral means to of areas with high road densities of habitat use, we believe the response of limit exposure to predation (Oyler- roads classed 1 through 4 (primary Gunnison sage-grouse is similar to that McCance et al. 2001, p. 330). paved highways through primitive roads observed in greater sage-grouse. The presence of roads increases with 2-wheel drive sedan clearance) At least 1,540 km (960 mi) of fence are human access and resulting disturbance within 6.4 km (4 mi)) of nest sites on BLM lands within the Gunnison effects in remote areas (Forman and (Aldridge et al. 2010 p. 18). The Basin (Borthwick 2005a, pers. comm.; Alexander 1998, p. 221; Forman 2000, occurrence of Gunnison sage-grouse BLM 2005a, 2005e) and an unquantified p. 35; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-6 to nest sites also decreased with increased amount of fence on land owned or 7-25). In addition, roads can provide proximity to primary and secondary managed by other landowners. Fences corridors for predators to move into paved highways (roads classes 1 and 2) are present within all other Gunnison previously unoccupied areas. For some (Aldridge et al. 2010, p. 27). Male sage-grouse population areas, but we mammalian species known to prey on greater sage-grouse lek attendance was have no quantitative information on the sage-grouse, such as red fox (Vulpes shown to decline within 3 km (1.9 mi) amount or types of fencing in these vulpes), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and of a methane well or haul road with areas. striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), traffic volume exceeding one vehicle per Summary of Fences dispersal along roads has greatly day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). Male sage- increased their distribution (Forman grouse depend on acoustical signals to While fences contribute to habitat and Alexander 1998, p. 212; Forman attract females to leks (Gibson and fragmentation and increase the potential 2000, p. 33; Frey and Conover 2006, pp. Bradbury 1985, p. 82; Gratson 1993, p. for loss of individual grouse through 1114-1115). Corvids also use linear 692). If noise interferes with mating collisions or enhanced predation, such features such as primary and secondary displays, and thereby female effects have been ongoing since the first roads as travel routes, expanding their attendance, younger males will not be agricultural conversions occurred in movements into previously unused drawn to the lek and eventually leks sage-grouse habitat. We expect that the regions (Knight and Kawashima 1993, p. will become inactive (Amstrup and majority of existing fences will remain 268; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 12-3). Phillips 1977, p. 26; Braun 1986, pp. on the landscape indefinitely. However, Corvids are significant sage-grouse nest 229-230). because we do not expect a major predators and were responsible for more In a study on the Pinedale Anticline increase in the number of fences, than 50 percent of nest predations in in Wyoming, greater sage-grouse hens particularly 3-wire range fencing, we do Nevada (Coates 2007, pp. 26-30). Ravens that bred on leks within 3 km (1.9 mi) not believe fencing, on its own, is a were documented following roads in oil of roads associated with oil and gas significant threat to Gunnison sage- and gas fields while foraging (Bui 2009, development traveled twice as far to grouse at the species level. In the p. 31). nest as did hens that bred on leks smaller Gunnison sage-grouse The expansion of road networks greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) from roads. populations, the impacts of fencing contributes to exotic plant invasions via Nest initiation rates for hens bred on could become another source of introduced road fill, vehicle transport, leks close to roads also were lower (65 mortality that cumulatively affects the and road maintenance activities versus 89 percent), affecting population species. We also recognize that fences (Forman and Alexander 1998, p. 210; recruitment (33 versus 44 percent) are located throughout all Gunnison Forman 2000, p. 32; Gelbard and Belnap (Lyon 2000, p. 33; Lyon and Anderson sage-grouse populations and are, 2003, p. 426; Knick et al. 2003, p. 619; 2003, pp. 489-490). Lyon and Anderson therefore, contributing to the Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). Invasive (2003, p. 490) suggested that roads may fragmentation of remaining habitat. species are not limited to roadsides, but be the primary impact of oil and gas

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59818 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

development to sage-grouse, due to their Eighty-seven percent of all Gunnison population is increasing throughout the persistence and continued use even sage-grouse nests were located less than range of Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOLA after drilling and production have 6.4 km (4 mi) from the lek of capture 2009a, pp. 2-3; CWCB 2009, p. 15), and ceased. Lek abandonment patterns (Apa 2004, p. 21). However, the BLM we have no data indicating this trend suggested that daily vehicular traffic proposes to reduce road length to 1,157 will be reversed. Gunnison sage-grouse along road networks for oil wells can km (719 mi) (BLM 2010, p. 147). are dependent on large contiguous and impact greater sage-grouse breeding Currently, 1,349 km (838 mi) of roads unfragmented landscapes to meet their activities (Braun et al. 2002, p. 5). We accessible to 2-wheel drive passenger life-history needs (GSRSC 2005, pp. 26- believe the effects of vehicular traffic on cars exist in occupied Gunnison sage- 30), and the existing road density Gunnison sage-grouse, regardless of its grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin. throughout much of the range of purpose (e.g., in support of energy Four-wheel-drive vehicle roads, as well Gunnison sage-grouse has negatively production or local commuting and as motorcycle, mountain bike, horse, affected the species. The collective recreation), are similar to those observed and hiking trails are heavily distributed influences of fragmentation and in greater sage-grouse. throughout the range of Gunnison sage- disturbance from roads reduce the Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) did not grouse (BLM 2009, pp. 27, 55, 86), effective habitat around these areas find road density to be an important which further increases the overall making them inhospitable to sage- factor affecting greater sage-grouse density of roads and their direct and grouse (Aldridge et al. 2010, pp. 24-25; persistence or rangewide patterns in indirect effects on Gunnison sage- Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 520; Knick sage-grouse extirpation. However, the grouse. User-created roads and trails et al. 2009, in press, p. 25 and references authors did not consider the intensity of have increased since 2004 (BLM 2009, therein). Given the current human human use of roads in their modeling p. 33), although we do not know the demographic and economic trends efforts. They also indicated that their percentage increase. described above in the Residential analyses may have been influenced by Using a spatial dataset of roads in the Development section, we believe that inaccuracies in spatial road data sets, Gunnison Basin we performed GIS increased road use and increased road particularly for secondary roads analyses on the potential effects of roads construction associated with residential (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 992). Historic to Gunnison sage-grouse and their development will continue at least range where greater and Gunnison sage habitat. To account for secondary effects through 2050, and likely longer. The grouse have been extirpated has a 25 from invasive weed spread from roads resulting habitat loss, degradation, and percent higher density of roads than (see discussion below in Invasive fragmentation from roads is a significant occupied range (Wisdom et al. in press, Plants), we applied a 0.7 km (0.4 mi) threat to Gunnison sage-grouse now and p. 18). Wisdom et al.’s (in press) greater buffer (Bradley and Mustard 2006, p. in the foreseeable future. and Gunnison sage-grouse rangewide 1146) to all roads in the Gunnison analysis supports the findings of Basin. Results of these analyses indicate Powerlines numerous local studies showing that that approximately 85 percent of Powerlines can directly affect greater roads can have both direct and indirect occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin sage-grouse by posing a collision and impacts on sage-grouse distribution and has an increased likelihood of current or electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, pp. individual fitness (reproduction and future road-related invasive weed 145-146; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974), survival) (e.g., Lyon and Anderson 2003 invasion. When all roads in the and can have indirect effects by p. 490 , Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. Gunnison basin are buffered by 6.4 km decreasing lek recruitment (Braun et al. 520). (4 mi) or 9.6 km (6 mi) to account for 2002, p. 10), increasing predation Recreational activities including off nesting avoidance (Aldridge et al. 2010, (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 13-12), highway vehicles (OHV), all-terrain p. 27) and secondary effects from fragmenting habitat (Braun 1998, p. vehicles (ATV), motorcycles, mountain mammal and corvid foraging areas 146), and facilitating the invasion of biking and other mechanized methods (Knick et al in press, p. 113), exotic annual plants (Knick et al. 2003, of travel have been recognized as a respectively, all occupied habitat in the p. 612; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). potential direct and indirect threat to Gunnison Basin is indirectly affected by Proximity to powerlines is associated Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat roads. with Gunnison and greater sage-grouse (BLM 2009, p. 36). In Colorado, the Roads in All Other Population Areas extirpation (Wisdom et al. in press, p. number of annual off highway vehicle – Approximately 140 km (87 mi), 243 20). Due to the potential spread of (OHV) registrations has increased from km (151 mi), and 217 km (135 mi) of invasive species and predators as a 12,000 in 1991 to 131,000 in 2007 (BLM roads (all road classes) occur on BLM result of powerline construction and 2009, p. 37). Four wheel drive, OHV, lands within the Cerro Summit– maintenance, the impact from a motorcycle, specialty vehicle, and Cimarron–Sims Mesa, Crawford, and powerline is greater than its actual mountain bike use is expected to San Miguel Basin population areas, footprint. We believe the effects to increase in the future based on respectively, all of which are managed Gunnison sage-grouse are similar to increased population in general and by the BLM (BLM 2009, p. 71). We do those observed in greater sage-grouse increased population density in the area not have information on the total length and that the impact from a powerline is (as discussed above). Numerous off-road of roads within the Monticello–Dove greater than its footprint. routes and access points to habitat used Creek, Pı˜non Mesa, or Poncha Pass In areas where the vegetation is low by Gunnison sage-grouse combined with Gunnison sage-grouse populations. and the terrain relatively flat, power increasing capabilities for mechanized However, several maps provided by the poles provide an attractive hunting and travel and increased human population BLM show that roads are widespread roosting perch, as well as nesting further contribute to habitat and common throughout these stratum for many species of raptors and fragmentation. population areas (BLM 2009, pp. 27, 55, corvids (Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 27; Roads in the Gunnison Basin 86). Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974; Manville Population Area – On BLM lands in the 2002, p. 7; Vander Haegen et al. 2002, Gunnison Basin there are currently Summary of Roads p. 503). Power poles increase a raptor’s 2,050 km (1,274 mi) of roads within 6.4 As described above in the ‘Residential range of vision, allow for greater speed km (4 mi) of Gunnison sage-grouse leks. Development’ section, the human during attacks on prey, and serve as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59819

territorial markers (Steenhof et al. 1993, grouse near powerlines increased as population area is within 6.9 km (4.3 p. 275; Manville 2002, p. 7). Raptors distance from the powerline increased mi) of an electrical transmission line may actively seek out power poles for up to 600 m (660 yd) (Braun 1998, and is potentially influenced by avian where natural perches are limited. For p. 8). Based on those unpublished data, predators utilizing the additional example, within 1 year of construction Braun (1998, p. 8) reported that the perches provided by transmission lines. of a 596-km (3–2 -mi) transmission line presence of powerlines may limit This area contains 65 of 109 active leks in southern Idaho and Oregon, raptors Gunnison and greater sage-grouse use (60 percent) in the Gunnison Basin and common ravens began nesting on within 1 km (0.6 mi) in otherwise population. These results suggest that the supporting poles (Steenhof et al. suitable habitat. Similar results were potential increased predation resulting 1993, p. 275). Within 10 years of recorded for other grouse species. For from transmission lines have the construction, 133 pairs of raptors and example, lesser and greater prairie- potential to affect a substantial portion ravens were nesting along this stretch chickens (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus of the Gunnison Basin population. (Steenhof et al. 1993, p. 275). Raven and T. cupido, respectively) avoided Powerlines in All Other Population counts increased by approximately 200 otherwise suitable habitat near Areas – A transmission line runs percent along the Falcon-Gondor powerlines (Pruett et al. 2009, p. 6). through the Dry Creek Basin group in transmission line corridor in Nevada Additionally, both species also crossed the San Miguel Basin population, and within 5 years of construction (Atamian powerlines less often than nearby roads, the Beaver Mesa group has two et al. 2007, p. 2). The increased which suggests that powerlines are a transmission lines. None of the abundance of raptors and corvids within particularly strong barrier to movement transmission lines in the San Miguel occupied greater and Gunnison sage- (Pruett et al. 2009, p. 6). Basin have raptor proofing, nor do most grouse habitats can result in increased Sage-grouse also may avoid distribution lines (Ferguson 2005, pers predation. Ellis (1985, p. 10) reported powerlines as a result of the comm.) so their use by raptors and that golden eagle (Aquila chryrsaetos) electromagnetic fields present (Wisdom corvids as perch sites for hunting and predation on sage-grouse on leks et al. in press, p. 19). Electromagnetic use for nest sites is not discouraged. increased from 26 to 73 percent of the fields have been demonstrated to alter One major electric transmission line total predation after completion of a the behavior, physiology, endocrine runs east-west in the northern portion of transmission line within 200 meters (m) systems and immune function in birds, the current range of the Monticello (220 yards (yd)) of an active sage-grouse with negative consequences on group (San Juan County Gunnison Sage- lek in northeastern Utah. The lek was reproduction and development (Fernie grouse Working Group (GSWG) 2005, p. eventually abandoned, and Ellis (1985, and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). Birds are 17). Powerlines do not appear to be p. 10) concluded that the presence of diverse in their sensitivities to present in sufficient density to pose a the powerline resulted in changes in electromagnetic field exposures, with significant threat to Gunnison sage- sage-grouse dispersal patterns and domestic chickens being very sensitive. grouse in the Pı˜non Mesa population at caused fragmentation of the habitat. Many raptor species are less affected this time. One transmission line Golden eagles are found throughout the (Fernie and Reynolds 2005, p. 135). No parallels Highway 92 in the Crawford range of Gunnison sage-grouse (USGS studies have been conducted population, and distribution lines run 2010, p. 1), and golden eagles were specifically on sage-grouse. Therefore, from there to homes on the periphery of found to be the dominant species we do not know the impact to the the current range (Ferguson 2005, pers. recorded perching on power poles in Gunnison sage-grouse from comm.). Utah in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat electromagnetic fields. Summary of Powerlines (Prather and Messmer 2009, p. 12). Linear corridors through sagebrush Leks within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of new habitats can facilitate the spread of The projected human population powerlines constructed for coalbed invasive species, such as cheatgrass growth rate in and near most Gunnison methane development in the Powder (Bromus tectorum) (Gelbard and Belnap sage-grouse populations is high (see River Basin of Wyoming had 2003, pp. 424-426; Knick et al. 2003, p. discussion under Residential significantly lower growth rates, as 620; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 1-2). Development). As a result, we expect an measured by recruitment of new males However, we were unable to find any associated increase in distribution onto the lek, compared to leks further information regarding the amount of powerlines. Powerlines are likely from these lines, presumably resulting invasive species incursion as a result of negatively affecting Gunnison sage- from increased raptor predation (Braun powerline construction. grouse as they contribute to habitat loss et al. 2002, p. 10). Within their analysis Powerlines in the Gunnison Basin and fragmentation and facilitation of area, Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-26) Population Area – On approximately predators of Gunnison sage-grouse. assumed a 5 to 6.9-km (3.1 to 4.3-mi) 121,000 ha (300,000 ac) of BLM land in Given the current demographic and radius buffer around the perches, based the Gunnison Basin, 36 rights-of-way for economic trends described above, we on the average foraging distance of these power facilities, power lines, and believe that existing powerlines and corvids and raptors, and estimated that transmission lines have resulted in the anticipated distribution of powerlines the area potentially influenced by direct loss of 350 ha (858 ac) of associated with residential development additional perches provided by occupied habitat (Borthwick 2005b, pers will continue at least through 2050, and powerlines was 672,644 to 837,390 km2 comm.). As discussed above, the likely longer. The resulting habitat loss (259,641 to 323,317 mi2), or 32 to 40 impacts of these lines likely extend and fragmentation from powerlines, and percent of their assessment area. The beyond their actual footprint. We the effects of avian predators that use actual impact on an area would depend performed a GIS analysis of them, is a significant threat to Gunnison on corvid and raptor densities within transmission line location in relation to sage-grouse now and in the foreseeable the area (see discussion in Factor C, overall habitat area and Gunnison sage- future. below). grouse lek locations in the Gunnison The presence of a powerline may Basin Population area to obtain an Fire fragment sage-grouse habitats even if estimate of the potential effects in the The nature of historical fire patterns raptors are not present. The use of Basin. Results of these analyses indicate in sagebrush communities, particularly otherwise suitable habitat by sage- that 68 percent of the Gunnison Basin in Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59820 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

tridentata var. wyomingensis), is not p. 323; Gates 1983, in Connelly et al. Approximately 8,470 ha (20,930 ac) of well understood, and a high degree of 2000c, p. 90; Sime 1991, in Connelly et prescribed burns occurred on Forest variability likely occurred (Miller and al. 2000a, p. 972). In this type of habitat, Service lands in the Gunnison Basin Eddleman 2000, p. 16; Zouhar et al. small fires may maintain a suitable since 1983 (USFS 2009, p. 1). A small 2008, p. 154; Baker in press, p. 16). In habitat mosaic by reducing shrub wildfire on BLM lands near Hartman general, mean fire return intervals in encroachment and encouraging Rocks burned 8 ha (20 ac) in 2007 (BLM low-lying, xeric (dry) big sagebrush understory growth. However, without 2009, p. 35). The total area of occupied communities range from more than 100 available nearby sagebrush cover, the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat burned in to 350 years, and return intervals utility of these sites is questionable, recent decades is approximately 8,887 decrease from 50 to more than 200 years especially within the six small ha (21,960 ac), which constitutes 1.5 in more mesic (wet) areas, at higher Gunnison sage-grouse populations percent of the occupied Gunnison sage- elevations, during wetter climatic where fire could further degrade and grouse habitat area. Cumulatively, this periods, and in locations associated fragment the remaining habitat. equates to a relatively small amount of with grasslands (Baker 2006, p. 181; Sagebrush loss as a result of fire is likely habitat burned over a period of nearly Mensing et al. 2006, p. 75; Baker, in to have proportionally more individual three decades. This information suggests press, pp. 15-16; Miller et al., in press, bird and population level impacts as the that there has not been a demonstrated p. 35). amount of sagebrush declines within change in fire cycle in the Gunnison Mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia each of the remaining populations. As Basin population area to date. tridenata var. vaseyana), the most the amount of sagebrush remaining Fire in All Other Population Areas – important and widespread sagebrush within a population declines, the greater Two prescribed burns conducted in species for Gunnison sage-grouse, is the potential impact is to that 1986 (105 ha (260 ac)) and 1992 (140 ha killed by fire and can require decades to population. (350 ac)) on BLM land in the San Miguel recover. In nesting and wintering sites, The invasion of the exotic cheatgrass Basin on the north side of Dry Creek fire causes direct loss of habitat due to increases fire frequency within the Basin had negative impacts on sage- reduced cover and forage (Call and sagebrush ecosystem (Zouhar et al. grouse. The burns were conducted for Maser 1985, p. 17). While there may be 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, p. 39). big game forage improvement, but the limited instances where burned habitat Cheatgrass readily invades sagebrush sagebrush died and was largely replaced is beneficial, these gains are lost if communities, especially disturbed sites, with weeds (BLM 2005b, pp. 7-8). The alternative sagebrush habitat is not and changes historical fire patterns by Burn Canyon fire in the Dry Creek Basin readily available (Woodward 2006, p. providing an abundant and easily and Hamilton Mesa areas burned 890 ha 65). ignitable fuel source that facilitates fire (2,200 ac) in 2000. Three fires have Herbaceous understory vegetation spread. While sagebrush is killed by fire occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse plays a critical role throughout the and is slow to reestablish, cheatgrass habitat since 2004 on lands managed by breeding season as a source of forage recovers within 1 to 2 years of a fire the BLM in the Crawford, Cerro and cover for Gunnison sage-grouse event (Young and Evans 1978, p. 285). Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa, and San females and chicks. The response of This annual recovery leads to a readily Miguel Basin population areas. There herbaceous understory vegetation to fire burnable fuel source and ultimately a have been no fires since 2004 on lands varies with differences in species reoccurring fire cycle that prevents managed by the BLM within the composition, pre-burn site condition, sagebrush reestablishment (Eiswerth et Monticello–Dove Creek population. fire intensity, and pre- and post-fire al. 2009, p. 1324). The extensive Because these fires were mostly small in patterns of precipitation. In general, distribution and highly invasive nature size, we do not believe they resulted in when not considering the synergistic of cheatgrass poses substantial increased substantial impacts to Gunnison sage- effects of invasive species, any risk of fire and permanent loss of grouse. beneficial short-term flush of understory sagebrush habitat, as areas disturbed by Several wildfires near or within the grasses and forbs is lost after only a few fire are highly susceptible to further Pı˜non Mesa population area have years and little difference is apparent invasion and ultimately habitat occurred in the past 20 years. One fire between burned and unburned sites conversion to an altered community burned a small amount of occupied (Cook et al. 1994, p. 298; Fischer et al. state. For example, Link et al. (2006, p. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in 1995, 1996, p. 196; Crawford 1999, p. 7; 116) show that risk of fire increases and several fires burned in potential Wrobleski 1999, p. 31; Nelle et al. 2000, from approximately 46 to 100 percent Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. p. 588; Paysen et al. 2000, p. 154; when ground cover of cheatgrass Individual burned areas ranged from 3.6 Wambolt et al. 2001, p. 250). increases from 12 to 45 percent or more. ha (9 ac) to 2,160 ha (5,338 ac). A In addition to altering plant We do not have a reliable estimate of the wildfire in 2009 burned 1,053 ha (2,602 community structure, fires can amount of area occupied by cheatgrass ac), predominantly within vacant or influence invertebrate food sources in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. unknown Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). However, However, cheatgrass is found at (suitable habitat for sage-grouse that is because few studies have been numerous locations throughout the separated from occupied habitats that conducted and the results of those Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009, p. 60). has not been adequately inventoried, or available vary, the specific magnitude Fire in the Gunnison Basin Population without recent documentation of grouse and duration of the effects of fire on Area – Six prescribed burns have presence) near the Pı˜non Mesa insect communities is still uncertain. occurred on BLM lands in the Gunnison population. Since 2004, a single 2.8 ha A clear positive response of Gunnison Basin since 1984, totaling (7 ac) wildfire occurred in the Cerro or greater sage-grouse to fire has not approximately 409 ha (1,010 ac) (BLM Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa been demonstrated (Braun 1998, p. 9). 2009, p. 35). The fires created large population area, and two prescribed The few studies that have suggested fire sagebrush-free areas that were further fires, both less than 12 ha (30 ac), were may be beneficial for greater sage-grouse degraded by poor post-burn livestock implemented in the San Miguel were primarily conducted in mesic management (BLM 2005a, p. 13). As a population area. There was no fire areas used for brood-rearing (Klebenow result, these areas are no longer suitable activity within occupied Gunnison sage- 1970, p. 399; Pyle and Crawford 1996, as Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. grouse habitat in the last two decades in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59821

the Poncha Pass population area (CDOW invasive plants fragment existing sage- subsequently increases the likelihood of 2009a, pp. 125-126) or the Monticello– grouse habitat. They can create long- cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, pp. Dove Creek population area (CDOW term changes in ecosystem processes, 202-204; Prevey et al. 2009, p. 11). This 2009a, p. 75; UDWR 2009, p. 5). such as fire-cycles (see discussion under could increase the susceptibility of Fire above) and other disturbance sagebrush areas in Utah and Colorado to Summary of Fire regimes that persist even after an cheatgrass invasion (Bradley 2009, p. Fires can cause the proliferation of invasive plant is removed (Zouhar et al. 204). weeds and can degrade suitable sage- 2008, p. 33). A variety of nonnative A variety of restoration and grouse habitat, which may not recover annuals and perennials are invasive to rehabilitation techniques are used to to suitable conditions for decades, if at sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al. treat invasive plants, but they can be all (Pyke in press, pp. 18-19). Recent 2004, pp. 7-107 and 7-108; Zouhar et al. costly and are mostly unproven and fires in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 2008, p. 144). Cheatgrass is considered experimental at a large scale. In the last were mostly small in size and did not most invasive in Artemisia tridentata approximately 100 years, no broad-scale result in substantial impacts to ssp. wyomingensis communities cheatgrass eradication method has been Gunnison sage-grouse, and there has (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 5-9). Other developed. Habitat treatments that been no obvious change in fire cycle in invasive plants found within the range either disturb the soil surface or deposit any Gunnison sage-grouse population of Gunnison sage-grouse that are a layer of litter increase cheatgrass area. Therefore, we do not consider fire reported to take over large areas include: establishment in the Gunnison Basin to be a significant threat to Gunnison spotted knapweed (Centaurea when a cheatgrass seed source is present sage-grouse or its habitat at this time. It maculosa), Russian knapweed (Sokolow 2005, p. 51). Therefore, is not currently possible to predict the (Acroptilon repens), oxeye daisy researchers recommend using habitat extent or location of future fire events. (Leucanthemum vulgare), yellow treatment tools, such as brush mowers, However, existing data indicates that toadflax (Linaria vulgaris), and field with caution and suggest that treated climate change has the potential to alter bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) (BLM sites should be monitored for increases changes in the distribution and extent of 2009, p. 28, 36; Gunnison Watershed in cheatgrass emergence (Sokolow 2005, cheatgrass and sagebrush and associated Weed Commission (GWWC) 2009, pp. 4- p. 49). fire frequencies. The best available data 6). Although not yet reported to create Invasive Plants in the Gunnison Basin indicates that fire frequency may large expanses in the range of Gunnison Population Area – Quantifying the total increase in the foreseeable future (which sage-grouse, the following weeds are amount of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat we consider to be indefinite) because of also known from the species’ range and impacted by invasive plants is difficult increases in cover of cheatgrass (Zouhar do cover large expanses in other parts of due to differing sampling et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. in press, methodologies, incomplete sampling, western North America: diffuse p. 39; Whisenant 1990, p. 4) and the inconsistencies in species sampled, and knapweed (Centaurea diffusa), whitetop projected effects of climate change varying interpretations of what (Cardaria draba), jointed goatgrass (Miller et al. in press, p. 47; Prevey et constitutes an infestation (Miller et al., (Aegilops cylindrica), and yellow al. 2009, p. 11) (see Invasive Plants and in press, p. 19). Cheatgrass has invaded starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Other Climate Change discussions below). areas in Gunnison sage-grouse range, invasive plant species present within Therefore, fire is likely to become an supplanting sagebrush habitat in some the range of Gunnison sage-grouse that increasingly significant threat to the areas. However, we do not have a are problematic yet less likely to Gunnison sage-grouse in the foreseeable reliable estimate of the amount of area overtake large areas include: Canada future. occupied by cheatgrass in the range of thistle (Cirsium arvense), musk thistle Gunnison sage-grouse. While not Invasive Plants (Carduus nutans), bull thistle (Cirsium ubiquitous, cheatgrass is found at For the purposes of this finding, we vulgare), houndstongue (Cynoglossum numerous locations throughout the define invasive plants as those that are officinale), black henbane (Hyoscyamus Gunnison Basin (BLM 2009, p. 60). not native to an ecosystem and that have niger), common tansy (Tanacetum Cheatgrass infestation within a a negative impact on Gunnison sage- vulgare), and absinth wormwood particular area can range from a small grouse habitat. Invasive plants alter (Artemisia biennis) (BLM 2009, p. 28, number of individuals scattered native plant community structure and 36; GWWC 2009, pp. 4-6). sparsely throughout a site, to complete composition, productivity, nutrient Cheatgrass impacts sagebrush or near-complete understory domination cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek 1990, ecosystems by potentially shortening of a site. Cheatgrass has increased p. 7) and may cause declines in native fire intervals from several decades, throughout the Gunnison Basin in the plant populations through competitive depending on the type of sagebrush last decade and is becoming exclusion and niche displacement, plant community and site productivity, increasingly detrimental to sagebrush among other mechanisms (Mooney and to as low as 3 to 5 years, perpetuating community types (BLM 2009, p. 7). Cleland 2001, p. 5446). Invasive plants its own persistence and intensifying the Currently in the Gunnison Basin, reduce and, in cases where role of fire (Whisenant 1990, p. 4). cheatgrass attains site dominance most monocultures of them occur, eliminate Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-5) suggested often along roadways; however, other vegetation that sage-grouse use for food that cheatgrass shortens fire intervals to highly disturbed areas have similar and cover. Invasive plants do not less than 10 years. As discussed under cheatgrass densities. Cheatgrass is provide quality sage-grouse habitat. the discussion of climate change below, currently present in almost every Sage-grouse depend on a variety of temperature increases may increase the grazing allotment in Gunnison sage- native forbs and the insects associated competitive advantage of cheatgrass in grouse occupied habitat and other with them for chick survival, and higher elevation areas where its current invasive plant species, such as Canada sagebrush, which is used exclusively distribution is limited (Miller et al. in thistle, black henbane, spotted throughout the winter for food and press, p. 47). Decreased summer knapweed, Russian knapweed, Kochia, cover. precipitation reduces the competitive bull thistle, musk thistle, oxeye daisy, Along with replacing or removing advantage of summer perennial grasses, yellow toadflax and field bindweed, are vegetation essential to sage-grouse, reduces sagebrush cover, and found in riparian areas and roadsides

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

throughout the Gunnison Basin (BLM (1,284 ac) of BLM lands are currently bunchgrass communities (Miller and 2009, p. 7). mapped with cheatgrass as the Tausch 2001, pp. 15-16). Pı˜non-juniper Although disturbed areas most often dominant species (BLM 2009, p. 3). This woodlands have also been expanding contain the highest cheatgrass densities, is not a comprehensive inventory of throughout portions of the range of cheatgrass can readily spread into less cheatgrass occurrence, as it only Gunnison sage-grouse (BLM 2009, pp. disturbed and even undisturbed habitat. includes areas where cheatgrass 14, 17, 25). Pı˜non-juniper expansion has A strong indicator for future cheatgrass dominates the plant community and been attributed to the reduced role of locations is the proximity to current does not include areas where the fire, the introduction of livestock locations (Bradley and Mustard 2006, p. species is present at lower densities. grazing, increases in global carbon 1146) as well as summer, annual, and Cheatgrass distribution has not been dioxide concentrations, climate change, spring precipitation, and winter comprehensively mapped for the and natural recovery from past temperature (Bradley 2009, p. 196). Monticello–Dove Creek population area; disturbance (Miller and Rose 1999, pp. Although we lack the information to however, cheatgrass is beginning to be 555-556; Miller and Tausch 2001, p. 15; make a detailed determination on the assessed on a site-specific and project- Baker, in press, p. 24). In addititon, actual extent or rate of increase, given level basis. No significant invasive plant Gambel oak invasion as a result of fire its invasive nature, we believe occurrences are currently known in the suppression also has been identified as cheatgrass and its negative influence on Poncha Pass population area. a potential threat to Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse will increase in grouse (CDOW 2002, p. 139). the Gunnison Basin in the future Summary of Invasive Plants Similar to powerlines, trees provide because of potential exacerbation from Invasive plants negatively impact perches for raptors, and as a climate change interactions and the Gunnison sage-grouse primarily by consequence, Gunnison sage-grouse limited success of broad-scale control reducing or eliminating native avoid areas with Pı˜non-juniper efforts. vegetation that sage-grouse require for (Commons et al. 1999, p. 239). The Invasive Plants in All Other food and cover, resulting in habitat loss number of male Gunnison sage-grouse Population Areas – Cheatgrass is and fragmentation. Although invasive on leks in southwest Colorado doubled present throughout much of the current plants, especially cheatgrass, have after Pı˜non-juniper removal and range in the San Miguel Basin (BLM affected some Gunnison sage-grouse mechanical treatment of mountain 2005c, p. 62005d), but is most abundant habitat, the impacts do not currently sagebrush and deciduous brush in the Dry Creek Basin group (CDOW appear to be threatening individual (Commons et al. 1999, p. 238). 2005a, p. 101), which comprises 62 populations or the species rangewide. Pı˜non-Juniper Encroachment in All percent of the San Miguel Basin However, invasive plants continue to Population Areas – We have no population. It is present in the five expand their range, facilitated by information indicating that the Gunnison sage-grouse subpopulations ground disturbances such as fire, Gunnison Basin population area is east of Dry Creek Basin although at grazing, and human infrastructure. currently undergoing significant Pı˜non- much lower densities and does not Climate change will likely alter the juniper encroachment. A significant currently pose a serious threat to range of individual invasive species, portion of the Pı˜non Mesa population is Gunnison sage-grouse (CDOW 2005a, p. increasing fragmentation and habitat undergoing Pı˜non-juniper 101). Invasive species are present at low loss of sagebrush communities. Even encroachment. Approximately 9 percent levels in the Monticello group (San Juan with treatments, given the history of (1,140 ha [3,484 ac]) of occupied habitat County GSGWG 2005, p. 20). However, invasive plants on the landscape, and in the Pı˜non Mesa population area have there is no evidence that they are our continued inability to control such Pı˜non-juniper coverage, while 7 percent affecting the population. Cheatgrass species, we anticipate invasive plants (4,414 ha [10,907 ac)] of vacant or dominates 10–15 percent of the will persist and will likely continue to unknown and 13 percent (7,239 ha sagebrush understory in the current spread throughout the range of the [17,888 ac]) of potential habitat range of the Pı˜non Mesa population species. Therefore, invasive plants and (unoccupied habitats that could be (Lambeth 2005, pers comm.). It occurs associated fire risk will be on the suitable for occupation of sage-grouse if in the lower elevation areas below landscape for the foreseeable future. practical restoration were applied) have Pı˜non Mesa that were formerly Although currently not a significant encroachment (BLM 2009, p. 17). Gunnison sage-grouse range. Cheatgrass threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse at Some areas on lands managed by the invaded two small prescribed burns in the species level, we anticipate invasive BLM are known to be undergoing Pı˜non- or near occupied habitat conducted in species to become an increasingly juniper invasion. However, the extent of 1989 and 1998 (BLM 2005d, p. 62005a), significant threat to the species in the the area affected has not been quantified and continues to be a concern with new foreseeable future, particularly when (BLM 2009, p. 74; BLM 2009, p. 9). ground-disturbing projects. Invasive considered in conjunction with future Approximately 9 percent of the 1,300 ha plants, especially cheatgrass, occur climate projections and potential (3,200 ac) of the current range in the primarily along roads, other disturbed changes in sagebrush plant community Crawford population is classified as areas, and isolated areas of untreated composition and dynamics. dominated by Pı˜non-juniper (GSRSC vegetation in the Crawford population. 2005, p. 264). However, BLM (2005d, p. The threat of cheatgrass may be greater Pı˜non-Juniper Encroachment 8) estimates that as much as 20 percent to sage-grouse than all other nonnative Pı˜non-juniper woodlands are a native of the population area is occupied by species combined and could be a habitat type dominated by Pı˜non pine Pı˜non-juniper. Pı˜non and juniper trees significant limiting factor when and if (Pinus edulis) and various juniper have been encroaching in peripheral disturbance is used to improve habitat species (Juniperus spp.) that can habitat on Sims Mesa, and to a lesser conditions, unless mitigated (BLM encroach upon, infill, and eventually extent on Cerro Summit, but not to the 2005c, p. 6). No current estimates of the replace sagebrush habitat. Pı˜non-juniper point where it is a serious threat to the extent of weed invasion are available extent has increased 10-fold in the Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa (BLM 2005c, p. 82005d). Intermountain West since population area (CDOW 2009a, p. 47). Within the Pı˜non Mesa Gunnison EuroAmerican settlement, causing the Pı˜non and juniper trees are reported to sage-grouse population area, 520 ha loss of many bunchgrass and sagebrush- be encroaching throughout the current

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59823

range in the Monticello group, based on Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate for predator avoidance (Gregg et al. a comparison of historical versus Herbivory 1994, p. 165). Based on measurements current aerial photos, but no At least 87 percent of occupied of cattle foraging rates on bunchgrasses quantification or mapping of the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on Federal both between and under sagebrush encroachment has occurred (San Juan lands is currently grazed by domestic canopies, the probability of foraging on County GSWG 2005, p. 20). A relatively livestock (USFWS 2010c, entire). We under-canopy bunchgrasses depends on recent invasion of Pı˜non and juniper lack information on the proportion of sagebrush size and shape and, trees between the Dove Creek and Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on private consequently, the effects of grazing on Monticello groups appears to be lands that is currently grazed. Excessive nesting habitats might be site specific contributing to their isolation from each grazing by domestic livestock during the (France et al. 2008, pp. 392-393). Several authors have noted that other (GSRSC 2005, p. 276). late 1800s and early 1900s, along with grazing by livestock could reduce the severe drought, significantly impacted Within the range of Gunnison sage- suitability of breeding and brood-rearing grouse, approximately 5,341 ha (13,197 sagebrush ecosystems (Knick et al. 2003, habitat, negatively affecting sage-grouse ac) of Pı˜non-juniper have been treated p. 616). Although current livestock populations (Braun 1987, p. 137; Dobkin with various methods designed to stocking rates in the range of Gunnison 1995, p. 18; Connelly and Braun 1997, remove Pı˜non and juniper trees since sage-grouse are substantially lower than p. 231; Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998- 2005, and nearly half of which occurred historical levels (Laycock et al. 1996, p. 1000). Domestic livestock grazing 3), long-term effects from this in the Pı˜non Mesa population (CDOW reduces water infiltration rates and the overgrazing, including changes in plant 2009c, entire). Mechanical treatment of cover of herbaceous plants and litter, communities and soils, persist today areas experiencing Pı˜non-juniper compacts the soil, and increases soil (Knick et al. 2003, p.116). erosion (Braun 1998, p. 147; Dobkin et encroachment continues to be one of the Although livestock grazing and most successful and economical habitat al. 1998, p. 213). These impacts change associated land treatments have likely the proportion of shrub, grass, and forb treatments for the benefit of Gunnison altered plant composition, increased sage-grouse. components in the affected area, and topsoil loss, and increased spread of facilitate invasion of exotic plant Summary of Pı˜non-Juniper exotic plants, the impacts on Gunnison species that do not provide suitable Encroachment sage-grouse are not clear. Few studies habitat for sage-grouse (Mack and have directly addressed the effect of Thompson 1982, p. 761; Miller and Most Gunnison sage-grouse livestock grazing on sage-grouse (Beck Eddleman 2000, p. 19; Knick et al., in population areas are experiencing low and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998-1000; press, p. 41). to moderate levels of Pı˜non-juniper Wamboldt et al. 2002, p. 7; Crawford et Livestock may compete directly with encroachment; however, Pı˜non-juniper al. 2004, p. 11), and little direct sage-grouse for rangeland resources. encroachment in the Pı˜non Mesa experimental evidence links grazing Cattle are grazers, feeding mostly on population has been significant. The practices to Gunnison sage-grouse grasses, but they will make seasonal use encroachment of Pı˜non-juniper into population levels (Braun 1987, pp. 136- of forbs and shrub species like sagebrush habitats contributes to the 137, Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 7-9). sagebrush (Vallentine 1990, p. 226), a fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse Rowland (2004, p. 17-18) conducted a primary source of nutrition for sage- habitat. However, Pı˜non-juniper literature review and found no grouse. A sage-grouse hen’s nutritional treatments, particularly when experimental research that demonstrates condition affects nest initiation rate, completed in the early stages of grazing alone is responsible for clutch size, and subsequent encroachment when the sagebrush and reduction in sage-grouse numbers. reproductive success (Barnett and Despite the obvious impacts of forb understory is still intact, have the Crawford 1994, p. 117; Coggins 1998, p. grazing on plant communities within potential to provide an immediate 30). Other effects of direct competition the range of the species, the GSRSC benefit to sage-grouse. Approximately between livestock and sage-grouse (2005, p. 114) could not find a direct 5,341 ha (13,197 ac) of Pı˜non-juniper depend on condition of the habitat and correlation between historic grazing and encroachment within the range of the grazing practices. Thus, the effects reduced Gunnison sage-grouse numbers. Gunnison sage-grouse has been treated. vary across the range of Gunnison sage- While implications on population-level grouse. For example, poor livestock We expect Pı˜non-juniper encroachment impacts from grazing can be made based management in mesic sites results in a and corresponding treatment efforts to on impacts of grazing on individuals, no reduction of forbs and grasses available continue into the foreseeable future, studies have documented (positively or to sage-grouse chicks, thereby affecting which we consider to be indefinite for negatively) the actual impacts of grazing chick survival (Aldridge and Brigham this threat. Although Pı˜non-juniper at the population level. 2003, p. 30). Chick survival is one of the encroachment is contributing to habitat Sage-grouse need significant grass and most important factors in maintaining fragmentation in a limited area, the level shrub cover for protection from Gunnison sage-grouse population of encroachment is not sufficient to pose predators, particularly during nesting viability (GSRSC 2005, p. 173). a significant threat to Gunnison sage- season, and females will preferentially Livestock can trample sage-grouse and grouse at a population or rangewide choose nesting sites based on these its habitat. Although the effect of level either now or in the foreseeable qualities (Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). In trampling at a population level is future. Pı˜non-juniper encroachment particular, nest success in Gunnison unknown, outright nest destruction has may become an increasingly significant sage-grouse habitat is related to greater been documented, and the presence of threat to the Gunnison sage-grouse if grass and forb heights and shrub density livestock can cause sage-grouse to mechanical treatment of areas (Young 1994, p. 38). The reduction of abandon their nests (Rasmussen and experiencing Pı˜non-juniper grass heights due to livestock grazing in Griner 1938, p. 863; Patterson 1952, p. encroachment declines, and if suitable sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing 111; Call and Maser 1985, p. 17; habitat continues to be lost due to other areas has been shown to negatively Holloran and Anderson 2003, p. 309; threats such as residential and affect nesting success when cover is Coates 2007, p. 28). Coates (2007, p. 28) associated infrastructure development. reduced below the 18 cm (7 in.) needed documented nest abandonment

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

following partial nest depredation by a press, p. 15). But, if an area has soil loss management plans or Records of cow. In general, all recorded encounters or invasive species, returning the site to Decision for permit renewals (USFWS between livestock and grouse nests the native historical plant community 2010c, pp. 1-2). Habitat objectives for resulted in hens flushing from nests, may be impossible (Daubenmire 1970, Gunnison sage-grouse within allotment which could expose the eggs to p. 82; Knick et al., in press, p. 39; Pyke, management plans were designed such predation. Visual predators like ravens in press, p. 17). Aldridge et al. (2008, p. that they provide good habitat for the likely use hen movements to locate 990) did not find any relationship species when allotments are managed in sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007, p. 33). between sage-grouse persistence and accordance with the objectives. In 2009, Livestock also may trample sagebrush livestock densities. However, the 57 percent of the area of occupied seedlings, thereby removing a source of authors noted that livestock numbers do habitat in active BLM grazing allotments future sage-grouse food and cover not necessarily correlate with range (45 percent of the entire Gunnison Basin (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-31). condition. They concluded that the population area) had a recently Trampling of soil by livestock can intensity, duration, and distribution of completed land health assessment reduce or eliminate biological soil crusts livestock grazing are more influential on (LHA), and 94 percent of the area in making these areas susceptible to rangeland condition than the livestock occupied habitat in active allotments cheatgrass invasion (Mack 1981, pp. density values used in their modeling was deemed by the BLM as not meeting 148-149; Young and Allen 1997, p. 531). efforts (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990). LHA objectives specific to Gunnison Livestock grazing may have positive Currently, there is little direct evidence sage-grouse. The remainder of the LHA- effects on sage-grouse under some linking grazing practices to population monitored allotments were deemed to habitat conditions. Evans (1986, p. 67) levels of Gunnison or greater sage- be meeting objectives or as ‘‘unknown’’. found that sage-grouse used grazed grouse. Although grazing has not been LHAs are assessments of the on-the- meadows significantly more during late examined at large spatial scales, as ground condition and represent the best summer than ungrazed meadows discussed above, we do know that available information on the status of because grazing had stimulated the grazing can have negative impacts to the habitat. We are uncertain of habitat regrowth of forbs. Greater sage-grouse individuals, nests, breeding conditions on the remaining 55 percent sought out and used openings in productivity, and sagebrush and, of BLM lands in the Gunnison Basin. meadows created by cattle grazing in consequently, to sage-grouse at local Based on the assumption that the same northern Nevada (Klebenow 1981, p. scales. proportion of these lands are also not 121). Also, both sheep and goats have Public Lands Grazing in the Gunnison meeting LHA objectives results in an been used to control invasive weeds Basin Population Area – Our analysis of estimate of 94 percent of BLM lands in (Mosley 1996 in Connelly et al. 2004, grazing is focused on BLM lands the Gunnison Basin not meeting LHA pp. 7-49; Merritt et al. 2001, p. 4; Olsen because nearly all of the information and Wallander 2001, p. 30) and woody available to us regarding current grazing objectives specific to Gunnison sage- plant encroachment (Riggs and Urness management within the range of grouse habitat. This analysis indicates 1989, p. 358) in sage-grouse habitat. Gunnison sage-grouse was provided by that, without taking into account habitat Sagebrush plant communities are not the BLM. However, this information is conditions on private lands and other adapted to domestic grazing pertinent to over 40 percent of the land Federal and State lands, up to 48 disturbance. Grazing changed the area currently occupied by Gunnison percent of the entire Gunnison Basin functioning of systems into less sage-grouse. A summary of domestic population area is not providing optimal resilient, and in some cases, altered livestock grazing management on BLM habitat conditions for Gunnison sage- communities (Knick et al., in press, p. and USFS lands in occupied Gunnison grouse. 39). The ability to restore or rehabilitate sage-grouse habitat is provided in Table The fact that most grazing allotments areas depends on the condition of the 3. The BLM manages approximately are not meeting LHA objectives area relative to the ability of a site to 122,376 ha (301,267 ac), or 51 percent indicates that grazing is a factor that is support a specific plant community of the area currently occupied by likely contributing to Gunnison sage- (Knick et al., in press, p. 39). For Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison grouse habitat degradation. In addition, example, if an area has a balanced mix Basin, and approximately 98 percent of grazing has negatively impacted several of shrubs and native understory this area is actively grazed. The USFS Gunnison sage grouse treatments vegetation, a change in grazing manages approximately 34,544 ha (projects aimed at improving habitat management can restore the habitat to (85,361 ac) or 14 percent of the condition) in the Gunnison Basin (BLM its potential historic species occupied portion of the Gunnison Basin 2009, p. 34). Although these areas are composition (Pyke, in press, p. 11). population area. In 2009, within the generally rested for 2 years after Wambolt and Payne (1986, p. 318) occupied range in the Gunnison Basin treatment, several have been heavily found that rest from grazing had a better population, 13 of 62 (21 percent) active used by cattle shortly after the perennial grass response than other BLM grazing allotments and 3 of 35 (9 treatment, and the effectiveness of the treatments. Active restoration would be percent) of USFS grazing allotments had treatments decreased (BLM 2009, p. 34) required where native understory Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives and reduced the potential benefits of the vegetation is much reduced (Pyke, in incorporated into the allotment treatments.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59825

TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT ON BLM AND USFS LANDS IN OCCUPIED HABITAT FOR EACH OF THE GUNNISON SAGE-GROUSE POPULATIONS (FROM USFWSA 2010C, COMPILATION OF DATA PROVIDED BY BLMB AND USFSC).

Percent Assessed BLM Number of Ac- Number of Ac- Active Allotments BLM Allotments Allotments Population tive USFS Al- tive BLM Allot- with GUSGd with Completed e Meeting LHA lotments ments Objectives LHA Objectives

Gunnison 34 62 21 66 22

San Miguel Basin no data 13 0 77 40

Monticello–Dove Creek:

Dove Creek n/a 3 0 0 0

Monticello n/af 6 100 83 80

Pin˜on Mesa no data 15 53 27 100

Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa n/af 10 10 50 40

Crawfordg n/af 7 71 100 86

Poncha Pass no data 8 13 100 100

Rangewide Averages 34 63 59 aUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service bBureau of Land Management cUnited States Forest Service dGunnison sage-grouse eLand Health Assessments fNo United States Forest Service Land in occupied habitat in this population area. fIncludes allotments on National Park Service lands but managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Public Lands Grazing in All Other active BLM grazing allotments have degradation in the Monticello Population Areas – The BLM manages Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives population group. approximately 36 percent of the area incorporated into the allotment The BLM manages 28 percent of currently occupied by Gunnison sage- management plans or Records of occupied habitat in the Pı˜non Mesa grouse in the San Miguel Basin, and Decision for permit renewals (USFWS population area, and approximately 97 approximately 79 percent of this area is 2010c, p. 3). In 2009, no active percent of this area is grazed. Over 50 actively grazed. Within the occupied allotments in occupied habitat had percent of occupied habitat in this range in the San Miguel population, no completed LHAs. Gunnison sage-grouse population area is privately owned and, active BLM grazing allotments have are not explicitly considered in grazing while grazing certainly occurs on these Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives management planning, and the lack of lands, we have no information on its incorporated into the allotment habitat data limits our ability to extent. Within the occupied range in the management plans or Records of determine the impact to the habitat on Pı˜non Mesa population, 8 of 15 (53 Decision for permit renewals (USFWS public lands. percent) active BLM grazing allotments 2010c, p. 9). In 2009, 10 of 15 (77 have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat percent) active allotments had LHAs The BLM manages on 4 percent of the objectives incorporated into the completed in the last 15 years; 4 of 10 occupied habitat in the Monticello allotment management plans or Records allotments (40 percent) were deemed by group, and 83 percent of this area is of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS the BLM to meet LHA objectives. grazed. Within the occupied range in 2010c, p. 5). In 2009, 23 percent of the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat within the the Monticello group, 6 of 6 active BLM area of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse 60 percent of allotments not meeting grazing allotments have Gunnison sage- habitat in active allotments in the Pı˜non LHA objectives and the 5 allotments grouse habitat objectives incorporated Mesa population area had LHAs with no LHAs completed are likely into the allotment management plans or completed in the last 15 years, and all being adversely impacted by grazing. Records of Decision for permit renewals of these were deemed by the BLM to Therefore, it appears that grazing in a (USFWS 2010c, p. 6). In 2009, 88 meet LHA objectives. Therefore, for the large portion of this population area is percent of the area of occupied habitat portion of the Pı˜non Mesa population a factor that is likely contributing to in active allotments had a recently area for which we have information, it Gunnison sage-grouse habitat completed LHA. Approximately 60 appears that grazing is not likely degradation. percent of the area in occupied habitat significantly contributing to Gunnison The BLM manages 11 percent of the in active allotments were deemed by the sage-grouse habitat degradation. occupied habitat in the Dove Creek BLM to meet LHA objectives. This The BLM manages on 13 percent of group, and 41 percent of this area is information suggests that grazing the the occupied habitat in the Cerro actively grazed. Within the occupied majority of lands managed by the BLM Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa range in the Dove Creek group of the is not likely significantly contributing to population area, and 83 percent of this Monticello–Dove Creek population, no Gunnison sage-grouse habitat area is grazed. Within the occupied

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

range in the Cerro Summit–Cimarron– where present, has the potential to Basin (Jupuntich et al. 2010, pp. 7-9). Sims Mesa population, 1 of 10 (10 impact Gunnison sage-grouse, but we The authors raised concerns that percent) active BLM grazing allotments lack sufficient information to make an observed reductions in shrub size and have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat assessment. Table 1 summarizes the vigor will reduce drifting snow objectives incorporated into the percentage of land area potentially accumulation, resulting in decreased allotment management plans or Records available to grazing within each of the moisture availability to grasses and of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS populations. forbs during the spring melt. Reduced 2010c, p. 7). In 2009, 5 of the 10 active As discussed earlier, some private grass and forb growth could negatively allotments had LHAs completed in the lands are enrolled in the CRP program impact Gunnison sage-grouse nesting last 15 years and 3 (60 percent) of these and provide some benefits to Gunnison and early brood-rearing habitat. were deemed by the BLM as not meeting sage-grouse. The CRP land in the Grazing Summary LHA objectives. Therefore, for the small Monticello group has provided a portion of the Cerro Summit–Cimarron– considerable amount of brood-rearing Livestock management and domestic Sims Mesa population area for which habitat because of its forb component. grazing have the potential to seriously we have information, it appears that Grazing of CRP land in Utah occurred in degrade Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. grazing is a factor that is likely 2002 under emergency Farm Bill Grazing can adversely impact nesting contributing to some Gunnison sage- provisions due to drought and removed and brood-rearing habitat by decreasing grouse habitat degradation. at least some of the grass and forb vegetation available for concealment Lands administered by the BLM and habitat component thus likely from predators. Grazing also has been NPS comprise over 75 percent of negatively affecting Gunnison sage- shown to compact soils, decrease occupied habitat in the Crawford grouse chick survival. Radio-collared herbaceous abundance, increase population, and 96 percent of this area males and non-brood-rearing females erosion, and increase the probability of is actively grazed. Grazing allotments on exhibited temporary avoidance of invasion of exotic plant species. NPS lands in this area are administered grazed fields during and after grazing The impacts of livestock operations by the BLM. Within occupied range in (Lupis et al. 2006, pp. 959-960), on Gunnison sage-grouse depend upon the Crawford population, 1 of 7 (14 although one hen with a brood stocking levels and season of use. We percent) active BLM grazing allotments continued to use a grazed CRP field. recognize that not all livestock grazing have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat This indicates that when CRP lands are result in habitat degradation and many objectives incorporated into the grazed, negative impacts to their habitat livestock operations within the range of allotment management plans or Records and behavior may result. Since we have Gunnison sage-grouse are employing of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS very little information on the status of innovative grazing strategies and 2010c, p. 8). In 2009, all of the active Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on non- conservation actions (Gunnison County allotments had LHAs completed in the federal lands, we cannot assess whether Stockgrowers 2009, entire). However, last 15 years, and 86 percent were the impacts that are occurring rise to the available information suggests that LHA deemed by the BLM to meet LHA level of being a threat. objectives specific to Gunnison sage- objectives. Seasonal forage utilization Wild Ungulate Herbivory in All grouse are not being met on more than levels were below 30 percent in most Population Areas – Overgrazing by deer 50 percent of BLM-managed occupied Crawford Area allotments, although a and elk may cause local degradation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the small number of allotments had nearly habitats by removal of forage and Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, and 50 percent utilization (BLM 2009x, p. residual hiding and nesting cover. the Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa 68). Based on this information, it Hobbs et al. (1996, pp. 210-213) population areas. Cumulatively, the appears that grazing is not likely documented a decline in available BLM-managed portion of these significantly contributing to Gunnison perennial grasses as elk densities populations constitutes approximately sage-grouse habitat degradation in the increased. Such grazing could 33 percent of the entire range of the majority of the Crawford population negatively impact nesting cover for sage- species. Reduced habitat quality, as area. grouse. The winter range of deer and elk reflected in unmet LHA objectives is The BLM manages nearly half of overlaps the year-round range of the likely to negatively impact Gunnison occupied habitat in the Poncha Pass Gunnison sage-grouse. Excessive but sage-grouse, particularly nesting and population area, and approximately 98 localized deer and elk grazing has been early brood-rearing habitat, and chick percent of this area is actively grazed. documented in the Gunnison Basin survival is one of the most important Within the occupied range in the (BLM 2005a, pp. 17-18; Jones 2005, factors in maintaining Gunnison sage- Poncha Pass population, 1 of 8 (13 pers. comm.). grouse population viability (GSRSC percent) active BLM grazing allotments Grazing by deer and elk occurs in all 2005, p. 173). have Gunnison sage-grouse habitat Gunnison sage-grouse population areas. We know that grazing can have objectives incorporated into the Although we have no information negative impacts to sagebrush and allotment management plans or Records indicating that competition for consequently to Gunnison sage-grouse of Decision for permit renewals (USFWS resources is limiting Gunnison sage- at local scales. Available data indicates 2010c, p. 4). In 2009, all active grouse in the Gunnison Basin, BLM that impacts to sagebrush are occurring allotments in occupied habitat had observed that certain mountain shrubs on a significant portion of the range of completed LHAs, and all were meeting were being browsed heavily by wild the species. Given the widespread LHA objectives. Based on this ungulates (BLM 2009, p. 34). nature of grazing within the range of information it appears that grazing is Subsequent results of monitoring in Gunnison sage-grouse, the potential for not likely significantly contributing to mountain shrub communities indicated population-level impacts is highly Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that drought and big game were having likely. Further, we expect grazing to degradation in the majority of the large impacts on the survivability and persist throughout the range of Poncha Pass population area. size of mountain mahogany Gunnison sage-grouse for the Non-federal Lands Grazing in All (Cercocarpus utahensis), bitterbrush foreseeable future. Effects of domestic Population Areas –Livestock grazing on (Purshia tridentata), and serviceberry livestock grazing are likely being private and other non-federal lands, (Amelanchier alnifolia) in the Gunnison exacerbated by intense browsing of

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59827

woody species by wild ungulates in generators and powerlines (Connelly et Dove Creek population, and 1 in each of portions of the Gunnison Basin. We al. 2004, p. 7-39; BLM 2007, p. 2-110). the Crawford and Cerro Summit– conclude that habitat degradation that Surveys for recoverable resources occur Cimarron–Sims Mesa populations can result from improper grazing is a primarily through noisy seismic (derived from Colorado Oil and Gas significant threat to Gunnison sage- exploration activities. These surveys can Commission 2010, GIS dataset). grouse now and in the foreseeable result in the crushing of vegetation. No federally leased lands exist within future. Well pads vary in size from 0.10 ha the Gunnison Basin population area (0.25 ac) for coal-bed natural gas wells (BLM and USFS 2010). The Monticello Nonrenewable Energy Development in areas of level topography to greater group is in an area of high energy Energy development on Federal (BLM than 7 ha (17.3 ac) for deep gas wells potential (GSRSC 2005, p. 130); and USFS) lands is regulated by the and multiwell pads (Connelly et al. however, less than two percent of the BLM and can contain conservation 2004, pp. 7-39; BLM 2007, pp. 2-123). population area contains Federal leases measures for wildlife species (see Factor Pads for compressor stations require 5– upon which production is occurring, D for a more thorough discussion). The 7 ha (12.4–17.3 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, and no producing leases occur in BLM (1999, p. 1) classified the area pp. 7-39). currently occupied Gunnison sage- encompassing all Gunnison sage-grouse The amount of direct habitat loss grouse habitat (BLM Geocommunicator, habitat for its gas and oil potential. within an area is ultimately determined 2010). No oil and gas wells or Three of the populations have areas by well densities and the associated loss authorized Federal leases are within the with high (San Miguel Basin, Monticello from ancillary facilities. Roads Pı˜non Mesa population area (BLM 2009, group) or medium (Crawford) oil and associated with oil and gas development p. 1; BLM Geocommunicator), and no gas potential. San Miguel County, where were suggested to be the primary impact potential for oil or gas exists in this area much oil and gas activity has occurred to greater sage-grouse due to their except for a small area on the eastern in the last few years, ranked 9 out of 39 persistence and continued use even edge of the largest habitat block (BLM in Colorado counties producing natural after drilling and production ceased 1999, p. 1; GSRSC 2005, p. 130). The gas in 2009 (Colorado Oil and Gas (Lyon and Anderson 2003, p. 489). Crawford population is in an area with Conservation Commission 2010, p. 1) Declines in male greater sage-grouse lek high to medium potential for oil and gas and 29 of 39 in oil production in 2009 attendance were reported within 3 km development (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). A (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation (1.9 mi) of a well or haul road with a single authorized Federal lease (BLM commission 2010, p. 2). traffic volume exceeding one vehicle per Geocommunicator) constitutes less than Energy development impacts sage- day (Holloran 2005, p. 40). Because of 1 percent of the Crawford population grouse and sagebrush habitats through reasons discussed previously, we area. direct habitat loss from well pad believe the effects to Gunnison sage- Energy development is occurring construction, seismic surveys, roads, grouse are similar to those observed in primarily in the San Miguel Basin powerlines and pipeline corridors, and greater sage-grouse. Sage-grouse also Gunnison sage-grouse population area indirectly from noise, gaseous may be at increased risk for collision in Colorado. The entire San Miguel emissions, changes in water availability with vehicles simply due to the Basin population area has high potential and quality, and human presence. The increased traffic associated with oil and for oil and gas development (GSRSC interaction and intensity of effects could gas activities (Aldridge 1998, p. 14; BLM 2005, p. 130). Approximately 13 percent cumulatively or individually lead to 2003, p. 4-222). of occupied habitat area within the San habitat fragmentation (Suter 1978, pp. 6- Habitat fragmentation resulting from Miguel Basin population has authorized 13; Aldridge 1998, p. 12; Braun 1998, oil and gas development infrastructure, Federal leases; of that, production is pp. 144-148; Aldridge and Brigham including access roads, may have occurring on approximately 5 percent 2003, p. 31; Knick et al. 2003, pp. 612, greater effects on sage-grouse than the (BLM National Integrated Lands System 619; Lyon and Anderson 2003, pp. 489- associated direct habitat losses. Energy (NILS) p. 1). Currently, 25 gas wells are 490; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-40 to 7- development and associated active within occupied habitat of the 41; Holloran 2005, pp. 56-57; Holloran infrastructure works cumulatively with San Miguel Basin, and an additional 18 2007 et al.,, pp. 18-19; Aldridge and other human activity or development to active wells occur immediately adjacent Boyce 2007, pp. 521-522; Walker et al. decrease available habitat and increase to occupied habitat (San Miguel County 2007a, pp. 2652-2653; Zou et al. 2006, fragmentation. Greater sage-grouse leks 2009, p. 1). All of these wells are in or pp. 1039-1040; Doherty et al. 2008, p. had the lowest probability of persisting near the Dry Creek group. The exact 193; Leu and Hanser, in press, p. 28). (40–50 percent) in a landscape with less locations of any future drill sites are not Increased human presence resulting than 30 percent sagebrush within 6.4 known, but because the area is small, from oil and gas development can km (4 mi) of the lek (Walker et al. 2007a, they will likely lie within 3 km (2 mi) impact sage-grouse either through p. 2652). These probabilities were even of one of only three leks in this group avoidance of suitable habitat, or less in landscapes where energy (CDOW 2005a, p. 108). disruption of breeding activities (Braun development also was a factor. Although the BLM has deferred et al. 2002, pp. 4-5; Aldridge and Nonrenewable Energy Development in (temporarily withheld from recent lease Brigham 2003, pp. 30-31; Aldridge and All Population Areas – Approximately sales) oil and gas parcels nominated for Boyce 2007, p. 518; Doherty et al. 2008, 33 percent of the Gunnison Basin leasing in occupied Gunnison sage- p. 194). population area ranked as low oil and grouse habitat in Colorado since 2005, The development of oil and gas gas potential with the remainder having we expect energy development in the resources requires surveys for no potential for oil and gas development San Miguel Basin on public and private economically recoverable reserves, (GSRSC 2005, p. 130). Forty-three gas lands to continue over the next 20 years construction of well pads and access wells occur on private lands within the based on the length of development and roads, subsequent drilling and occupied range of the Gunnison sage- production projects described in extraction, and transport of oil and gas, grouse. Of these, 27 wells occur in the existing project and management plans. typically through pipelines. Ancillary San Miguel population, 8 in the Current impacts from gas development facilities can include compressor Gunnison Basin population, 6 in the may exacerbate Gunnison sage-grouse stations, pumping stations, electrical Dove Creek group of the Monticello– imperilment in the Dry Creek group

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

because this area contains some of the Gunnison sage-grouse is within a region activities to become significant threats poorest habitat and smallest grouse of known geothermal potential (BLM in the foreseeable future. populations within the San Miguel Geocommunicator 2010, p. 1). We were The only existing or proposed population (San Miguel Basin Gunnison unable to find any information on the renewable energy project we are aware sage-grouse Working Group, 2009 pp. 28 presence of active geothermal energy of is located in the Gunnison Basin. A and 36). generation facilities; however, we are portion of the Gunnison Basin The San Miguel Basin population area aware of three current applications for population will likely be adversely is the only area within the Gunnison geothermal leases within the range of affected by proposed geothermal sage-grouse range with a high potential Gunnison sage-grouse. All of the development if it is implemented. for oil and gas development. However, applications are located in the same Because of the current preliminary the immediate threat to Gunnison sage- general vicinity on private, BLM, USFS, status of geothermal development, we grouse is limited because the BLM is and Colorado State Land Board lands lack the specific project details to deferring leases until they can be near Tomichi Dome and Waunita Hot evaluate the extent to which this considered within Land Use Plans (BLM activity will affect the population’s Springs in southeastern Gunnison 2009, p. 78). We anticipate energy overall viability. Therefore, we do not County. The cumulative area of the development activities to continue over consider renewable energy development geothermal lease application parcels is the next 20 years. However, because to be a threat to the Gunnison sage- nonrenewable energy activities are approximately 4,061 ha (10,035 ac), of grouse at this time. Geothermal energy limited to a small portion of the range, which approximately 3,802 ha (9,395 development could become a future primarily the Dry Creek portion of the ac) is occupied Gunnison sage-grouse threat to the species, but we do not San Miguel Basin population of habitat, or approximately 2 percent of know to what extent future geothermal Gunnison sage-grouse, we do not the Gunnison Basin population area. energy development will occur. Future consider nonrenewable energy One active lek and two inactive leks are geothermal development could be development to be a significant threat to located within the lease application encouraged by a new Colorado State the species. parcels. In addition, six active leks and law, signed April 30, 2010, that will four inactive leks are within 6.4 km (4 facilitate streamlining of the State Renewable Energy – Geothermal, Solar, mi) of the lease application parcels permitting process. Wind indicating that over 80 percent of Geothermal energy production is Gunnison sage-grouse seasonal use Summary of Nonrenewable and similar to oil and gas development in occurs within the area associated with Renewable Energy Development that it requires surface exploration, these leks (GSRSC 2005, p. J-4). There The San Miguel Basin population area exploratory drilling, field development, are 74 active leks in the Gunnison Basin is the only area within the Gunnison and plant construction and operation. population, so approximately 10 percent sage-grouse range with a high potential Wells are drilled to access the thermal of active leks may be affected. A for oil and gas development. However, source and could take from 3 weeks to significant amount of high-quality the immediate threat to Gunnison sage- 2 months of drilling occurring on a Gunnison sage-grouse nesting habitat grouse is limited because the BLM is continuous basis (Suter 1978, p. 3), exists on and near the lease application temporarily deferring leases until they which may cause disturbance to sage- parcels (Aldridge et al. 2010, in press). can be considered within Land Use grouse. The ultimate number of wells, This potential geothermal development Plans. We anticipate energy and therefore potential loss of habitat, would likely negatively impact development activities to continue over depends on the thermal output of the Gunnison sage-grouse through the direct the next 20 years. Although we source and expected production of the loss of habitat and the functional loss of recognize that the Dry Creek portion of plant (Suter 1978, p. 3). Pipelines are habitat resulting from increased human the San Miguel Basin population may be needed to carry steam or superheated activity in the area; however, we cannot impacted by nonrenewable energy liquids to the generating plant, which is determine the potential extent of the development, we do not consider similar in size to a coal- or gas-fired impact at this time because the size and nonrenewable energy development to be plant, resulting in further habitat location of potential geothermal energy a significant threat to the species now or destruction and indirect disturbance. generation infrastructure and potential in the foreseeable future, because its Direct habitat loss occurs from well resource protection conditions are current and anticipated extent is limited pads, structures, roads, pipelines and unknown at this time. throughout the range of Gunnison sage- transmission lines, and impacts would grouse. Similarly, we do not consider be similar to those described previously Renewable Energy in All Other renewable energy development to be a for oil and gas development. The Population Areas – We could find no significant threat to Gunnison sage- development of geothermal energy information on the presence of existing, grouse now or in the foreseeable future. requires intensive human activity pending, or authorized wind energy However, geothermal energy during field development and operation. sites, solar energy sites, nor any solar development could increase in the Geothermal development could cause energy study areas within the range of future and could (depending on the toxic gas release. The type and effect of Gunnison sage-grouse. A 388-ha (960- level of development and minimization these gases depends on the geological ac) wind energy generation facility is and mitigation measures) substantially formation in which drilling occurs authorized on BLM lands in San Juan influence the overall long-term viability (Suter 1978, pp. 7-9). The amount of County, UT. However, the authorized of the Gunnison Basin population. water necessary for drilling and facility is approximately 12.9 km (8 mi) condenser cooling may be high. Local from the nearest lek in the Monticello Climate Change water depletions may be a concern if group of the Monticello–Dove Creek According to the Intergovernmental such depletions result in the loss of Gunnison sage-grouse population. Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), brood-rearing habitat. Therefore, we conclude that wind and ‘‘Warming of the climate system in Renewable Energy in the Gunnison solar energy development are not a recent decades is unequivocal, as is now Basin Population Area – Approximately significant threat to the Gunnison sage- evident from observations of increases 87 percent of the occupied range of grouse and we do not expect these in global average air and ocean

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59829

temperatures, widespread melting of summer precipitation (Ray et al. 2008, sage-grouse range to cheatgrass invasion snow and ice, and rising global sea p. 34; Karl et al. 2009, p. 30). Similarly, (Bradley 2009, p. 204), which would level’’ (IPCC 2007, p. 1). Average the multi-model averages show the reduce the overall cover of native Northern Hemisphere temperatures highest probability of a five percent vegetation, reduce habitat quality, and during the second half of the 20th increase in average winter precipitation potentially decrease fire return century were very likely higher than and a five percent decrease in average intervals, all of which would negatively during any other 50–year period in the spring-summer precipitation in 2050 affect the species. last 500 years and likely the highest in (UCAR 2009, p. 15). Summary of Climate Change at least the past 1,300 years (IPCC 2007, While it is unclear at this time p. 30). Over the past 50 years cold days, whether or not the year 2050 predicted Climate change predictions are based cold nights, and frosts have become less changes in precipitation and on models with assumptions, and there frequent over most land areas, and hot temperature will be of significant are uncertainties regarding the days and hot nights have become more magnitude to alter sagebrush plant magnitude of associated climate change frequent. Heat waves have become more community composition and dynamics, parameters such as the amount and frequent over most land areas, and the we believe climate change is likely to timing of precipitation and seasonal frequency of heavy precipitation events alter fire frequency, community temperature changes. There is also has increased over most areas (IPCC assemblages, and the ability of uncertainty as to the magnitude of 2007, p. 30). For the southwestern nonnative species to proliferate. effects of predicted climate parameters region of the United States, including Increasing temperature as well as on sagebrush plant community western Colorado, warming is occurring changes in the timing and amount of dynamics. These factors make it more rapidly than elsewhere in the precipitation will alter the competitive difficult to predict the effects of climate country (Karl et al. 2009, p. 129). advantage among plant species (Miller change on Gunnison sage-grouse. We Annual average temperature in west- et al. in press, p. 44), and may shift recognize that climate change has the central Colorado increased 3.6 °C (2 °F) individual species and ecosystem potential to alter Gunnison sage-grouse over the past 30 years, but high distributions (Bachelet et al. 2001, p. habitat by facilitating an increase in the variability in annual precipitation 174). For sagebrush, spring and summer distribution of cheatgrass and precludes the detection of long-term precipitation comprises the majority of concurrently increase the potential for trends (Ray et al. 2008, p. 5). the moisture available to the species; wildfires, which would have negative Under high emission scenarios, future thus, the interaction between reduced effects on Gunnison sage-grouse. projections for the southwestern United precipitation in the spring-summer However, based on the best available States show increased probability of growing season and increased summer information on climate change drought (Karl et al. 2009, pp. 129-134) temperatures will likely decrease projections into the next 40 years, we do and the number of days over 32 °C (90 growth of mountain big sagebrush not consider climate change to be a °F) could double by the end of the (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana). significant threat to the Gunnison sage- century (Karl et al. 2009, p. 34). Climate This could result in a significant long- grouse at this time. Existing data models predict annual temperature term reduction in the distribution of indicates that climate change has the increase of approximately 2.2 °C (4 °F) sagebrush communities (Miller et al. in potential to alter changes in the in the southwest by 2050, with summers press, pp. 41-45). In the Gunnison distribution and extent of cheatgrass warming more than winters (Ray et al. Basin, increased summer temperature and sagebrush and associated fire 2008, p. 29). Projections also show was strongly correlated with reduced frequencies and therefore is likely to declines in snowpack across the West, growth of mountain big sagebrush become an increasingly important factor with the most dramatic declines at (Poore et al. 2009, p. 558). Based on affecting Gunnison sage-grouse and its lower elevations (below 2,500 m (8,200 these results and the likelihood of habitat in the foreseeable future. ft)) (Ray et al., p. 29). increased winter precipitation falling as Summary of Factor A Localized climate projections are rain rather than snow, Poore et al. (2009, problematic for mountainous areas p. 559) predict decreased growth of Gunnison sage-grouse require large, because current global climate models mountain big sagebrush, particularly at contiguous areas of sagebrush for long- are unable to capture this topographic the lower elevation limit of the species. term persistence, and thus are affected variability at local or regional scales Because Gunnison sage-grouse are by factors that occur at the landscape (Ray et al. 2008, pp. 7, 20). To obtain sagebrush obligates, loss of sagebrush scale. Broad-scale characteristics within climate projections specific to the range would result in a reduction of suitable surrounding landscapes influence of Gunnison sage-grouse, we requested habitat and negatively impact the habitat selection, and adult Gunnison a statistically downscaled model from species. The interaction of climate sage-grouse exhibit a high fidelity to all the National Center for Atmospheric change with other stressors likely has seasonal habitats, resulting in low Research for a region covering western impacted and will impact the sagebrush adaptability to habitat changes. Colorado. The resulting projections steppe ecosystem within which Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats has indicate the highest probability scenario Gunnison sage-grouse occur. been cited as a primary cause of the is that average summer (June through Temperature increases may increase decline of Gunnison and greater sage- September) temperature could increase the competitive advantage of cheatgrass grouse populations (Patterson 1952, pp. by 2.8 °C (5.1 °F), and average winter in higher elevation areas where its 192-193; Connelly and Braun 1997, p. 4; (October through March) temperature current distribution is limited (Miller et Braun 1998, p. 140; Johnson and Braun could increase by 2.2 °C (4.0 °F) by 2050 al. in press, p. 47). Decreased summer 1999, p. 78; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. (University Corporation for precipitation reduces the competitive 975; Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 1; Atmospheric Research (UCAR) 2009, advantage of summer perennial grasses, Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 29; pp. 1-15). Annual mean precipitation reduces sagebrush cover, and Johnsgard 2002, p. 108; Aldridge and projections for Colorado are unclear; subsequently increases the likelihood of Brigham 2003, p. 25; Beck et al. 2003, however, multi-model averages show a cheatgrass invasion (Prevey et al. 2009, p. 203; Pedersen et al. 2003, pp. 23-24; shift towards increased winter p. 11). This impact could increase the Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-15; Schroeder precipitation and decreased spring and susceptibility of areas within Gunnison et al. 2004, p. 368; Leu et al. in press,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

p. 19). Documented negative effects of continue to expand their range, cause the species to become threatened fragmentation include reduced lek facilitated by ground disturbances such or endangered in the foreseeable future. persistence, lek attendance, population as fire, grazing, and human We do not consider nonrenewable recruitment, yearling and adult annual infrastructure. Invasive plants energy development to be a significant survival, female nest site selection, and negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse threat to the species because its current nest initiation rates, as well as the loss primarily by reducing or eliminating and anticipated extent is limited of leks and winter habitat (Holloran native vegetation that sage-grouse throughout the range of Gunnison sage- 2005, p. 49; Aldridge and Boyce 2007, require for food and cover, resulting in grouse. Similarly, we do not consider pp. 517-523; Walker et al. 2007a, pp. habitat loss (both direct and functional) renewable energy development to be a 2651-2652; Doherty et al. 2008, p. 194). and fragmentation. Cheatgrass is present significant threat to the Gunnison sage- We examined several factors that at varying levels in nearly all Gunnison grouse at this time. However, result in habitat loss and fragmentation. sage-grouse population areas, but there geothermal energy development could Historically, losses of sagebrush habitats has not yet been a demonstrated change increase in the future. Pı˜non-juniper occurred due to conversion for in fire cycle in the range of Gunnison encroachment does not pose a agricultural croplands; however, this sage-grouse. However, climate change significant threat to Gunnison sage- trend has slowed or slightly reversed in may alter the range of invasive plants, grouse at a population or rangewide recent decades. Currently, direct and intensifying the proliferation of invasive level because of its limited distribution functional loss of habitat due to plants to the point that they and their throughout the range of Gunnison sage- residential and road development in all effects on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat grouse and the observed effectiveness of populations, including the largest will likely become a threat to the treatment projects. population in the Gunnison Basin, is the species. Even with aggressive A review of a database compiled by principal threat to Gunnison sage- treatments, invasive plants will persist the CDOW that included local, State, grouse. Functional habitat loss also and will likely continue to spread and Federal ongoing and proposed contributes to habitat fragmentation as throughout the range of Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse conservation sage-grouse avoid areas due to human grouse in the foreseeable future. actions (CDOW 2009c, entire) revealed a activities, including noise, even when Livestock management has the total of 224 individual conservation sagebrush remains intact. The collective potential to degrade sage-grouse habitat efforts. Of these 224 efforts, a total of disturbance from human activities at local scales by causing the loss of 165 efforts have been completed and around residences and roads reduces nesting cover and decreases in native the effective habitat around these areas, vegetation, and by increasing the were focused on habitat improvement or making them inhospitable to Gunnison probability of incursion of invasive protection. These efforts resulted in the sage-grouse. Human populations are plants. Given the widespread nature of treatment of 9,324 ha (23,041 ac), or increasing in Colorado and throughout grazing within the range of Gunnison approximately 2.5 percent of occupied the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. This sage-grouse, the potential for Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. A trend is expected to continue at least population-level impacts is highly monitoring component was included in through 2050. The resulting habitat loss likely. Effects of domestic livestock 75 (45 percent) of these 165 efforts, and fragmentation will continue to grazing are likely being exacerbated by although we do not have information on negatively affect Gunnison sage-grouse intense browsing of woody species by the overall effectiveness of these efforts. and its habitat. wild ungulates in portions of the Given the limited collective extent of Other threats from human Gunnison Basin. We conclude that these efforts, they do not ameliorate the infrastructure such as fences and habitat degradation that can result from effects of habitat fragmentation at a powerlines may not individually improper grazing is a significant threat sufficient scale range-wide to effectively threaten the Gunnison sage-grouse. to Gunnison sage-grouse now and in the reduce or eliminate the most significant However, the cumulative presence of all foreseeable future. threats to the species. We recognize these features, particularly when Threats identified above, particularly ongoing and proposed conservation considered in conjunction with residential development and associated efforts by all entities across the range of residential and road development, does infrastructure such as fences, roads, and the Gunnison sage-grouse, and all constitute a significant threat to powerlines, are cumulatively causing parties should be commended for their Gunnison sage-grouse as they significant habitat fragmentation that is conservation efforts. Our review of collectively contribute to habitat loss negatively affecting Gunnison sage- conservation efforts indicates that the and fragmentation. This impact is grouse. We have evaluated the best measures identified are not adequate to particularly of consequence in light of available scientific information address the primary threat of habitat the decreases in Gunnison sage-grouse available on the present or threatened fragmentation at this time in a manner population sizes observed in the six destruction, modification or curtailment that effectively reduces or eliminates the smallest populations. These of the Gunnison sage-grouse’s habitat or most significant contributors (e.g., infrastructure components are range. Based on the current and residential development) to this threat. associated with overall increases in anticipated habitat threats identified All of the conservation efforts are human populations and thus we expect above, and their cumulative effects as limited in size and the measures them to continue to increase in the they contribute to the overall provided to us were simply not foreseeable future. fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse implemented at the scale (even when Several issues discussed above, such habitat, we have determined that the considered cumulatively) that would be as fire, invasive species, and climate present or threatened destruction, required to effectively reduce the threats change, may not individually threaten modification, or curtailment of to the species across its range. Although the Gunnison sage-grouse. However, the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat poses a the ongoing conservation efforts are a documented synergy among these issues significant threat to the species positive step toward the conservation of result in a high likelihood that they will throughout its range. the Gunnison sage-grouse, and some threaten the species in the future. The species is being impacted by have likely reduced the severity of some Nonnative invasive plants, including several other factors, but their threats to the species (e.g., Pı˜non- cheatgrass and other noxious weeds, significance is not at a level that they juniper invasion), on the whole we find

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59831

that the conservation efforts in place at Consequently, we do not consider In fact, in 2008 and 2009 the Waunita this time are not sufficient to offset the hunting to be a significant threat to the lek increased in the number of males degree of threat posed to the species by species now or in the foreseeable future. counted along with three other leks, the present and threatened destruction, while seven leks decreased in the Lek Viewing modification, or curtailment of its Doyleville zone (CDOW 2009d, pp. 31- habitat. The Gunnison sage-grouse was 32). These data suggest that lek viewing designated as a new species in 2000 on the Waunita lek has not impacted the B. Overutilization for Commercial, (American Ornithologists’ Union 2000, Gunnison sage-grouse. Two lek-viewing Recreational, Scientific, or Educational pp. 847-858), which has prompted tours per year are organized and led by Purposes increased interest by bird watchers to UDWR on a privately owned lek in the Hunting view the species on their leks (Pfister Monticello population. The lek declined 2010, pers. comm.). Daily human Hunting for Gunnison sage-grouse in males counted in 2009, but 2007 and disturbances on sage-grouse leks could 2008 had the highest counts for several does not currently occur. Hunting was cause a reduction in mating, and some years, suggesting that lek viewing is also eliminated in the Gunnison Basin in reduction in total production (Call and not impacting that lek. Data collected by 2000 due to concerns with meeting Maser 1985, p. 19). Human disturbance, CDOW on greater sage-grouse viewing Gunnison sage-grouse population particularly if additive to disturbance by leks also indicates that controlled lek objectives (CSGWG 1997, p. 66). predators, could reduce the time a lek visitation has not impacted greater sage- Hunting has not occurred in the other is active, as well as reduce its size by grouse at the viewed leks (GSRSC 2005, Colorado populations of Gunnison sage- lowering male attendance (Boyko et al. p. 124). grouse since 1995 when the Pı˜non Mesa 2004, in GSRSC 2005, p. 125). Smaller A lek viewing protocol has been area was closed (GSRSC 2005, p. 122). lek sizes have been hypothesized to be developed and has largely been Utah has not allowed hunting of less attractive to females, thereby followed on the Waunita lek, likely Gunnison sage-grouse since 1989 conceivably reducing the numbers of reducing impacts to sage-grouse using (GSRSC 2005, p. 82). females mating. Disturbance during the the lek (GSRSC 2005, p. 125). During Both Colorado and Utah will only peak of mating also could result in some 2004-2009, the percentage of consider hunting of Gunnison sage- females not breeding (GSRSC 2005, p. individuals or groups of people in grouse if populations can be sustained 125). Furthermore, disturbance from lek vehicles following the Waunita lek (GSRSC 2005, pp. 5, 8, 229). The viewing might affect nesting habitat viewing protocol in the Gunnison Basin Gunnison Basin Plan calls for a selection by females (GSRSC 2005, p. ranged from 71–92 percent (CDOW minimum population of 500 males 126), as leks are typically close to areas 2009a, p. 86, 87; Magee et al. 2009, p. counted on leks before hunting would in which females nest. If females move 7, 10). Violations of the protocol, such occur again (CSGWG 1997, p. 66). The to poorer quality habitat farther away as showing up after the sage-grouse minimum population level has been from disturbed leks, nest success could started to display and creating noise, exceeded in all years since 1996, except decline. If chronic disturbance causes caused one or more sage-grouse to flush 2003 and 2004 (CDOW 2009d, p. 18-19). sage-grouse to move to a new lek site from the lek (CDOW 2009a, pp. 86, 87). However, the sensitive State regulatory away from preferred and presumably Despite the protocol violations, the status and potential political higher quality areas, both survival and percentage of days from 2004 to 2009 ramifications of hunting the species has nest success could decline. Whether any that grouse were flushed by humans was precluded the States from opening a or all of these have significant relatively low, ranging from 2.5 percent hunting season. If hunting does ever population effects would depend on to 5.4 percent (Magee et al. 2009, p.10). occur again, harvest will likely be timing and degree of disturbance Nonetheless, the lek viewing protocol is restricted to only 5 to 10 percent of the (GSRSC 2005, p. 126). currently being revised to make it more fall population, and will be structured Throughout the range of Gunnison stringent and to include considerations to limit harvest of females to the extent sage-grouse, public viewing of leks is for photography, research, and possible (GSRSC 2005, p. 229). limited by a general lack of knowledge education related viewing (CDOW However, the ability of these measures in the public of lek locations, seasonal 2009a, p. 86). Maintenance of this to be implemented is in question, as road closures in some areas, and protocol should preclude lek viewing adequate means to estimate fall difficulty in accessing many leks. from becoming a threat to this lek. population size have not been Furthermore, 52 of 109 active Gunnison The CDOW and UDWR will continue developed (Reese and Connelly in press, sage-grouse leks occur on private lands, to coordinate and implement lek counts p. 21) and limiting female harvest may which further limits access by the to determine population levels. We not be possible (WGFD 2004, p. 4; public. The BLM closed a lek in the expect annual lek viewing and lek WGFD 2006, pp. 5, 7). Despite these Gunnison Basin to viewing in the late counts to continue indefinitely. questions, we believe that the low level 1990s due to declining population However, all leks counted will receive of hunting that could be allowed in the counts, which were perceived as lower disturbance from counters than future would not be a significant threat resulting from recreational viewing, the Waunita lek received from public to the Gunnison sage-grouse. although no scientific studies were viewing, so we do not consider lek One sage-grouse was known to be conducted (BLM 2005a, p. 13; GSRSC counts and viewing a threat to the illegally harvested in 2001 in the 2005, pp. 124, 126). The Waunita lek Gunnison sage-grouse now or in the Poncha Pass population (Nehring 2010, east of Gunnison is the only lek in foreseeable future. pers. comm.), but based on the best Colorado designated by the CDOW for available information we do not believe public viewing (CDOW 2009a, p. 86). Scientific Research that illegal harvest has contributed to Since 1998, a comparison of male Gunnison sage-grouse have been the Gunnison sage-grouse population counts on the Waunita lek versus male subject of scientific research studies, declines in either Colorado or Utah. We counts on other leks in the Doyleville some of which included the capture and do not anticipate hunting to be opened zone show that the Waunita lek’s male handling of the species. Most of the in the Gunnison Basin or smaller counts generally follow the same trend research has been conducted in the populations for many years, if ever. as the others (CDOW 2009d, pp. 31-32). Gunnison Basin population, San Miguel

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Basin population, and Monticello greater sage-grouse and other sage-grouse population as a whole. portion of the Monticello–Dove Creek gallinaceous birds and concluded that Based on the available information, we population. Between zero and seven survival will be very low, unless believe scientific research on Gunnison percent mortality of handled adults or innovative strategies are developed and sage-grouse has a relatively minor juveniles and chicks has occurred tested (GSRSC 2005, pp. 181-183). impact that does not rise to the level of during recent Gunnison sage-grouse However, greater sage-grouse have been a threat to the species now or is it studies where trapping and radio- captively reared, and survival of expected to do so in the foreseeable tagging was done (Apa 2004, p. 19; released chicks was similar to that of future. Childers 2009, p. 14; Lupis 2005, p. 26; wild chicks (CDOW 2009a, p. 10). San Miguel Basin Working Group 2009, Consequently, the CDOW decided to try Summary of Factor B p. A-10). Additionally, one radio-tagged captive rearing. Of 40 Gunnison sage- We have no evidence suggesting that hen was flushed off a nest during grouse eggs taken from the wild, only 11 hunting, when it was legal, resulted in subsequent monitoring and did not chicks (about 25 percent) survived overutilization of Gunnison sage-grouse. return after the second day, resulting in through October 2009. Although chick If hunting is allowed again, future loss of 10 eggs (Ward 2007, p. 52). The survival was low, the CDOW believes hunting may result in additive mortality CDOW does not believe that these losses they have gained valuable knowledge on due to habitat degradation and or disturbance have any significant Gunnison sage-grouse rearing fragmentation, despite harvest level impacts on the sage-grouse (CDOW techniques. As techniques improve, the restrictions and management intended 2009a, p. 29). CDOW intends to develop a captive- to limit impacts to hens. Nonetheless, Some of the radio-tagged sage-grouse breeding manual (CDOW 2009a, p. 11). we do not expect hunting to be have been translocated from the Although adults or juveniles have been reinstated in the foreseeable future. Gunnison Basin to other populations. captured and moved out of the Illegal hunting has been documented Over a 5–year period (2000–2002 and Gunnison Basin, as well as eggs, the only once in Colorado and is not 2006–2007), 68 sage-grouse were removal of the grouse only accounts for considered a threat to the species. Lek translocated from the Gunnison Basin to a very small percentage of the total viewing has not affected the Gunnison the Poncha Pass and San Miguel Basin population of the Gunnison Basin sage- sage-grouse, and lek viewing protocols populations (CDOW 2009a, p. 9). These grouse population (about 1 percent). designed to reduce disturbance have experimental translocations were The CDOW has a policy regarding generally been followed. CDOW is conducted to determine translocation trapping, handling, and marking currently revising their lek viewing techniques and survivorship in order to techniques approved by their Animal protocol to make it more stringent and increase both size of the receiving Use and Care Committee (San Miguel to include considerations for populations and to increase genetic Basin Working Group 2009, p. A-10, photography, research, and education- diversity in populations outside of the Childers 2009, p. 13). Evaluation of related viewing. Mortality from Gunnison Basin. However, the research projects by the Animal Use and scientific research is low (2 percent) and translocated grouse experienced 40–50 Care Committee and improvement of is not considered a threat. We know of percent mortality within the first year trapping, handling, and marking no overutilization for commercial or after release, which is double the techniques over the last several years educational purposes. Thus, based on average annual mortality of non- has resulted in fewer mortalities and the best scientific and commercial data translocated sage-grouse (CDOW 2009a, injuries. In fact, in the San Miguel available, we have concluded that p. 9). Greater sage-grouse translocations Basin, researchers have handled over overutilization for commercial, have not appeared to fare any better. 200 sage-grouse with no trapping recreational, scientific, or educational Over 7,200 greater sage-grouse were mortalities (San Miguel Basin Working purposes does not constitute a translocated between 1933 and 1990, Group (SMBWG) 2009, p. A-10). The significant threat to the Gunnison sage- but only five percent of the CDOW has also drafted a sage-grouse grouse. translocation efforts were considered to trapping and handling protocol, which be successful in producing sustained, is required training for people handling C. Disease or Predation resident populations at the translocation Gunnison sage-grouse, to minimize Disease sites (Reese and Connelly 1997, pp. 235- mortality and injury of the birds (CDOW 238, 240). More recent translocations 2002, pp. 1-4 in SMBWG 2009, pp. A- No research has been published about from 2003 to 2005 into Strawberry 22-A-25). Injury and mortality does the types or pathology of diseases in Valley, Utah, resulted in a 40 percent occasionally occur from trapping, Gunnison sage-grouse. However, annual mortality rate (Baxter et al. 2008, handling, marking, and flushing off multiple bacterial and parasitic diseases p. 182). We believe the lack of success nests. However, research-related have been documented in greater sage- of translocations found in greater sage- mortality is typically below three grouse (Patterson 1952, pp. 71-72; grouse is applicable to Gunnison sage- percent of handled birds and equates to Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14, 27). Some grouse since the two species exhibit one half of one percent or less of annual early studies have suggested that greater similar behavior and life-history traits, population estimates (Apa 2004, p. 19; sage-grouse populations are adversely and are managed accordingly. Childers 2009, p. 14; Lupis 2005, p. 26; affected by parasitic infections Because the survival rate for San Miguel Basin Working Group 2009, (Batterson and Morse 1948, p. 22). translocated sage-grouse has not been as p. A-10). However, the role of parasites or high as desired, the CDOW started a Research needs may gradually infectious diseases in population captive-rearing program in 2009 to dwindle over the years but annual or declines of greater sage-grouse is study whether techniques can be occasional research is expected to occur unknown based on the few systematic developed to captively rear and release for at least 50 years constituting the surveys conducted (Connelly et al. Gunnison sage-grouse and enhance their foreseeable future for this potential 2004, p. 10-3). No parasites have been survival (CDOW 2009a, pp. 9-12). The threat. Short-term disturbance effects to documented to cause mortality in Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide individuals occur as does injury and Gunnison sage-grouse, but the Steering Committee conducted a review mortality, but we do not believe these protozoan, Eimeria spp., which causes of captive-rearing attempts for both effects cause a threat to the Gunnison coccidiosis, has been reported to cause

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59833

death in greater sage-grouse (Connelly et sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle in develop a resistance to the disease, and al. 2004, p. 10-4). Infections tend to be press, p. 13; Cornish 2009, pers. comm.). death is certain once an individual is localized to specific geographic areas, The frequency of direct transmission exposed (Clark et al. 2006, p. 18). and no cases of greater sage-grouse has not been determined (McLean 2006, To date, West Nile virus has not been mortality resulting from coccidiosis p. 54). Cold ambient temperatures documented in Gunnison sage-grouse have been documented since the early preclude mosquito activity and virus despite the presence of West Nile virus- 1960s (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-4). amplification, so transmission to and in positive mosquitoes in nearly all Parasites have been implicated in sage-grouse is limited to the summer counties throughout their range greater sage-grouse mate selection, with (mid-May to mid-September) (Naugle et (Colorado Department of Public Health potentially subsequent effects on the al. 2005, p. 620; Zou et al. 2007, p. 4), 2004, pp. 1-5; U.S. Centers for Disease genetic diversity of this species (Boyce with a peak in July and August (Walker Control and Prevention 2004, entire). 1990, p.263; Deibert 1995, p. 38). These and Naugle in press, p. 10). Reduced We do not know whether this is a result relationships may be important to the and delayed West Nile virus of the small number of birds that are long-term ecology of greater sage-grouse, transmission in sage-grouse has marked, the relatively few birds that but they have not been shown to be occurred in years with lower summer exist in the wild, or unsuitable significant to the immediate status of temperatures (Naugle et al. 2005, p. 621; conditions in Gunnison sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10- Walker et al. 2007b, p. 694). In non- habitat for the virus to become virulent. 6). Although diseases and parasites have sagebrush ecosystems, high West Nile virus activity within the range been suggested to affect isolated sage- temperatures associated with drought of Gunnison sage-grouse has been low grouse populations (Connelly et al. conditions increase West Nile virus compared to other parts of Colorado and 2004, p. 10-3), we have no evidence transmission by allowing for more rapid the western United States. A total of 77 indicating that parasitic diseases are a larval mosquito development and wild bird (other than Gunnison sage- threat to Gunnison sage-grouse shorter virus incubation periods grouse) deaths resulting from West Nile populations. (Shaman et al. 2005, p. 134; Walker and virus have been confirmed from Greater sage-grouse are subject to a Naugle in press, p. 11). Additional counties within the occupied range of variety of bacterial, fungal, and viral details on the impacts of West Nile virus Gunnison sage-grouse since 2002 when pathogens. The bacterium Salmonella on greater sage-grouse can be found in reporting began in Colorado (USGS sp. has caused a single documented our recent finding (75 FR 13910; March 2009, entire). Fifty-two (68 percent) of mortality in the greater sage-grouse and 23, 2010). these West-Nile-virus-caused bird studies have shown that infection rates Greater sage-grouse congregate in deaths were reported from Mesa County in wild birds are low (Connelly et al. mesic habitats in the mid-late summer (where the Pı˜non Mesa population is 2004, p. 10-7). The bacteria are (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971), thereby found). Only San Miguel, Dolores, and apparently contracted through exposure increasing their risk of exposure to Hinsdale Counties had no confirmed to contaminated water supplies around mosquitoes. If West Nile virus outbreaks avian mortalities resulting from West livestock stock tanks (Connelly et al. coincide with drought conditions that Nile virus. 2004, p. 10-7). Other bacteria found in aggregate birds in habitat near water Walker and Naugle (in press, p. 27) greater sage-grouse include Escherichia sources, the risk of exposure to West predict that West Nile virus outbreaks in coli, botulism (Clostridium spp.), avian Nile virus will be elevated (Walker and small, isolated, and genetically tuberculosis (Mycobacterium avium), Naugle in press, p. 11). Greater sage- depauperate populations could reduce and avian cholera (Pasteurella grouse inhabiting higher elevation sites sage-grouse numbers below a threshold multocida). These bacteria have never in summer (similar to the northern from which recovery is unlikely because been identified as a cause of mortality portion of the Gunnison Basin) are of limited or nonexistent demographic in greater sage-grouse and the risk of likely less vulnerable to contracting and genetic exchange from adjacent exposure and hence, population effects, West Nile virus than birds at lower populations. Thus, a West Nile virus is low (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-7 to elevation (similar to Dry Creek Basin of outbreak in any Gunnison sage-grouse 10-8). We have no reason to expect that the San Miguel population) as ambient population, except perhaps the mortality and exposure risk are different temperatures are typically cooler Gunnison Basin population, could limit in Gunnison sage-grouse; therefore, we (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 11). the persistence of these populations. do not believe these bacteria to be a West Nile Virus has caused Although West Nile virus is a threat to the species. population declines in wild bird potential threat, the best available West Nile virus was introduced into populations on the local and regional information suggests that it is not the northeastern United States in 1999 scale (Walker and Naugle in press, p. 7) currently a significant threat to and has subsequently spread across and has been shown to affect survival Gunnison sage-grouse, since West Nile North America (Marra et al. 2004, rates of greater sage-grouse (Naugle et al. virus has not been documented in p.394). In sagebrush habitats, West Nile 2004, p. 710; Naugle et al. 2005, p. 616). Gunnison sage-grouse despite the virus transmission is primarily Experimental results, combined with presence of West Nile virus-positive regulated by environmental factors, field data, suggest that a widespread mosquitoes in nearly all counties including temperature, precipitation, West Nile virus infection has negatively throughout their range. No other and anthropogenic water sources, such affected greater sage-grouse (Naugle et diseases or parasitic infections are as stock ponds and coal-bed methane al. 2004, p. 711; Naugle et al. 2005, p. considered to be threatening the ponds that support the mosquito vectors 616). Summer habitat requirements of Gunnison sage-grouse at this time. (Reisen et al. 2006, p. 309; Walker and sage-grouse potentially increase their Naugle in press, pp. 10-12). The virus exposure to West Nile virus. Greater Predation persists largely within a mosquito-bird- sage-grouse are considered to have a Predation is the most commonly mosquito infection cycle (McLean 2006, high susceptibility to West Nile virus, identified cause of direct mortality for p. 45). However, direct bird-to-bird with resultant high levels of mortality sage-grouse during all life stages transmission of the virus has been (Clark et al. 2006, p. 19; McLean 2006, (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9; Connelly et documented in several species (McLean p. 54). Data collected on greater sage- al. 2000b, p. 228; Connelly et al. in 2006, pp. 54, 59) including the greater grouse suggest that sage-grouse do not press a, p. 23). However, sage-grouse

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

have co-evolved with a variety of juveniles and older age classes (GSRSC first few weeks after hatching was predators, and their cryptic plumage 2005, p. 135). Golden eagles were found estimated to be 82 percent (Gregg et al. and behavioral adaptations have to be the dominant species recorded 2007, p. 648). Survival of juveniles to allowed them to persist despite this perching on power poles in Utah in their first breeding season was estimated mortality factor (Schroeder et al. 1999, Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (Prather to be low (10 percent). It is reasonable, p. 10; Coates 2008 p. 69; Coates and and Messmer 2009, p. 12). Twenty-two given the sources of adult mortality, to Delehanty 2008, p. 635; Hagen in press, and 40 percent of 111 adult mortalities assume that predation is a contributor to p. 3). Until recently, little published were the result of avian and mammalian the high juvenile mortality rates information has been available that predation, respectively (Childers 2009, (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 4). indicates predation is a limiting factor p. 7). Twenty-five and 35 percent of 40 Sage-grouse nests are subject to for the greater sage-grouse (Connelly et chick mortalities were caused by avian varying levels of predation. Predation al. 2004, p. 10-1), particularly where and mammalian predation, respectively can be total (all eggs destroyed) or habitat quality has not been (Childers 2009, p. 7). A causative agent partial (one or more eggs destroyed). compromised (Hagen in press, p. 3). of mortality was not determined in the However, hens abandon nests in either Although many predators will consume remaining depredations observed in the case (Coates, 2007, p. 26). Gregg et al. sage-grouse, none specialize on the western portion of the Gunnison Basin (1994, p. 164) reported that over a 3– species (Hagen in press, p. 5). Generalist from 2000 to 2009 (Childers 2009, p. 7). year period in Oregon, 106 of 124 nests predators have the greatest effect on Adult male Gunnison sage-grouse are (84 percent) were preyed upon (Gregg et ground-nesting birds because predator very susceptible to predation while on al. 1994, p. 164). Patterson (1952, p.104) numbers are independent of the density the lek (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; reported nest predation rates of 41 of a single prey source since they can Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; percent in Wyoming. Holloran and switch to other prey sources when a Hagen in press, p. 5), presumably Anderson (2003, p. 309) reported a given prey source (e.g., Gunnison sage- because they are conspicuous while predation rate of 12 percent (3 of 26) in grouse) is not abundant (Coates 2007, p. performing their mating displays. Wyoming. Moynahan et al. (2007, p. 4). We believe that the effects of Because leks are attended daily by 1777) attributed 131 of 258 (54 percent) predation observed in greater sage- numerous grouse, predators also may be nest failures to predation in Montana. grouse are applicable to the effects attracted to these areas during the Studies have shown that re-nesting rates anticipated in Gunnison sage-grouse breeding season (Braun 1995, p. 2). are low in Gunnison sage-grouse since overall behavior and life-history Connelly et al. (2000b, p. 228) found (Young, 1994, p. 44; Childers, 2009, p. traits are similar for the two species. that among 40 radio-collared males, 83 7), suggesting that re-nesting is unlikely percent of the mortality was due to to offset losses due to predation. Losses Major predators of adult sage-grouse predation and 42 percent of those of breeding hens and young chicks to include many species including golden mortalities occurred during the lekking predation potentially can influence eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), red foxes season (March through June). Adult overall greater and Gunnison sage- (Vulpes fulva), and bobcats (Felis rufus) female greater sage-grouse are grouse population numbers, as these (Hartzler 1974, pp. 532-536; Schroeder susceptible to predators while on the two groups contribute most significantly et al. 1999, pp. 10-11; Schroeder and nest, but mortality rates are low (Hagen to population productivity (GSRSC, Baydack 2001, p. 25; Rowland and in press, p. 6). Hens will abandon their 2005, p. 29, Baxter et al. 2008, p. 185; Wisdom 2002, p. 14; Hagen in press, pp. nest when disturbed by predators Connelly et al, in press a, p. 18). 4-5). Juvenile sage-grouse also are killed (Patterson 1952, p. 110), likely reducing Nesting success of greater sage-grouse by many raptors as well as common this mortality (Hagen in press, p. 6). is positively correlated with the ravens (Corvus corax), badgers (Taxidea Among 77 adult hens, 52 percent of the presence of big sagebrush and grass and taxus), red foxes, coyotes (Canis latrans) mortality was due to predation and 52 forb cover (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 971). and weasels (Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, percent of those mortalities occurred Females actively select nest sites with entire; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10). Nest between March and August, which these qualities (Schroeder and Baydack predators include badgers, weasels, includes the nesting and brood-rearing 2001, p. 25; Hagen et al. 2007, p. 46). coyotes, common ravens, American periods (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228). Nest predation appears to be related to crows (Corvus brachyrhyncos) and Sage-grouse populations are likely more the amount of herbaceous cover magpies (Pica spp.), elk (Cervus sensitive to predation upon females surrounding the nest (Gregg et al. 1994, canadensis) (Holloran and Anderson given the highly negative response of p. 164; Braun 1995, pp. 1-2; DeLong et 2003, p.309), and domestic cows (Bovus Gunnison sage-grouse population al. 1995, p. 90; Braun 1998; Coggins spp.) (Coates et al. 2008, pp. 425-426). dynamics to adult female reproductive 1998, p. 30; Connelly et al. 2000b, p. Ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.) success and chick mortality (GSRSC, 975; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; also have been identified as nest 2005, p. 173). Predation of adult sage- Coates and Delehanty 2008, p. 636). predators (Patterson 1952, p. 107; grouse is low outside the lekking, Loss of nesting cover from any source Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 10; Schroder nesting, and brood-rearing season (e.g., grazing, fire) can reduce nest and Baydack 2001, p. 25), but recent (Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 230; Naugle et success and adult hen survival. data show that they are physically al. 2004, p. 711; Moynahan et al. 2006, However, Coates (2007, p. 149) found incapable of puncturing eggs (Holloran p. 1536; Hagen in press, p. 6). that badger predation was facilitated by and Anderson 2003, p. 309; Coates et al. Estimates of predation rates on nest cover as it attracts small mammals, 2008, p. 426; Hagen in press, p. 6). juveniles are limited due to the a badger’s primary prey. Similarly, Several other small mammals visited difficulties in studying this age class habitat alteration that reduces cover for sage-grouse nests in Nevada, but none (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 509; young chicks can increase their rate of resulted in predation events (Coates et Hagen in press, p. 8). For greater sage- predation (Schroeder and Baydack 2001, al. 2008, p. 425). The most common grouse, chick mortality from predation p. 27). predators of Gunnison sage-grouse eggs ranged from 10 to 51 percent in 2002 In a review of published nesting are weasels, ground squirrels, coyotes, and 2003 on three study sites in Oregon studies, Connelly et al. (in press, p. 14) and corvids (Young 1994, p. 37). Most (Gregg et al. 2003a, p. 15; 2003b, p. 17). reported that nesting success was raptor predation of sage-grouse is on Mortality due to predation during the greater in unaltered habitats versus

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59835

habitats affected by anthropogenic Pı˜non Mesa population, though data sagebrush habitats and the strong activities. Where greater sage-grouse have not been collected (CDOW 2009a, selection for sagebrush by the species. habitat has been altered, the influx of p. 110). Human-made structures in the Additionally, Gunnison sage-grouse predators can decrease annual environment increase the effect of raven avoid residential development, resulting recruitment into a population (Gregg et predation, particularly in low canopy in functional habitat loss (Aldridge et al. al. 1994, p. 164; Braun 1995, pp. 1-2; cover areas, by providing ravens with 2010, p. 24). Ninety-one percent of nest Braun 1998; DeLong et al. 1995, p. 91; perches (Braun 1998, pp.145-146; locations in the western portion of the Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 28; Coates 2007, p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2). Gunnison Basin population occur Coates 2007, p. 2; Hagen in press, p. 7). Reduction in patch size and diversity of within 35 percent of the available Agricultural development, landscape sagebrush habitat, as well as the habitat (Aldridge et al. 2010, p. 25-26). fragmentation, and human populations construction of fences, powerlines and Unnaturally high nest densities which have the potential to increase predation other infrastructure also are likely to result from habitat fragmentation or pressure on all life stages of greater sage- encourage the presence of the common disturbance associated with the grouse by forcing birds to nest in less raven (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426; Bui presence of edges, fencerows, or trails suitable or marginal habitats, increasing 2009, p. 4). For example, raven counts may increase predation rates by making travel time through altered habitats have increased by approximately 200 foraging easier for predators (Holloran where they are vulnerable to predation, percent along the Falcon-Gondor 2005, p. C37). Increased nest density and increasing the diversity and density transmission line corridor in Nevada could negatively influence the of predators (Ritchie et al. 1994, p. 125; (Atamian et al. 2007, p. 2). Atamian et probability of a successful hatch Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; al. (2007, p. 2) found that ravens (Holloran and Anderson, 2005, p. 748). Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-23; and contributed to lek disturbance events in The influence of the human footprint in Summers et al. 2004, p. 523). We the areas surrounding the transmission sagebrush ecosystems may be believe the aforementioned is also line. However, cause of decline in underestimated (Leu and Hanser, in applicable to Gunnison sage-grouse surrounding sage-grouse population press, pp. 24-25) since it is uncertain because overall behavior and life-history numbers could not be separated from how much more habitat sage-grouse (a traits are similar for the two species other potential impacts. Holloran (2005, large landscape-scale species) need for (Young 1994, p. 4). p. 58) attributed increased sage-grouse persistence in increasingly fragmented Abundance of red fox and corvids, nest depredation to high corvid landscapes (Connelly et al., in press, pp. which historically were rare in the abundances, which resulted from 28-34). Therefore, the influence of sagebrush landscape, has increased in anthropogenic food and perching ravens and other predators associated association with human-altered subsidies in areas of natural gas with human activities may be landscapes (Sovada et al. 1995, p. 5). In development in western Wyoming. Bui underestimated. the Strawberry Valley of Utah, low (2009, p. 31) also found that ravens used Ongoing studies in the San Miguel survival of greater sage-grouse may have road networks associated with oil fields population suggest that the lack of been due to an unusually high density in the same Wyoming location for recruitment in Gunnison sage-grouse is of red foxes, which apparently were foraging activities. Holmes (2009, pp. 2- likely due to predation (CDOW 2009a, attracted to that area by anthropogenic 4) also found that common raven p. 31). In this area, 6 of 12 observed activities (Bambrough et al. 2000). The abundance increased in association with nests were destroyed by predation, with none of the chicks from the remaining red fox population has increased within oil and gas development in the Gunnison Basin (BLM, 2009, p. 37). nests surviving beyond two weeks southwestern Wyoming. Raven Ranches, farms, and housing (CDOW 2009a, p. 30). In small and abundance was strongly associated with developments have resulted in the declining populations, small changes to sage-grouse nest failure in northeastern introduction of nonnative predators habitat abundance or quality, or in Nevada, with resultant negative effects including domestic dogs (Canis predator abundance, could have large on sage-grouse reproduction (Coates domesticus) and cats (Felis domesticus) consequences. 2007, p. 130). The presence of high into greater sage-grouse habitats Predator removal efforts have numbers of predators within a sage- (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 12-2). We sometimes shown short-term gains that grouse nesting area may negatively believe this is also applicable to may benefit fall populations, but not affect sage-grouse productivity without Gunnison sage-grouse because of the breeding population sizes (Cote and habitat similarities of the two species causing direct mortality. Coates (2007, Sutherland 1997, p. 402; Hagen in press, and similar patterns of human pp. 85-86) suggested that ravens may p. 9; Leu and Hanser in press, p. 27). development. Local attraction of ravens reduce the time spent off the nest by Predator removal may have greater to nesting hens may be facilitated by female sage-grouse, thereby potentially benefits in areas with low habitat loss and fragmentation of native compromising their ability to secure quality, but predator numbers quickly shrublands, which increases exposure of sufficient nutrition to complete the rebound without continual control nests to potential predators (Aldridge incubation period. (Hagen in press, p. 9). Red fox removal and Boyce 2007, p. 522; Bui 2009, p. As more suitable grouse habitat is in Utah appeared to increase adult 32). The presence of ravens was converted to exurban development, greater sage-grouse survival and negatively associated with greater sage- agriculture, or other non-sagebrush productivity, but the study did not grouse nest and brood fate in western habitat types, grouse nesting and brood- compare these rates against other non- Wyoming (Bui 2009, p. 27). rearing become increasingly spatially removal areas, so inferences are limited Raven abundance has increased as restricted (Bui 2009, p. 32). As (Hagen in press, p. 11). much as 1,500 percent in some areas of discussed in Factor A, we anticipate a Slater (2003, p. 133) demonstrated western North America since the 1960s substantial increase in the distribution that coyote control failed to have an (Coates 2007, p. 5). Breeding bird survey of residential development throughout effect on greater sage-grouse nesting trends from 1966 to 2007 indicate the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. This success in southwestern Wyoming. increases throughout Colorado and Utah increase will likely cause additional However, coyotes may not be an (USGS, 2009, pp. 1-2). Increases in restriction of nesting habitat within the important predator of sage-grouse. In a raven numbers are suggested in the species’ range, given removal of coyote prey base analysis, Johnson and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Hansen (1979, p. 954) showed that sage- Anthropogenic influences on a potential impact to the Gunnison sage- grouse and bird egg shells made up a sagebrush habitats that increase grouse is West Nile virus. This virus is very small percentage (0.4–2.4 percent) suitability for ravens may also limit distributed throughout most of the of analyzed scat samples. Additionally, sage-grouse populations (Bui 2009, p. species’ range. However, despite its near coyote removal can have unintended 32). Current land-use practices in the 100 percent lethality, disease consequences resulting in the release of intermountain West favor high predator occurrence is sporadic in other taxa smaller predators, many of which, like (in particular, raven) abundance relative across the species’ range and has not the red fox, may have greater negative to historical numbers (Coates et al. been detected to date in Gunnison sage- impacts on sage-grouse (Mezquida et al. 2008, p. 426). The interaction between grouse. While we have no evidence of 2006, p. 752). changes in habitat and predation may West Nile virus acting on the Gunnison Removal of ravens from an area in have substantial effects to the Gunnison sage-grouse, because of its presence northeastern Nevada caused only short- sage-grouse at the landscape level within the species’ range and the term reductions in raven populations (Coates 2007, p. 3-5). Since the continued development of (less than one year), as apparently Gunnison and greater sage-grouse have anthropogenic water sources in the area, transient birds from neighboring sites such similar behavior and life-history the virus may pose a future threat to the repopulated the removal area (Coates traits, we believe the current impacts on species. We anticipate that West Nile 2007, p. 151). Additionally, badger Gunnison sage-grouse are at least as virus will persist within the range of predation appeared to partially significant as those documented in Gunnison sage-grouse indefinitely and compensate for decreases due to raven greater sage-grouse and to date in will be exacerbated by any factor (e.g., removal (Coates 2007, p. 152). In their Gunnison sage-grouse. Given the small climate change) that increases ambient review of literature regarding predation, population sizes and fragmented nature temperatures and the presence of the Connelly et al. (2004, p. 10-1) noted that of the remaining Gunnison sage-grouse vector on the landscape. only two of nine studies examining habitat, we believe that the impacts of We believe that existing and survival and nest success indicated that predation will likely be even greater as continued landscape fragmentation will predation had limited a sage-grouse habitat fragmentation continues. increase the effects of predation on this population by decreasing nest success, The studies presented above for species, particularly in the six smaller and both studies indicated low nest greater sage-grouse suggest that, in areas populations, resulting in a reduction in success due to predation was ultimately of intensive habitat alteration and sage-grouse productivity and abundance fragmentation, sage-grouse productivity in the future. related to poor nesting habitat. Bui and, therefore, populations could be We have evaluated the best available (2009, pp. 36-37) suggested removal of negatively affected by increasing scientific information regarding disease anthropogenic subsidies (e.g., landfills, predation. Nest predation may be and predation and their effects on the tall structures) may be an important step higher, more variable, and have a greater Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on the to reducing the presence of sage-grouse impact on the small, fragmented information available, we have predators. Leu and Hanser (in press, p. Gunnison sage-grouse populations, determined that predation is a 27) also argue that reducing the effects particularly the six smallest populations significant threat to the species of predation on sage-grouse can only be (GSRSC 2005, p. 134). Unfortunately, throughout all or a significant portion of effectively addressed by precluding except for the relatively few studies its range. Furthermore, we determine these features. presented here, data are lacking that that disease is not currently a significant Summary of Predation link Gunnison sage-grouse population threat but has the potential to become a numbers and predator abundance. significant threat at any time. Predation has a strong relationship However, in at least six of the seven with anthropogenic factors on the D. The Inadequacy of Existing populations (Gunnison Basin Regulatory Mechanisms landscape, and human presence on the potentially excluded), where habitats landscape will continue to increase for have been significantly altered by Under this factor, we examine the foreseeable future. human activities, we believe that whether threats to the Gunnison sage- Gunnison sage-grouse are adapted to predation could be limiting Gunnison grouse are adequately addressed by minimize predation by cryptic plumage sage-grouse populations. As more existing regulatory mechanisms. and behavior. Gunnison sage-grouse habitats face development, even Existing regulatory mechanisms that may be increasingly subject to levels of dispersed development such as that could provide some protection for predation that would not normally occurring throughout the range of Gunnison sage-grouse include: (1) local occur in the historically contiguous Gunnison sage-grouse, we expect this land use laws, processes, and unaltered sagebrush habitats. The threat to spread and increase. Studies of ordinances; (2) State laws and impacts of predation on greater sage- the effectiveness of predator control regulations; and (3) Federal laws and grouse can increase where habitat have failed to demonstrate a long-term regulations. An example of a regulatory quality has been compromised by inverse relationship between the mechanism is the terms and conditions anthropogenic activities (exurban predator numbers and sage-grouse attached to a grazing permit that development, road development, etc.) nesting success or population numbers. describe how a permittee will manage (e.g., Coates 2007, p. 154, 155; Bui 2009, Therefore, we believe that predation is livestock on a BLM allotment. They are p. 16; Hagen in press, p. 12). Landscape currently a threat to the Gunnison sage- non-discretionary and enforceable, and fragmentation, habitat degradation, and grouse and will continue to be a threat are considered a regulatory mechanism human populations have the potential to the species within the foreseeable under this analysis. Other examples to increase predator populations future. include city or county ordinances, State through increasing ease of securing prey governmental actions enforced under a and subsidizing food sources and nest Summary of Factor C State statute or constitution, or Federal or den substrate. Thus, otherwise We have reviewed the available action under statute. Actions adopted by suitable habitat may change into a information on the effects of disease and local groups, States, or Federal entities habitat sink for grouse populations predation on the Gunnison sage-grouse. that are discretionary or are not (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, p. 517). The only disease that currently presents enforceable, including conservation

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59837

strategies and guidance, are typically negatively affect Gunnison sage-grouse history needs (6.4 km (4 mi)). Because not regulatory mechanisms. by allowing for further development, research summarized in GSRSC (2005 Regulatory mechanisms, if they exist, degradation, and loss of the species’ entire) has shown that impacts occur up may preclude the need for listing if such habitat. A total of 1,190 parcels, to 6.4 km (4 mi) from the point of mechanisms are judged to adequately covering 16,351 ha (40,405 ac), within disturbance, these minimally or address the threat to the species such occupied habitat in Gunnison County unregulated negative impacts will that listing is not warranted. Conversely, currently contain development. Of those continue to fragment the habitat and threats on the landscape are exacerbated 1,190 parcels, 851 are less than 14 ha thus have substantial impacts on the when not addressed by existing (35 ac) in size and subject to County local, as well as landscape, conservation regulatory mechanisms, or when the review. However, those 851 parcels of the species. In summary, Gunnison existing mechanisms are not adequate encompass only 13.1 percent of private County is to be highly commended for (or not adequately implemented or land area with existing development in the regulatory steps they have enforced). We cannot predict when or occupied habitat within Gunnison implemented. However, the scope and how local, State, and Federal laws, County. Parcels greater than 14 ha (35 implementation of that regulatory regulations, and policies will change; ac) in size (339 of the 1,190) encompass authority is limited in its ability to however, most Federal land use plans 86.9 of the existing private land area effectively and collectively conserve are valid for at least 20 years. In this within occupied habitat within Gunnison sage-grouse due to the section we review actions undertaken Gunnison County. Cumulatively, 91 County’s limited authority within the by local, State, and Federal entities percent of the private land within the designed to reduce or remove threats to Gunnison Basin portion of the species’ Gunnison County portion of the range. Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. Gunnison Basin population that either In 2005, San Miguel County amended Local Laws and Regulations has existing development or is potentially developable land is allocated its Land Use Codes to include Rangewide approximately 41 percent in lots greater than 14 ha (35 ac) in size consideration and implementation, to of occupied Gunnison sage-grouse and therefore not subject to Gunnison the extent possible, of conservation habitat is privately owned (calculation County LUR 07-17. This situation limits measures recommended in GSRSC from Table 1). Gunnison County and the effectiveness of LUR 07-17 in (2005, entire) for the Gunnison sage- San Miguel County, Colorado, are the providing protection to Gunnison sage- grouse when considering land use only local or County entities that have grouse in Gunnison County. activities and development located regulations and policy, respectively, The only required review by within its habitat (San Miguel County that provide a level of conservation 2005). The County is only involved consideration for the Gunnison sage- Gunnison County under LUR 07-17 pertains to the construction of roads, when there is a request for a special use grouse or its habitats on private land permit, which limits their involvement (Dolores County 2002; Mesa County driveways, and individual building permits. Of the 79 percent of area in review of projects adversely affecting 2003; Montrose County 2003). In 2007, Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat the Gunnison County, Colorado Board occupied by the Gunnison Basin and providing recommendations. of County Commissioners approved population that falls within Gunnison Conservation measures are solicited Land Use Resolution (LUR) Number 07- County, 37 percent of the private land from the CDOW and a local Gunnison 17 to ensure all applications for land is not subject to the County LUR sage-grouse working group. use change permits, including building because the action would not be within Implementation of the conservation permits, individual sewage disposal 1 km (0.6 mi) of a lek. Gunnison County system permits, Gunnison County reviewed 231 projects from July 2006 measure is dependent on negotiations access permits, and Gunnison County through November 2009 under the LUR between the County and the applicant. Reclamation permits be reviewed for for impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse. All Some positive measures (e.g., locating a impact to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat but one project was within the overall special use activity outside grouse within 1 km (0.6 mile) of an active lek. boundary of the Gunnison Basin habitat, establishing a 324-ha (800-ac) If impacts are determined to result from population’s occupied habitat, with conservation easement; implementing a project, impacts are to be avoided, most of the activity focused in the speed limits to reduce likelihood of minimized, and/or mitigated. northern portion of this population. All bird/vehicle collisions) have been Approximately 79 percent of private of these projects were approved and implemented as a result of the policy. land occupied by the Gunnison Basin allowed to proceed. The majority of Typically, the County has not been population is in Gunnison County, and these projects were within established involved with residential development, thereby under the purview of these areas of development, and some were and most measures that result from regulations. The remaining 21 percent of for activities such as outbuildings or discussions with applicants result in the private lands in the Gunnison Basin additions to existing buildings; measures that the Service considers population is in Saguache County where nonetheless, these projects provide an minimization, not mitigation measures, similar regulations are not in place or indication of further encroachment and but which the County considers applicable. Actions outside the 1 km fragmentation of the remaining mitigation (Henderson 2010, pers. (0.6 mi) buffer are not subject to occupied habitat. Nineteen percent (44) comm.). The San Miguel County Land Gunnison County LUR 07-17. of the projects were within 1 km (0.6 Use Codes provide some conservation Colorado State statute (C.R.S. 30-28- mi) of a lek. Nineteen percent (45) of the benefit to the species through some 101) exempts parcels of land of 14 ha projects contained language within the minimization of impacts and (35 ac) or more per home from permit that established conditions for encouraging landowners to voluntarily regulation, so county zoning laws in control of pets. The use of the 1-km (0.6- minimize/mitigate impacts of Colorado such as LUR 07-17 only apply mi) buffer around the lek provides some residential development in grouse to properties with housing densities conservation benefit to the grouse. This habitat. However, the codes allow for greater than one house per 14 ha (35 ac). buffer is not as large as that limited regulatory authority but are not This statute allows these parcels to be recommended by GSRSC (2005 entire) sufficient to prevent or mitigate for the exempt from county regulation and may to meet all the species’ year-round life- continued degradation and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse threat. The permanent loss, and authorities provide individual Gunnison habitat. associated fragmentation and sage-grouse with protection from direct In addition to the county regulations, degradation, of sagebrush habitat is human-caused mortality to the level that Gunnison County hired a Gunnison considered the largest threat to hunting is not considered a threat to the Sage-grouse Coordinator (2005 to Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. species (see Factor B discussion, above). present) and organized a Strategic 2). The minimally regulated residential/ The Colorado Wildlife Commission is Committee (2005 to present) to facilitate exurban development found throughout currently considering whether to implementation of conservation the vast majority of the species range is include the Gunnison sage-grouse as an measures in the Gunnison Basin under a primary cause of this loss, endangered or threatened species in both the local Conservation Plan and fragmentation, and degradation of accordance with Administrative Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We are Directive W-7 (State of Colorado, 2007, (GSRSC 2005). San Miguel County hired not aware of any existing local entire). These authorities do not regulate a Gunnison Sage-grouse Coordinator for regulatory mechanisms that adequately the primary threat to the species of the San Miguel Basin population in address this threat. fragmentation of habitat as described in March 2006. The Crawford working We recognize that county or city Factor A. group hired a Gunnison sage-grouse ordinances in San Juan County, Utah, The Wildlife Resources Code of Utah coordinator in December 2009. that address agricultural lands, (Title 23) provides UDWR the powers, Saguache County has applied for a grant transportation, and zoning for various duties, rights, and responsibilities to to hire a part-time coordinator for the types of land uses have the potential to protect, propagate, manage, conserve, Poncha Pass population (grant status influence sage-grouse. However, we are and distribute wildlife throughout the still pending). These efforts facilitate not aware of any existing County State. Section 23-13-3 declares that coordination relative to sage-grouse regulations that provide adequate wildlife existing within the State, not management and reflect positively on regulatory mechanisms to address held by private ownership and legally these Counties’ willingness to conserve threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse and acquired, is property of the State. Gunnison sage-grouse, but have no its habitat. Sections 23-14-18 and 23-14-19 regulatory authority. None of the other Each of the seven populations of authorize the Utah Wildlife Board to Counties with Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse has a prescribe rules and regulations for the populations have regulations, or staff, Conservation Plan written by the taking and/or possession of protected that implement regulation or policy respective local working group with wildlife, including Gunnison sage- review that consider the conservation publication dates of 1999 to 2009. These grouse. These authorities provide needs of Gunnison sage-grouse. The plans provide recommendations for adequate protection to individual inadequacy of existing regulatory management of Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse from direct, mechanisms that address habitat loss, and have been the basis for identifying human-caused mortality to the level that fragmentation, and degradation, in the and prioritizing local conservation hunting is not considered a threat to the other populations constitutes a threat to efforts, but do not provide regulatory species (see Factor B discussion, above). those populations. protection for Gunnison sage-grouse or However, these laws and regulations do Conservation measures that have its habitat. not provide the regulatory authority regulatory authority that have been State Laws and Regulations needed to conserve sage-grouse habitats implemented as a result of the from the threats described in Factor A. aforementioned collective efforts State laws and regulations provide Gunnison sage-grouse are managed by include: closing of shed antler specific authority for sage-grouse CDOW and UDWR on all lands within collection in the Gunnison Basin by the conservation over lands that are directly each State as resident native game birds. Colorado Wildlife Commission due to owned by the State, provide broad In both States this classification allows its disturbance of Gunnison sage-grouse authority to regulate and protect the direct human taking of the bird during the early breeding season; and a wildlife on all lands within their during hunting seasons authorized and BLM/USFS/Gunnison County/CDOW borders, and provide a mechanism for conducted under State laws and collective effort to implement and indirect conservation through regulation regulations. In 2000, CDOW closed the enforce road closures during the early of threats to the species (e.g., noxious hunting season for Gunnison sage- breeding season (March 15 to May 15). weeds). grouse in the Gunnison Basin, the only These regulatory efforts have provided Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 33, area then open to hunting for the benefits to Gunnison sage-grouse during Article 1 gives CDOW responsibility for species. The hunting season for the breeding season. However, these the management and conservation of Gunnison sage-grouse in Utah has been measures do not adequately address the wildlife resources within State borders. closed since 1989. The Gunnison sage- primary threat to the species of Title 33 Article 1-101, Legislative grouse is listed as a species of special fragmentation of the habitat. Declaration requires a continuous concern in Colorado, as a sensitive Habitat loss is not regulated or operation of planning, acquisition, and species in Utah, and as a Tier I species monitored in Colorado counties where development of wildlife habitats and under the Utah Wildlife Action Plan, Gunnison sage-grouse occur. Therefore, facilities for wildlife-related providing heightened priority for conversion of agricultural land from one opportunities. The CDOW is required by management (CDOW 2009a, p. 40; use to another, such as native pasture statute (C.R.S. 106-7-104) to provide UDWR 2009, p. 9). The Colorado containing sagebrush converted to counties with information on Wildlife Commission is currently another use, such as cropland, would ‘‘significant wildlife habitat,’’ and considering a proposal from CDOW to not normally come before a county provide technical assistance in list the Gunnison sage-grouse as a State zoning commission. Based on the establishing guidelines for designating endangered or threatened species. State information we have available for the and administering such areas, if asked. listed species will be the focus of range of the species, we do not believe The CDOW also has authority to conservation actions such as that habitat loss from conversion of regulate possession of the Gunnison monitoring, research, enhancement, sagebrush habitat to agricultural lands is sage-grouse, set hunting seasons, and restoration, or inventory, and will occurring at a level that makes it a issue citations for poaching. These receive preferential consideration in the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59839

annual budget development process binding documents. Therefore, we have range of the species, we believe that (State of Colorado, 2007, p. 1). Hunting determined that perpetual conservation while easements provide some level of and other State regulations that deal easements offer some level of regulatory protection from future development, with issues such as harassment provide protection to the species. Some of the they are not sufficient to ameliorate the adequate protection for individual birds easements include conservation threat of loss and fragmentation of (see discussion under Factor B), but do measures that are specific for Gunnison Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We not protect the habitat. While we sage-grouse, while many are directed at believe this to be true now and into the strongly support the use of regulatory other species, such as big game (GSRSC future, especially considering the costs mechanisms to control hunting of the 2005, pp. 59-103). Some of these of purchasing easements when species, the protection afforded through easements protect existing Gunnison compared to the cost paid for the aforementioned State regulatory sage-grouse habitat. Sixty-nine percent development of those lands, and money mechanisms is limited. of the area under conservation Easements that prevent long-term or easements have land cover types other available through all sources to permanent habitat loss by prohibiting than agricultural (covering 31 percent) purchase easements. In addition, development are held by CDOW, that provide habitat for Gunnison sage- because entering into a conservation UDWR, Natural Resources Conservation grouse. However, considering that the easement is voluntary on the part of the Service (NRCS), NPS, and non- total easements recorded to date cover landowner, we cannot be sure that any governmental organizations (Table 4). only 5.1 percent of private lands future conservation easements will Although the decision of whether to rangewide, that not all easements have occur in such a configuration and enter into a conservation easement is sage-grouse specific habitat or magnitude that they will offer the voluntary on the part of the landowner, conservation measures, and their species or its habitat substantial conservation easements are legally scattered distribution throughout the protection.

TABLE 4. AREA OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS IN HECTARES (HA) AND ACRES (AC) BY POPULATION AND PERCENTAGE OF OCCUPIED HABITAT IN CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 2009.

Percent of Occupied Population hectares acres Habitat in Respective Population

Gunnison Basin 11,334 28,008 4.7

Pin˜on Mesa 4,270 10,551 27.1

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa 1,395 3,447 9.3

Monticello 1,036 2,560 3.6

San Miguel Basin 843 2,084 2.1

Dove Creek Group 330 815 2.0

Crawford 249 616 1.8

Poncha Pass 0 0 0

Rangewide 19,457 48,081 5.1

The CDOW has been implementing 18,211 ha (45,000 ac) within Gunnison properties constitute only 13 percent of the CCAA referenced earlier in this sage-grouse occupied habitat), have the total private land throughout the document. As of February 2010, 4 worked with the CDOW to complete species range and that they are scattered landowners have completed Certificates baseline reports in preparation for throughout the species range. Therefore, of Inclusion (CI) for their properties issuance of CIs. The reports describe we do not believe the CCAA/CI efforts enrolling 2,581 ha (6,377 ac). Because property infrastructure and number of would provide adequate regulatory the Service issues a permit to applicants acres of Gunnison sage-grouse seasonal coverage to ensure the long-term with an approved CCAA, we have some habitat. A CDOW review of all these conservation of the species on private regulatory oversight over the reports and the condition of the habitat lands. implementation of the CCAA. However, is pending. The CCAA/CI efforts On April 22, 2009, the Governor of permit holders and landowners can described in this paragragh will provide Colorado signed into law new rules voluntarily opt out of the CCAA at any conservation benefits to Gunnison sage- (House Bill 1298) for the Colorado Oil time. Thus, the CCAA provides grouse throughout their range where and Gas Conservation Commission important conservation measures that they are in place (27 in the Gunnison (COGCC), which is the entity assist the species, and provides Basin, 3 in San Miguel, 2 in Crawford, responsible for permitting oil and gas regulatory protection to enrolled 5 in Pı˜non Mesa, 1 in Dove Creek). Even well development in Colorado (COGCC landowners, but due to its voluntary assuming the area of all landowners 2009, entire). The rules went into effect nature, provides no regulatory expressing interest and with completed on private lands on April 1, 2009, and protection. An additional 38 baselines will ultimately be covered on Federal lands July 1, 2009. The new landowners (totaling approximately under CIs, the fact remains that these rules require that permittees and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

operators determine whether their occupied habitat in Colorado and one and invasive weeds may provide some proposed development location percent in Utah, so impacts may be protection for sage-grouse in local areas overlaps with ‘‘sensitive wildlife considered negligible. We are not aware by requiring some control of the habitat,’’ or is within a restricted surface of any conservation measures that will invasive plants, although large-scale occupancy (RSO) area. For Gunnison be implemented under regulatory control of the most problematic invasive sage-grouse, areas within 1 km (0.6 mi) authority for Gunnison sage-grouse on plants is not occurring. Rehabilitation of an active lek can be designated as State school section lands, other than a and restoration techniques for sagebrush RSOs (CDOW 2009a, p. 27), and surface request to withdraw or apply ‘‘no habitats are mostly unproven and area occupancy will be avoided except surface occupancy’’ and conservation experimental (Pyke in press, p. 25). in cases of economic or technical measures from the RCP (GSRSC 2005) to Regulatory authority has not been infeasibility (CDOW 2009a, p. 27). Areas four sections available for oil and gas demonstrated to be effective in within approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) of leasing in the San Miguel Basin addressing the overall impacts of an active lek are considered sensitive population (see Factor A for further invasive plants on the degradation and wildlife habitat (CDOW 2009a, p. 27) discussion). The State Land Board (SLB) fragmentation of sagebrush habitat and the development proponent is recently purchased the Miramonte within the species range. required to consult with the CDOW to Meadows property (approximately 809 Federal Laws and Regulations identify measures to (1) avoid impacts ha (2,000 ac) next to the Dan Noble State on wildlife resources, including sage- Wildlife Area (SWA). Roughly 526 ha Gunnison sage-grouse are not covered grouse; (2) minimize the extent and (1,300 ac) is considered prime Gunnison or managed under the provisions of the severity of those impacts that cannot be sage-grouse habitat (Garner 2010, pers. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. avoided; and (3) mitigate those effects comm.). Discussions with the SLB have 703-712) because they are considered that cannot be avoided or minimized indicated a willingness to implement resident game species. Federal agencies (COGCC 2009, section 1202.a). The habitat improvements (juniper removal) are responsible for managing 54 percent COGCC will consider CDOW’s on the property. They have also of the total Gunnison sage-grouse recommendations in the permitting accepted an application to designate the habitat. The Federal agencies with the decision, although the final permitting tract as a ‘‘Stewardship Trust’’ parcel. most sagebrush habitat are BLM, an and conditioning authority remains The Stewardship Trust program is agency of the Department of the Interior, with COGCC. As stated in Section capped at 119,383 to 121,406 ha and USFS, an agency of the Department of Agriculture. The NPS in the 1202.d of the new rules, consultation (295,000 to 300,000 ac), and no more Department of the Interior also has with CDOW is not required under property can be added until another responsibility for lands that contain certain circumstances such as, the tract is removed from the program. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. issuance of a variance by the Director of Because of this cap, it is unknown if or the COGCC, the existence of a when the designation of the tract as a BLM previously CDOW-approved wildlife Stewardship Trust parcel may occur. About 42 percent of Gunnison sage- mitigation plan, and others. Other The scattered nature of State school categories for potential exemptions also grouse occupied habitat is on BLM- sections (single sections) across the administered land (Table 1 details can be found in the new rules (e.g., landscape and the requirement to 1203.b). percent ownership within each conduct activities to maximize financial population). The Federal Land Policy Because the new rules have only been returns minimize the likelihood of in place for less than a year and their and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) implementation of measures that will implementation is still being discussed, (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is the primary benefit Gunnison sage-grouse. Thus, it remains to be seen what level of Federal law governing most land uses mechanisms present on State trust lands protection will be afforded to Gunnison on BLM-administered lands. Section are inadequate to minimize degradation sage-grouse. The new rules could 102(a)(8) of FLPMA specifically and fragmentation of habitat and thus provide for greater consideration of the recognizes wildlife and fish resources as ensure conservation of the species. conservation needs of the species. It being among the uses for which these should be noted that leases that have Some States require landowners to lands are to be managed. Regulations already been approved but not drilled control noxious weeds, a potential pursuant to FLPMA and the Mineral (e.g., COGCC 2009, 1202.d(1)), or habitat threat to sage-grouse (as Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) that drilling operations that are already on discussed in Factor A). The types of address wildlife habitat protection on the landscape, may continue to operate plants considered to be noxious weeds BLM-administered land include 43 CFR without further restriction into the vary by State. Cheatgrass is listed as a 3162.3-1 and 43 CFR 3162.5-1; 43 CFR future. We are not aware of any Class C species in Colorado (Colorado 4120 et seq.; and 43 CFR 4180 et seq. situations where RSOs have been Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 3). Gunnison sage-grouse have been effectively applied or where The Class C designation delegates to designated as a BLM Sensitive Species conservation measures have been local governments the choice of whether since they were first identified and implemented for potential oil and gas or not to implement activities for the described in 2000 (BLM 2009, p. 7). The development impacts to Gunnison sage- control of cheatgrass. Gunnison, management guidance afforded grouse on private lands underlain with Saguache, and Hinsdale Counties target sensitive species under BLM Manual privately owned minerals, which are cheatgrass with herbicide applications 6840 – Special Status Species regulated by the appropriate governing (GWWC 2009, pp. 2- 3). The CDOW Management (BLM 2008, entire) states bodies. annually sprays for weeds on SWAs that ‘‘Bureau sensitive species will be Colorado and Utah have laws that (CDOW 2009a, p. 106). The State of managed consistent with species and directly address the priorities for use of Utah does not consider cheatgrass as habitat management objectives in land State school section lands, which noxious within the State (Utah use and implementation plans to require that management of these Department of Agriculture 2010, p. 1) promote their conservation and to properties be based on maximizing nor in San Juan County (Utah minimize the likelihood and need for financial returns. State school section Department of Agriculture 2010a, p. 1). listing under the ESA’’ (BLM 2008, p. lands account for only one percent of The laws dealing with other noxious 05V). BLM Manual 6840 further requires

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59841

that Resource Management Plans p. 6). In addition, several offices have 3100 et seq., and they are authorized to (RMPs) should address sensitive undergone other program-level require stipulations as a condition of species, and that implementation planning, such as travel management, issuing a lease. The BLM’s planning ‘‘should consider all site-specific that incorporate some conservation handbook has program-specific methods and procedures needed to measures to benefit the species (BLM guidance for fluid minerals (which bring species and their habitats to the 2009, p. 6). However, the information include oil and gas) that specifies that condition under which management provided to us by the BLM in Colorado RMP decisions will identify restrictions under the Bureau sensitive species did not specify what requirements, on areas subject to leasing, including policies would no longer be necessary’’ direction, measures, or guidance will closures, as well as lease stipulations (BLM 2008, p. 2A1). As a designated ultimately be included in the revised (BLM 2000, Appendix C, p.16). The sensitive species under BLM Manual Colorado RMPs to address threats to handbook also specifies that all 6840, sage-grouse conservation must be sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat. stipulations must have waiver, addressed in the development and Additionally we do not know the exception, or modification criteria implementation of RMPs on BLM lands. effectiveness of these proposed documented in the plan, and notes that RMPs are the basis for all actions and measures. the least restrictive constraint to meet authorizations involving BLM- We do not have information on RMP the resource protection objective should administered lands and resources. They implementation by Utah BLM. be used (BLM 2000, Appendix C, p. 16). establish allowable resource uses, Therefore, we cannot assess the future The BLM has regulatory authority to resource condition goals and objectives value of BLM RMPs as regulatory condition ‘‘Application for Permit to to be attained, program constraints and mechanisms for the conservation of the Drill’’ authorizations, conducted under a general management practices needed to Gunnison sage-grouse. Current BLM lease that does not contain specific sage- attain the goals and objectives, general RMPs provide some limited regulatory grouse conservation stipulations, but implementation sequences, and authority as they are being implemented utilization of conditions is discretionary intervals and standards for monitoring through project-level planning (e.g., and we are uncertain as to how this and evaluating the plan to determine its travel management (the management of authority will be applied. Also, oil and effectiveness and the need for the motorized and nonmotorized use of gas leases have a 200-m (650-ft) amendment or revision (43 CFR 1601.0- public lands) and grazing permit stipulation, which allows movement of 5(k)). renewals). We do not know the final the drilling area by that distance to The RMPs provide a framework and measures that will be included in the avoid sensitive resources. Many of the programmatic guidance for activity revised RMPs and therefore what will be BLM field offices work with the plans, which are site-specific plans implemented, so we cannot evaluate operators to move a proposed drilling written to implement decisions made in their effectiveness. Based on modeling site farther or justify such a move a RMP. Examples include Allotment results demonstrating the effects of through the site-specific NEPA process. Management Plans that address roads on Gunnison sage-grouse For existing oil and gas leases on BLM livestock grazing, oil and gas field (Aldridge and Saher 2010 entire – land in occupied Gunnison sage-grouse development, travel management discussed in detail in Factor A), we habitat, oil and gas companies can (motorized and mechanized road and believe that implementation of even the conduct drilling operations if they wish, trail use), and wildlife habitat most restrictive travel management but are always subject to permit management. Activity plan decisions alternatives proposed by the BLM and conditions. The BLM has stopped normally require additional planning USFS will still result in further issuing new drilling leases in occupied and National Environmental Policy Act degradation and fragmentation of sage-grouse habitat in Colorado at least (NEPA) analysis. If an RMP contains Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the until the new RMPs are in place. All specific direction regarding sage-grouse Gunnison Basin. occupied habitat in the Crawford Area habitat, conservation, or management, it In addition to land use planning, BLM and Gunnison Basin populations are represents an enforceable regulatory uses Instruction Memoranda (IM) to covered by this policy. However, leases mechanism to ensure that the species provide instruction to district and field already exist in 17 percent of the Pı˜non and its habitats are considered during offices regarding specific resource Mesa population, and 49 percent of the permitting and other decision-making issues. Instruction Memoranda are San Miguel Basin population. Given the on BLM lands. guidance that require a process to be already small and fragmented nature of The BLM manages Gunnison sage- followed but do not mandate results. the populations where oil and gas leases grouse habitat under five existing RMPs. Additionally, IMs are of short duration are likely to occur, additional These RMPs contain some specific (1 to 2 years) and are intended to development within occupied habitat measures or direction pertinent to address resource concerns by providing would negatively impact those management of Gunnison sage-grouse or direction to staff until a threat passes or populations by causing additional their habitats. Three of these RMPs (San the resource issue can be addressed in actual and functional habitat loss and Juan, Grand Junction, and a long-term planning document. BLM fragmentation. Since we do not know Uncompahgre– covering all or portions issued IM Number CO-2005-038 on July what minimization and mitigation of the San Miguel, Pı˜non Mesa, 12, 2005, stating BLM’s intent and measures might be applied, we cannot Crawford, and Cerro Summit– commitment to assist with and assess the overall conservation impacts Cimarron–Sims Mesa populations, and participate in the implementation of the to those populations. the Dove Creek group) are in various RCP. Although this IM has not been The oil and gas leasing regulations stages of revision. All RMPs currently formally updated or reissued, it authorize BLM to modify or waive lease propose some conservation measures continues to be used for BLM- terms and stipulations if the authorized (measures that if implemented should administered lands in the State (BLM officer determines that the factors provide a level of benefit to Gunnison 2009, p. 6). leading to inclusion of the term or sage-grouse) outlined in GSRSC (2005, The BLM has regulatory authority for stipulation have changed sufficiently to entire) or local Gunnison sage-grouse oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and no longer justify protection, or if Conservation Plans through project- or on private lands with a severed Federal proposed operations would not cause activity-level NEPA reviews (BLM 2009, mineral estate, as provided at 43 CFR unacceptable impacts (43 CFR 3101.1-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

4). The Service has no information quality for native plant and animal the Gunnison Basin. Only 40 percent of indicating that the BLM has granted any populations and communities (43 CFR the allotments in the San Miguel waivers of stipulations pertaining to the 4180.2(d)(4) and (5)). The guidelines population were meeting LHA Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat. must address restoring, maintaining, or objectives. This data suggests that The Energy Policy and Conservation enhancing habitats of BLM special regulatory mechanisms applied within Act of 2000 included provisions status species to promote their livestock grazing permits and leases are requiring the Secretary of the conservation, as well as maintaining or not being implemented such that they Department of the Interior to conduct a promoting the physical and biological ensure that habitats within two of the scientific inventory of all onshore conditions to sustain native populations largest Gunnison sage-grouse Federal lands to identify oil and gas and communities (43 CFR 4180.2(e)(9) populations are making significant resources underlying these lands and and (10). The BLM is required to take progress toward being restored or the nature and extent of any restrictions appropriate action not later than the maintained for Gunnison sage-grouse. or impediments to the development of start of the next grazing year upon USFS such resources (U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter determining that existing grazing 77, §6217(a)). On May 18, 2001, practices or levels of grazing use are The USFS manages 10 percent of the President Bush signed Executive Order significant factors in failing to achieve occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat 13212-Actions to Expedite Energy- the standards and conform with the (Table 1). Management of National Related Projects (66 FR 28357, May 22, guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)). Forest System lands is guided 2001), which states that the executive The BLM agreed to work with their principally by the National Forest departments and agencies shall take resource advisory councils to expand Management Act (NFMA) (16 U.S.C. appropriate actions, to the extent the rangeland health standards required 1600-1614, August 17, 1974, as consistent with applicable law, to under 43 CFR 4180 so that there are amended). The NFMA specifies that all expedite projects that will increase the public land health standards relevant to National Forests must have a Land and production, transmission, or all ecosystems, not just rangelands, and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (16 conservation of energy. The Executive that they apply to all BLM actions, not U.S.C. 1600) to guide and set standards Order specifies that this includes just livestock grazing (BLM Manual for all natural resource management expediting review of permits or taking 180.06.A). Both Colorado and Utah have activities on each National Forest or other actions as necessary to accelerate resource advisory councils. Within the National Grassland. The NFMA requires the completion of projects, while Gunnison Basin population, 16 percent USFS to incorporate standards and maintaining safety, public health, and of the BLM and USFS allotment guidelines into LRMPs (16 U.S.C. 1600). environmental protections. Due to the management plans in occupied habitat USFS conducts NEPA analysis on its relatively small amount of energy currently have incorporated Gunnison LRMPs, which include provisions to development activities occurring within sage-grouse habitat objectives (USFWS, manage plant and animal communities Gunnison sage-grouse habitat (with the 2010c, entire). Rangewide, of the offices for diversity, based on the suitability exception of the Dry Creek Basin providing information specific to and capability of the specific land area subpopulation of the San Miguel allotment management plans, only 24 in order to meet overall multiple-use population), we believe that energy percent of 148 BLM and USFS grazing objectives. The USFS planning process development activities are not a allotments have thus far incorporated is similar to that of BLM. significant threat. However, given Gunnison sage-grouse habitat objectives The Gunnison sage-grouse is a USFS scenarios such as Dry Creek Basin, if the into the allotment management plans or sensitive species in both Region 2 level of energy development activities in permit renewals. Land health (Colorado) and Region 4 (Utah). USFS should increase, current regulations and objectives were being met in 37 of the policy provides direction to analyze policies do not provide adequate 80 (46 percent) BLM active allotments potential impacts of proposed regulatory protection to prevent oil and for which data were reported. Land management activities to sensitive gas development from becoming a threat Health Assessments (LHAs) were not species in a biological evaluation. The to this subpopulation. conducted in an additional 20 forests within the range of sage-grouse As stated previously, Gunnison sage- allotments. provide important seasonal habitats for grouse are considered a BLM Sensitive The BLM Gunnison Field Office the species, particularly the Grand Species and therefore receive Special conducted Gunnison sage-grouse habitat Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison Status Species management assessments in two major occupied (GMUG) National Forests. The 1991 considerations. The BLM regulatory habitat locations in the Gunnison Basin Amended Land and Resource authority for grazing management is population quantifying vegetation Management Plan for the GMUG provided at 43 CFR 4100 (Regulations structural characteristics and plant National Forests has not directly on Grazing Administration Exclusive of species diversity. Data were collected incorporated Gunnison sage-grouse Alaska). Livestock grazing permits and and compared to Gunnison sage-grouse conservation measures or habitat leases contain terms and conditions Structural Habitat Guidelines (GSRSC, objectives. The Regional Forester signed determined by BLM to be appropriate to 2005, Appendix H) during optimal the RCP and as such has agreed to achieve management and resource growing conditions in these two major follow and implement those condition objectives on the public lands occupied areas. Guidelines for sage recommendations. Three of the 34 and other lands administered by BLM, cover, grass cover, forb cover, sagebrush grazing allotments in occupied grouse and to ensure that habitats are, or are height, grass height, and forb height habitat have incorporated Gunnison making significant progress toward were met in 45, 30, 25, 75, 81, and 39 sage-grouse habitat objectives. To date being, restored or maintained for BLM percent, respectively, of 97 transects USFS has not deferred or withdrawn oil special status species (43 CFR (BLM 2009, pp. 31-32). Using the results and gas leasing in occupied habitat, but 4180.1(d)). The State or regional of the two assessments along with sage-grouse conservation measures can standards for grazing administration results from LHAs, habitat conditions be included at the ‘‘Application for must address habitat for endangered, are not being adequately managed to Permit to Drill’’ stage. The BLM, which threatened, proposed, candidate, or meet the life history requirements of regulates oil and gas leases on USFS special status species, and habitat Gunnison sage-grouse in the majority of lands, has the authority to defer leases.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59843

However, the only population within Gunnison sage-grouse, constraints assessment of the implementation of USFS lands that is in areas of high or include limitation of acreage burned per regulations and associated stipulations even medium potential for oil and gas year and limitation of percent of project guiding exurban development indicates reserves is the San Miguel Basin, and polygons burned. The NPS is currently that current regulatory measures do not USFS lands only make up 1.4 percent of following conservation measures in the adequately ameliorate impacts to sage- that population (GSRSC 2005, D-8). local conservation plans and the RCP grouse and its habitat. While consideration as a sensitive (Stahlnecker 2010, pers. comm.). Energy development is only In most cases, implementation of NPS species and following the considered a threat in the Dry Creek recommendations contained in the fire management policies should result Basin subpopulation of the San Miguel Gunnison sage-grouse Rangewide in minimal adverse effects since population. For the BLM and USFS, Conservation Plan (GSRSC 2005, entire) emphasis is placed on activities that RMPs and LRMPs are mechanisms can provide some conservation benefits, will minimize, or ideally benefit, through which adequate and they are voluntary in nature. impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse Considering the aforementioned, the habitat. Overall, implementation of NPS enforceable protections for Gunnison USFS has minimal regulatory authority regulations should minimize impacts to sage-grouse could be implemented. that has been implemented to provide Gunnison sage-grouse. Certain activities, However, the extent to which for the long-term conservation of such as human recreation activities appropriate measures to reduce or Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. occurring within occupied habitat, may eliminate threats to sage-grouse have adverse effects, although we resulting from the various activites the NPS believe the limited nature of such agencies manage have been The NPS manages two percent of activities on NPS lands would limit incorporated into those planning occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat their impacts on the species and thus documents, or are being implemented, (Table 1), which means that there is not be considered a threat to Gunnison vary across the range. As evidenced by little opportunity for the agency to affect sage-grouse. Grazing management the discussion above, and the ongoing range-wide conservation of the species. activities on NPS lands are governed by threats described under Factor A, BLM The NPS Organic Act (39 Stat. 535; 16 BLM regulations and their and the USFS are not fully U.S.C. 1, 2, 3, and 4) states that NPS will implementation. implementing the regulatory administer areas under their jurisdiction mechanisms available to conserve ‘‘by such means and measures as Summary of Factor D Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitats conform to the fundamental purpose of Gunnison sage-grouse conservation on their lands. said parks, monuments, and has been addressed in some local, State, We have evaluated the best available reservations, which purpose is to and Federal plans, laws, regulations, scientific information on the adequacy and policies. Gunnison County has conserve the scenery and the natural of regulatory mechanisms to address implemented regulatory authority over and historical objects and the wild life threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and its development within their area of therein and to provide for the enjoyment habitats. While 54 percent of Gunnison jurisdiction, for which they are to be of the same in such manner and by such sage-grouse habitat is managed by highly commended. No other counties means as will leave them unimpaired Federal agencies, these lands are ’’ within the range of the species have for the enjoyment of future generations. interspersed with private lands, which implemented such regulations. While Lands in the Black Canyon of the do not have adequate regulatory Gunnison National Park and the regulations implemented in Gunnison mechanisms to ameliorate the further Curecanti National Recreation Area County have minimized some impacts, loss and fragmentation of habitat in all include portions of occupied habitat of it has not curtailed the habitat loss, populations. This interspersion of the Crawford and Gunnison Basin fragmentation, and degradation private lands throughout Federal and populations. The 1993 Black Canyon of occurring within the County’s other public lands extends the negative the Gunnison Resource Management jurisidictional boundary. Due to the influence of those activities beyond the Plan (NPS 1993, entire) and the 1995 limited scope and applicability of these actual 41 percent of occupied habitat Curecanti National Recreation Area regulations throughout the range of the that private lands overlay. While we are Resource Management Plan (NPS 1995, species and within all populations, the unable to quantify the extent of the entire) do not identify any specific current local land use or development impacts on Federal lands resulting from conservation measures for Gunnison planning regulations do not provide sage-grouse. However, these Resource adequate regulatory authority to protect activities on private lands, we have Management Plans are outdated and sage-grouse from development or other determined that the inadequacy of will be replaced with Resource harmful land uses that result in habitat regulatory mechanisms on private lands Stewardship Strategies, which will be loss, degradation, and fragmentation. as they pertain to human infrastructure developed in the next five to seven The CDOW and UDWR have development and the inadequate years. In the mean time, NPS ability to implemented and continue to pursue implementation of Federal authorities actively manage for species of special conservation easements in Colorado and on some Federal lands pose a significant concern is not limited by the scope of Utah, respectively, to conserve threat to the species throughout its their management plans. Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and meet range. Further, the threat of inadequate NPS completed a Fire Management the species’ needs. These easements regulatory mechanisms is expected to Plan in 2006 (NPS 2006, entire). Both provide protection for the species where continue or even increase in the future. prescribed fire and fire use (allowing they occur, but do not cover enough of E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors wildfires to burn) are identified as a the landscape to provide for long-term Affecting Its Continued Existence suitable use in Gunnison sage-grouse conservation of the species. State habitat. However, Gunnison sage-grouse wildlife regulations provide protection Other factors potentially affecting the habitat is identified as a Category C area, for individual Gunnison sage-grouse Gunnison sage-grouse’s continued meaning that while fire is a desirable from direct mortality due to hunting but existence include genetic risks, drought, component of the ecosystem, ecological do not protect its habitat from the main recreational activities, pesticides and constraints must be observed. For threat of loss and fragmentation. Our herbicides, and contaminants.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

Genetics and Small Population Size Gunnison Basin, which consistently had itself appeared to have a mixture of Small populations face three primary more alleles and most of the alleles individuals with differing probabilities genetic risks: inbreeding depression; present in other populations. All other of belonging to different clusters. This loss of genetic variation; and populations had much lower levels of information suggests that the San accumulation of new mutations. diversity. Miguel population may act as a conduit Inbreeding can have individual and The lower diversity levels are linked of gene flow among the satellite population consequences by either to small population sizes and a high populations surrounding the larger increasing the phenotypic expression of degree of geographic isolation. Gunnison Basin population. recessive, deleterious alleles (the Collectively, the smaller populations Additionally, another potential expression of harmful genes through the contain 24 percent of the genetic disperser into Crawford was found from diversity of the species. Individually, physical appearance) or by reducing the the Gunnison Basin (Oyler-McCance et each of the small populations may not overall fitness of individuals in the al. 2005, p. 636). This result is not be important genetically to the survival population (GSRSC 2005, p.109 and surprising given their close geographic of the species, but collectively it is references therein). At the species level, proximity. likely that 24 percent of the genetic Effective population size (Ne) is an Gunnison sage-grouse have low levels of diversity is important to future important parameter in conservation genetic diversity particularly when rangewide survival of the species. Some biology. It is defined as the size of an compared to greater sage-grouse (Oyler- of the genetic makeup contained within idealized population of breeding adults McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). There is the smaller populations (with the that would experience the same rate of no consensus regarding how large a potential exception of the Poncha Pass (1) loss of heterozygosity (the amount population must be in order to prevent population since it consists of birds and number of different genes within inbreeding depression. However, the from the Gunnison Basin) may be individuals in a population), (2) change San Miguel Basin Gunnison sage-grouse critical to maintaining adaptability in in the average inbreeding coefficient (a effective population size was below the the face of issues such as climate change calculation of the amount of breeding by level at which inbreeding depression or other environmental change. All closely related individuals), or (3) has been observed to occur (Stiver et al. populations sampled were found to be change in variance in allele (one 2008, p. 479). Lowered hatching success genetically discrete units (Oyler- member if a pair or series of genes is a well documented correlate of McCance et al. 2005, p. 635), so the loss occupying a specific position in a inbreeding in wild bird populations of any of them would result in a specific chromosome) frequency (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 479 and references decrease in genetic diversity of the through genetic drift (the fluctuation in therein). Stiver et al. (2008, p. 479) species. In addition, multiple gene frequency occurring in an isolated suggested the observed lowered populations across a broad geographic population) as the actual population. hatching success rate of Gunnison sage- area provide insurance against a single The effective size of a population is grouse in their study may be caused by catastrophic event (such as the effects of often much less than its actual size or inbreeding depression. Similarities of a significant drought even), and the number of individuals. As effective hatchability rates exist among other bird aggregate number of individuals across population size decreases, the rate of species that had undergone genetic all populations increases the probability loss of allelic diversity via genetic drift bottlenecks. The application of the same of demographic persistence and increases. Two consequences of this loss procedures of effective population size preservation of overall genetic diversity of genetic diversity, reduced fitness estimation as used for the San Miguel by providing an important genetic through inbreeding depression and Basin to the other Gunnison sage-grouse reservoir (GSRSC 2005, p. 179). reduced response to sustained populations indicated that all Consequently, the loss of any one directional selection (‘‘adaptive populations other than the Gunnison population would have a negative effect potential’’), are thought to elevate Basin population may have population on the species as a whole. extinction risk (Stiver et al., 2008, p. 472 sizes low enough to induce inbreeding Historically, the Monticello–Dove and references therein). While no depression; and all populations could Creek, San Miguel, Crawford, and Pı˜non consensus exists on the population size be losing adaptive potential (Stiver et al. Mesa populations were larger and were needed to retain a level of genetic 2008, p. 479). connected through more contiguous diversity that maximizes evolutionary Population structure of Gunnison areas of sagebrush habitat. A 20 percent potential (i.e., the ability to adapt to sage-grouse was investigated using loss of habitat and 37 percent local changes), up to 5,000 greater sage- mitochondrial DNA sequence (mtDNA, fragmentation of sagebrush habitat was grouse may be necessary to maintain an maternally inherited DNA located in documented in southwestern Colorado effective population size of 500 birds cellular organelles called mitochondria) between the late 1950s and the early (Aldridge and Brigham, 2003, p. 30). and nuclear microsatellite data from 1990s (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p.), Other recent recommendations also seven geographic areas (Cerro Summit– which led to the current isolation of suggest populations of at least 5,000 Cimarron–Sims Mesa, Crawford, these populations and is consistent with individuals to deal with evolutionary Gunnison Basin, Curecanti area of the the documented low amounts of gene and demographic constraints (Trail et Gunnison Basin, Monticello–Dove flow and isolation by distance (Oyler- al. 2009, in press, p. 3, and references Creek, Pı˜non Mesa, and San Miguel McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). However, therein). While the persistence of wild Basin) (Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, Oyler-McCance et al. (2005, p. 636) populations is usually influenced more entire). The Cerro Summit–Cimarron– noted that a few individuals in their by ecological rather than by genetic Sims Mesa population was not included analysis appeared to have the genetic effects, once they are reduced in size, in the analysis due to inadequate characteristics of a population other genetic factors become increasingly sample sizes. The Poncha Pass than their own, suggesting they were important (Lande 1995, p. 318). population also was not included as it dispersers from a different population. The CDOW contracted for a is composed of individuals transplanted Two probable dispersers were population viability analysis (PVA) for from Gunnison Basin. Oyler-McCance et individuals moving from San Miguel the Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, al. (2005, entire) found that levels of into Monticello–Dove Creek and Appendix G). The purpose of the genetic diversity were highest in the Crawford. The San Miguel population Gunnison sage-grouse PVA was to assist

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59845

the CDOW in evaluating the relative risk viability and adaptability, as well as the ecological driver across the Great Plains of extinction for each population under contribution of these populations to (Knopf 1996, p.147). Infrequent, severe the conditions at that time (i.e., the risk connectivity and the continued drought may cause local extinctions of of extinction if nothing changed), to existence of the entire species. annual forbs and grasses that have estimate relative extinction probabilities Six of the seven Gunnison sage-grouse invaded stands of perennial species, and and loss of genetic diversity over time populations may have effective sizes recolonization of these areas by native for various population sizes, and to low enough to induce inbreeding species may be slow (Tilman and El determine the sensitivity of Gunnison depression and all seven could be losing Haddi 1992, p. 263). Drought reduces sage-grouse population growth rates to adaptive potential, with the assumption vegetation cover (Milton et al. 1994, p. various demographic parameters that the five populations smaller than 75; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-18), (GSRSC 2005, p. 169). The PVA was the San Miguel population are potentially resulting in increased soil used as a tool to predict the relative, not exhibiting similar demography to the erosion and subsequent reduced soil absolute or precise, probability of San Miguel population (Stiver et al. depths, decreased water infiltration, and extinction for the different populations 2008, p. 479) and thus trending towards reduced water storage capacity. Drought under various management scenarios extirpation. Stiver et al. (2008, p. 479) also can exacerbate other natural events based on information available at that suggested that long-term persistence of such as defoliation of sagebrush by time and with the understanding that no the six smaller populations would insects. For example, approximately data were available to determine how require translocations to supplement 2,544 km2 (982 mi2) of sagebrush demographic rates would be affected by genetic diversity. The only population shrublands died in Utah in 2003 as a habitat loss or fragmentation. The currently providing individuals to be result of drought and infestations with analysis indicated that small translocated is the Gunnison Basin the Aroga (webworm) moth (Connelly et populations (< 50 birds) are at a serious population, but because of substantial al. 2004, p. 5-11). Sage-grouse are risk of extinction within the next 50 population declines such as those affected by drought through the loss of years (assuming some degree of observed between the 2001 and 2004 lek vegetative habitat components, reduced consistency of environmental influences counts (Stiver et al., 2008, p. 479), insect production (Connelly and Braun in sage-grouse demography). In contrast, significant questions arise as to whether 1997, p. 9), and potential increased risk populations in excess of 500 birds had this population would be able to sustain of virus infections, such as the West an extinction risk of less than 5 percent the loss of individuals required by Nile virus. These habitat component within the same time period. These translocations. Lek counts, and losses can result in declining sage- results suggested that the Gunnison consequently population estimates, grouse populations due to increased Basin population is likely to persist long especially in the San Miguel Basin and nest predation and early brood mortality term in the absence of threats acting on Gunnison Basin populations, have associated with decreased nest cover it. In the absence of intervention, the undergone substantial declines (Table 2) and food availability (Braun 1998, p. Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa since peaks observed in the annual 2004 149; Moynahan et al. 2007, p. 1781). and Poncha Pass populations and the and 2005 counts, thus making Greater sage-grouse populations Dove Creek group of the Monticello– inbreeding depression even more likely declined during the 1930s period of Dove Creek population were likely to to be occurring within all populations drought (Patterson 1952, pp. 68-69; become extirpated (GSRSC 2005, pp. except the Gunnison Basin. While we Braun 1998, p. 148). Drought conditions recognize that sage-grouse population 168-179). Based on 2009 population in the late 1980s and early 1990s also sizes are cyclical, and that there are coincided with a period when sage- estimates and an overall declining concerns about the statistical reliability grouse populations were at historically population trend, the same three of lek counts and the resulting low levels (Connelly and Braun 1997, p. populations may soon be extirpated. population estimates (CDOW 2009a, pp. 8). Although drought has been a Additionally, Gunnison sage-grouse 1-3), we nonetheless believe that the consistent and natural part of the estimates in the Crawford and Pı˜non overall declining trends of 6 of the 7 sagebrush-steppe ecosystem, drought Mesa populations have declined by over Gunnison sage-grouse populations, and impacts on sage-grouse can be 50 percent since the PVA was for the species as a whole, are such that exacerbated when combined with other conducted (Table 2), so they too are they are having a significant impact on habitat impacts, such as human likely trending towards extirpation. The the species’ ability to persist. developments, that reduce cover and San Miguel population has declined by In summary, the declines in estimates food (Braun 1998, p. 148). 40 percent since 2004, so cumulative of grouse numbers since 2005 are likely Aldridge et al. (2008, p. 992) found factors may be combining to cause its to contribute to even lower levels of that the number of severe droughts from future extirpation also. genetic diversity and higher levels of 1950 to 2003 had a weak negative effect The lack of large expanses of inbreeding depression than previously on patterns of greater sage-grouse sagebrush habitat required by Gunnison considered, thus making the species as persistence. However, they cautioned sage-grouse in at least six of the seven a whole less adaptable to environmental that drought may have a greater Gunnison sage-grouse populations (as variables and more vulnerable to influence on future sage-grouse discussed in Factor A), combined with extirpation. Based on the information populations as temperatures rise over the results of the PVA and current presented above, we have determined the next 50 years, and synergistic effects population trends suggest that at least that genetic risks related to the small of other threats affect habitat quality five, and most likely six, of the seven population size of Gunnison sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 992). Gunnison sage-grouse populations are at are a threat to the species now and in Populations on the periphery of the high risk of extirpation. The loss of the foreseeable future. range may suffer extirpation during a genetic diversity from the extirpation of severe and prolonged drought (Wisdom the aforementioned populations would Drought et al. in press, p. 22). result in a loss of genetic diversity of the Drought is a common occurrence Gunnison sage-grouse are capable of species as a whole and thus contribute throughout the range of the Gunnison enduring moderate or severe, but to decreased functionality of these and greater sage-grouse (Braun 1998, p. relatively short-term, drought as remaining populations in maintaining 148) and is considered a universal observed from persistence of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59846 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

populations during drought conditions leks while absent from disturbed leks Environmental Impact Statement for from 1999-2003 throughout much of the during the same time period (Baydack Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel range. The drought that began by at least and Hein 1987, p. 537). Disturbance of Management (2009, p. 137)). The GMUG 2001 and was most severe in 2002 had incubating female sage-grouse could is the second most heavily visited varying impacts on Gunnison sage- cause displacement from nests, National Forest on the western slope of grouse habitat and is discussed in detail increased predator risk, or loss of nests. Colorado (DEIS Gunnison Basin Federal in our April 18, 2006, finding (71 FR Disruption of sage-grouse during Lands Travel Management 2009, p. 137). 19954). Habitat appeared to be vulnerable periods at leks, or during However, it is unknown what negatively affected by drought across a nesting or early brood rearing could percentage of the visits occur within broad area of the Gunnison sage- affect reproduction or survival (Baydack Gunnison sage-grouse habitat on the grouse’s range. However, the reduction and Hein 1987, pp. 537-538). Gunnison Ranger District ((DEIS of sagebrush density in some areas, Recreational use of off-highway Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel allowing for greater herbaceous growth vehicles (OHVs) is one of the fastest- Management 2009, p. 137). With human and stimulating the onset of sagebrush growing outdoor activities. In the populations expected to increase in seed crops may have been beneficial to western United States, greater than 27 towns and cities within and adjacent to sagebrush habitats over the long term. percent of the human population used the Gunnison Basin and nearby Six of the seven grouse populations OHVs for recreational activities between populations (see Factor A), we believe (except for the Gunnison Basin 1999 and 2004 (Knick et al., in press, p. the impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse population) have decreased in number 19). Knick et al. (in press, p. 1) reported from recreational use will continue to since counts were conducted during the that widespread motorized access for increase. drought year of 2002 (Table 2). Data are recreation facilitated the spread of The BLM and Gunnison County have not available to scientifically determine predators adapted to humans and the 38 closure points within the Basin from if the declines are due to the drought spread of invasive plants. Any high- March 15 to May 15 each year (BLM alone. The current status of the various frequency human activity along 2009, p. 40). While road closures may be populations throughout the species’ established corridors can affect wildlife violated in a small number of situations, range make it highly susceptible to through habitat loss and fragmentation we believe that road closures are having stochastic factors such as drought, (Knick et al. in press, p. 25). The effects a beneficial effect on Gunnison sage- particularly when it is acting in of OHV use on sagebrush and sage- grouse through avoidance and/or conjunction with other factors such as grouse have not been directly studied minimization of impacts during the habitat fragmentation, small population (Knick et al. in press, p. 25). However, breeding season. size, predation, and low genetic local working groups considered Dispersed camping occurs at a low diversity. We believe that the available recreational uses, such as off-road level on public lands in all of the information is too speculative to vehicle use and biking, to be a risk populations, particularly during the conclude that drought alone is a threat factor in many areas. hunting seasons for other species. to the species at this time; however, Recreation from OHVs, hikers, However, we have no information based on rapid species decline in mountain bikes, campers, snowmobiles, indicating that these camping activities drought years, it is likely that drought bird watchers, and other sources has are adversely affecting Gunnison sage- exacerbates other known threats and affected many parts of the range, grouse. thus is an indirect threat to the species. especially portions of the Gunnison Domestic dogs accompanying Basin and Pı˜non Mesa population (BLM recreationists or associated with Recreation 2005a, p. 14; BLM 2005d, p. 4; BLM residences can disturb, harass, displace, Studies have determined that 2009, p. 36). These activities can result or kill Gunnison sage-grouse. Authors of nonconsumptive recreational activities in abandonment of lekking activities many wildlife disturbance studies can degrade wildlife resources, water, and nest sites, energy expenditure concluded that dogs with people, dogs and the land by distributing refuse, reducing survival, and greater exposure on leash, or loose dogs provoked the disturbing and displacing wildlife, to predators (GSRSC 2005). most pronounced disturbance reactions increasing animal mortality, and Recreation is a significant use on from their study animals (Sime 1999 simplifying plant communities (Boyle lands managed by BLM (Connelly et al. and references within). The primary and Samson 1985, pp. 110-112). Sage- 2004, p. 7-26). Recreational activities consequences of dogs being off leash is grouse response to disturbance may be within the Gunnison Basin are harassment, which can lead to influenced by the type of activity, widespread, occur during all seasons of physiological stress as well as the recreationist behavior, predictability of the year, and have expanded as more separation of adult and young birds, or activity, frequency and magnitude, people move to the area or come to flushing incubating birds from their timing, and activity location (Knight recreate (BLM 2009, pp. 36-37). Four nest. However, we have no data and Cole 1995, p. 71). We have not wheel drive, OHV, motorcycle, and indicating that this activity is adversely located any published literature other means of mechanized travel have affecting Gunnison sage-grouse concerning measured direct effects of been increasing rapidly. The number of population numbers such that it can be recreational activities on Gunnison or annual OHV registrations in Colorado considered a rangewide or population- greater sage-grouse, but can infer increased from 12,000 in 1991 to level threat. potential impacts on Gunnison sage- 131,000 in 2007 (BLM 2009, p. 37). Recreational activities as discussed grouse from studies on related species Recreational activities are recognized as above do not singularly pose a and from research on nonrecreational a direct and indirect threat to the significant threat to Gunnison sage- activities. Baydack and Hein (1987, p. Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat grouse now or are expected to do so in 537) reported displacement of male (BLM 2009, p. 36). The Grand Mesa, the foreseeable future. However, there sharp-tailed grouse at leks from human Uncompaghre, and Gunnison (GMUG) may be certain situations where presence resulting in loss of National Forest is the fourth most recreational activities are impacting reproductive opportunity during the visited National Forest in the Rocky local concentrations of Gunnison sage- disturbance period. Female sharp-tailed Mountain Region of the USFS (Region 2) grouse, especially in areas where habitat grouse were observed at undisturbed (Kocis et al., 2004 in Draft is already fragmented such as in the six

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59847

small populations and in certain areas crops to control the aphids during the sublethal effects on greater sage-grouse within the Gunnison Basin. late 1980s. We have no data indicating was conducted on pesticides that have there were any adverse effects to been banned or have had their use Pesticides and Herbicides Gunnison sage-grouse (GSRSC 2005, p. further restricted for more than 20 years Insects are an important component of 132). More recently, an infestation of due to their toxic effects on the sage-grouse chick and juvenile diets army cutworms (Euxoa auxiliaries) environment (e.g., dieldrin). We (GSRSC 2005, p.132 and references occurred in Gunnison sage-grouse currently do not have any information therein). Insects, especially ants habitat along the Utah-Colorado State to show that the banned pesticides are (Hymenoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera), line. Thousands of ha (thousands of ac) having negative impacts to sage-grouse can comprise a major proportion of the of winter wheat and alfalfa fields were populations through either illegal use or diet of juvenile sage-grouse and are sprayed with insecticides such as residues in the environment. For important components of early brood- permethrin by private landowners to example, sage-grouse mortalities were rearing habitats (GSRSC 2005, p. 132 control them (GSRSC 2005, p. 132) but documented in a study where they were and references therein). Most pesticide again, we have no data indicating any exposed to strychnine bait used to applications are not directed at control adverse effects to Gunnison sage-grouse. control small mammals (Ward et al. of ants and beetles. Pesticides are used Game birds that ingested sublethal 1942 as cited in Schroeder et al. 1999, primarily to control insects causing levels of pesticides have been observed p. 16). According to the U.S. damage to cultivated crops on private exhibiting abnormal behavior that may Environmental Protection Agency lands and to control grasshoppers lead to a greater risk of predation (EPA), above-ground uses of strychnine (Orthoptera) and Mormon crickets (Dahlen and Haugen 1954, p. 477; were prohibited in 1988 and those uses (Mormonius sp.) on public lands. McEwen and Brown 1966, p. 609; Blus remain temporarily cancelled today. We Few studies have examined the effects et al. 1989, p. 1141). McEwen and do not know when, or if, above-ground of pesticides to sage-grouse, but at least Brown (1966, p. 689) reported that wild uses will be permitted to resume. two have documented direct mortality sharp-tailed grouse poisoned by Currently, strychnine is registered for of greater sage-grouse from use of these malathion and dieldrin exhibited use only below-ground as a bait chemicals. Greater sage-grouse died as a depression, dullness, slowed reactions, application to control pocket gophers result of ingestion of alfalfa sprayed irregular flight, and uncoordinated (Thomomys sp.; EPA 1996, p. 4). with organophosphorus insecticides walking. Although no research has Therefore, the current legal use of (Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Blus and explicitly studied the indirect levels of strychnine baits is unlikely to present a Connelly 1998, p. 23). In this case, a mortality from sublethal doses of significant exposure risk to sage-grouse. field of alfalfa was sprayed with pesticides (e.g., predation of impaired No information on illegal use, if it methamidophos and dimethoate when birds), it has been assumed to be the occurs, is available. We have no other approximately 200 greater sage-grouse reason for mortality among some study information regarding mortalities or were present; 63 of these sage-grouse birds (McEwen and Brown 1966 p. 609; sublethal effects of strychnine or other were later found dead, presumably as a Blus et al. 1989, p. 1142; Connelly and banned pesticides on sage-grouse. result of pesticide exposure (Blus et al. Blus 1991, p. 4). Both Post (1951, p. 383) Although a reduction in insect 1989; p. 1142, Blus and Connelly 1998, and Blus et al. (1989, p. 1142) located population levels resulting from p. 23). Both methamidophos and depredated sage-grouse carcasses in insecticide application can potentially dimethoate remain registered for use in areas that had been treated with affect nesting sage-grouse females and the United States (Christiansen and Tate insecticides. Exposure to these chicks (Willis et al. 1993, p. 40; in press, p. 21), but we found no further insecticides may have predisposed sage- Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16), there is no records of sage-grouse mortalities from grouse to predation. Sage-grouse information as to whether insecticides their use. In 1950, rangelands treated mortalities also were documented in a are impacting survivorship or with toxaphene and chlordane bait to study where they were exposed to productivity of the Gunnison sage- control grasshoppers in Wyoming strychnine bait used to control small grouse. resulted in game bird mortality of 23.4 mammals (Ward et al. 1942 as cited in Herbicide applications can kill percent (Christian and Tate in press, p. Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 16). While we sagebrush and forbs important as food 20). Forty-five greater sage-grouse do not have specific information of sources for sage-grouse (Carr 1968 in deaths were recorded, 11 of which were these effects occurring in Gunnison Call and Maser 1985, p. 14). The greatest most likely related to the pesticide sage-grouse, we believe the effects impact resulting from a reduction of (Christiansen and Tate in press, p. 20, observed in greater sage-grouse can be either forbs or insect populations is to and references therein). Greater sage- expected if similar situations arise nesting females and chicks due to the grouse who succumbed to vehicle within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. loss of potential protein sources that are collisions and mowing machines in the Cropland spraying may affect critical for successful egg production same area also were likely compromised populations that are not adjacent to and chick nutrition (Johnson and Boyce from pesticide ingestion (Christian and agricultural areas, given the distances 1991, p. 90; Schroeder et al. 1999, p. Tate in press, p. 20). Neither of these traveled by females with broods from 16). A comparison of applied levels of chemicals has been registered for nesting areas to late brood-rearing areas herbicides with toxicity studies of grasshopper control since the early (Knick et al. in press, p. 17). The actual grouse, chickens, and other gamebirds 1980s (Christiansen and Tate in press, p. footprint of this effect cannot be (Carr 1968, in Call and Maser 1985, p. 20, and references therein). estimated, because the distances sage- 15) concluded that herbicides applied at Infestations of Russian wheat aphids grouse travel to get to irrigated and recommended rates should not result in (Diuraphis noxia) have occurred in sprayed fields is unknown (Knick et al. sage-grouse poisonings. Gunnison sage-grouse occupied range in in press, p. 17). Similarly, actual Use of insecticides to control Colorado and Utah (GSRSC 2005, p. mortalities from pesticides may be mosquitoes is infrequent and probably 132). Disulfoton, a systemic underestimated if sage-grouse disperse does not have detrimental effects on organophosphate extremely toxic to from agricultural areas after exposure. sage-grouse. Available insecticides that wildlife, was routinely applied to over Much of the research related to kill adult mosquitoes include synthetic 400,000 ha (million ac) of winter wheat pesticides that had either lethal or pyrethroids such as permethrin, which

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59848 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

are applied at very low concentrations are rarely found at such sites (Domenici pesticides on Gunnison sage-grouse is and have very low vertebrate toxicity 2008, pers. comm.). However, if the the reduction of insect prey items. (Rose 2004). Organophosphates such as wastewater pits are not appropriately However, we could find no information malathion have been used at very low screened, sage-grouse may have access to indicate that use of pesticides, in rates to kill adult mosquitoes for to them and could ingest water and accordance with their label instructions, decades, and are judged relatively safe become oiled while pursing insects. If is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse. for vertebrates (Rose 2004). these birds then return to sagebrush Thus, based on the best scientific and In summary, historically insecticides cover and die, their carcasses are commercial data available, we have have been shown to result in direct unlikely to be found as only the pits are concluded that other natural or mortality of individuals, and also can surveyed. manmade factors are a significant threat reduce the availability of food sources, A few gas and oil pipelines occur to the Gunnison sage-grouse. which in turn could contribute to within the San Miguel population. Finding mortality of sage-grouse. Despite the Exposure to oil or gas from pipeline potential effects of pesticides, we could spills or leaks could cause mortalities or We have carefully assessed the best find no information to indicate that the morbidity to Gunnison sage-grouse. scientific and commercial information use of these chemicals, at current levels, Similarly, given the network of available regarding the present and negatively affects Gunnison sage-grouse highways and railroad lines that occur future threats to the Gunnison sage- population numbers. Schroeder et al.’s throughout the range of the Gunnison grouse. We have reviewed the (1999, p. 16) literature review found that sage-grouse, there is some potential for information available in our files, the loss of insects can have significant exposure to contaminants resulting from information received during the impacts on nesting females and chicks, spills or leaks of hazardous materials comment period, and other published but those impacts were not detailed. being conveyed along these and unpublished information, and Many of the pesticides that have been transportation corridors. We found no consulted with recognized Gunnison- shown to have an effect on sage-grouse documented occurrences of impacts to sage grouse and sagebrush habitat have been banned in the United States Gunnison sage-grouse from such spills, experts. On the basis of the best for more than 20 years. We currently do and we do not expect they are a scientific and commercial information not have any information to show that significant source of mortality and a available, we find that listing of the either the illegal use of banned threat to the species because these types Gunnison sage-grouse is warranted pesticides or residues in the of spills occur infrequently and may throughout all of its range. environment are presently having involve only a small area within the Gunnison sage-grouse, a sagebrush negative impacts to sage-grouse occupied range of the species. obligate, are a landscape-scale species populations. While the reduction in requiring large, contiguous areas of Summary of Factor E insect availability via insecticide sagebrush for long-term persistence. application has not been documented to Although genetic consequences of low Gunnison sage-grouse occur in seven affect overall population numbers in Gunnison sage-grouse population isolated and fragmented populations, sage-grouse, we believe that insect numbers have not been definitively primarily in southwestern Colorado, reduction, because of its importance to detected to date, the results from Stiver with a small portion of its range chick production and survival, could be et al. (2008, p. 479) suggest that six of extending into southeastern Utah. having as yet undetected negative the seven populations may have Populations have been declining since impacts in populations with low effective sizes low enough to induce the 1960s, with the Gunnison Basin population numbers. There is no inbreeding depression and all seven population the only relatively stable information available to indicate that could be losing adaptive potential. population. Six of the seven remaining either herbicide or insecticide While some of these consequences may populations are now small enough to be applications pose a threat to the species be ameliorated by translocations, we vulnerable to extirpation (Stiver et al. now or in the foreseeable future. believe the long-term viability of 2008, p. 479). Specific issues identified Gunnison sage-grouse is compromised under Factors A, C, D, and E are threats Contaminants by this situation, particularly when to the Gunnison sage-grouse. These Gunnison sage-grouse exposure to combined with threats discussed under threats are exacerbated by small various types of environmental other Factors, and we have determined population sizes, the isolated and contaminants may potentially occur as a that genetics risks related to the small fragmented nature of the remaining result of agricultural and rangeland population size of Gunnison sage-grouse sagebrush habitat, and the potential management practices, mining, energy are a threat to the species now and in effects of climate change. development and pipeline operations, the foreseeable future. Current and future direct and and transportation of materials along While sage-grouse have evolved with functional loss of habitat due to highways and railroads. drought, population numbers suggest residential and road development in all We expect that the number of sage- that drought is at least correlated with, populations (as discussed in Factor A) grouse occurring in the immediate and potentially an underlying cause of, is the principal threat to the Gunnison vicinity of wastewater pits associated the declines. Although we cannot sage-grouse. Other threats from human with energy development would be determine whether drought alone is a infrastructure such as fences and small due to the small amount of energy threat to the species, we believe it is an powerlines (as discussed in Factor A) development within the species’ range, indirect threat exacerbating other threat may not individually threaten the the typically intense human activity in factors such as predation or habitat Gunnison sage-grouse; however, the these areas, the lack of cover around the fragmentation. Based on the available cumulative presence of these features, pits, and the fact that sage-grouse do not information, insecticides are being used particularly when considered with require free water. Most bird mortalities infrequently enough and in accordance residential and road development, do recorded in association with wastewater with manufacturer labeling such that constitute a threat to the continued pits are water-dependent species (e.g., they are not adversely affecting existence of the Gunnison sage-grouse waterfowl), whereas dead ground- populations of the Gunnison sage- as they collectively contribute to habitat dwelling birds (such as the sage-grouse) grouse. The most likely impact of loss and fragmentation. These impacts

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59849

exacerbate the fragmentation that has cumulative effects as they contribute to continued, but to date have occurred on already occurred in Gunnison sage- the overall fragmentation of Gunnison a scale that is too small to remove grouse habitat from past agricultural sage-grouse habitat, we have determined threats at a range-wide level. Many conversion and residential that threats identified under Factor A conservation efforts lacked sufficient development. Gunnison sage-grouse are pose a significant threat to the species monitoring to demonstrate their overall sensitive to these forms of habitat throughout its range. We find that the effectiveness in minimizing or fragmentation because they require large present or threatened destruction, eliminating the primary threat of habitat areas of contiguous, suitable habitat. modification, or curtailment of loss, fragmentation, and degradation. Given the increasing human population Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is a threat Therefore, we find the existing trends in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, to the species future existence. regulatory mechanisms are ineffective at we expect urban and exurban We believe that existing and ameliorating habitat-based threats. development and associated roads and continued landscape fragmentation will Small population size and genetic infrastructure to continue to expand. increase the effects of predation factors (discussed in Factor E above) Likewise, we expect direct and indirect (discussed in Factor C above) on this subject at least six of the seven effects from these activities, including species, particularly in the six smaller populations to a high risk of extirpation habitat loss, degradation and populations, resulting in a reduction in from stochastic events. All populations fragmentation, to increase in sage-grouse sage-grouse productivity and abundance are currently isolated as documented by habitats. in the future. Predation has a strong low amounts of gene flow (Oyler- Invasive species, fire, and climate relationship with anthropogenic factors McCance et al. 2005, p. 635). The loss change (as discussed in Factor A) may on the landscape, and human presence of connectivity and the concomitant not individually threaten the Gunnison on the landscape will continue to isolation of the populations also sage-grouse; however, the documented increase in the future. We find that increase the species’ extinction risk. synergy among these factors result in a predation is a significant threat to the Fitness and population size are strongly high likelihood that they will threaten species. correlated, and smaller populations are the species in the future. Noxious and West Nile virus (discussed in Factor more subject to environmental and invasive plant incursions into sagebrush C above) is the only disease that demographic stochasticity. When ecosystems, which are facilitated by currently presents a potential threat to coupled with mortality stressors related human activities and fragmentation, are the Gunnison sage-grouse. While we to human activity and significant likely to increase wildfire frequencies, have no evidence of West Nile virus fluctuations in annual population size, further contributing to direct loss of acting on the Gunnison sage-grouse, long-term persistence of small habitat and fragmentation. Climate because of the virus’s presence within populations is always problematic. change may alter the range of invasive the species’ range and the continued Given the species’ relatively low rate of plants, intensifying the proliferation of development of anthropogenic water growth and strong site fidelity, recovery invasive plants to the point that they sources in the area, the virus may pose and repopulation of extirpated, or become a threat to the species. While a future threat to the species. We have nearly extirpated areas, will be recent local climatic moderations may determined that disease is not currently extremely challenging. Translocation of have produced some improved habitat a threat to the species. However, we Gunnison sage-grouse is difficult and to quality (increased forb and grass growth anticipate that West Nile virus will date has not been demonstrated to be providing enhanced grouse productivity persist within the range of Gunnison successful in maintaining and and survival). Habitat conservation sage-grouse indefinitely and will be improving population and species efforts have been implemented to exacerbated by factors such as climate viability. Given the limited number of benefit local habitat conditions, but they change that could increase ambient source individuals, sustainable, have not cumulatively resulted in local temperatures and the presence of the successful translocation efforts population recoveries because vector on the landscape. involving large numbers of individuals unfragmented sagebrush habitats on the An examination of regulatory are unlikely at this time. Recent captive- scale required that contain the necessary mechanisms (discussed in Factor D rearing efforts by CDOW have provided ecological attributes (e.g., connectivity above) for both the Gunnison sage- some optimistic results. Nonetheless, and landscape context) have been lost. grouse and sagebrush habitats revealed even assuming CDOW captive-rearing Sagebrush habitats are highly that while limited mechanisms exist, and tranlocation efforts prove to be fragmented due to anthropogenic they are not broad enough in their successful in the long-term, the existing impacts, and in most cases are not potential conservation value throughout condition of the habitat throughout the resilient enough to return to native the species range, and are not being species’ range will need to be improved, vegetative states following disturbance implemented consistent with our before captive rearing and translocation from fire, invasive species, and the current understanding of the species’ can be relied on to maintain population effects of climate change. We expect biology and reaction to disturbances, to and species viability. these threats to continue and potentially be effective at ameliorating threats. This The existing and continuing loss, increase in magnitude in the future. is particularly true on private lands, degradation, and fragmentation of sage- We found no evidence that the threats which comprise 41 percent of the grouse habitat; extremely small summarized above, which contribute to species’ extant range and are highly population sizes; occupancy of habitat loss, degradation and dispersed throughout all populations. extremely small, isolated, and fragmentation will subside within the Inadequate regulation of grazing fragmented sagebrush areas; increased foreseeable future. Six populations are practices on public land is occurring in susceptibility to predation; lack of extremely small and compromised by some locations within the species’ interconnectivity; low genetic diversity; existing fragmentation. The one range. Public land management agencies and the potential for catastrophic remaining relatively contiguous patch of should continue to improve habitat stochastic (random) events, combined habitat (Gunnison Basin) for the species conditions to be compatible with with the inadequacy of existing is somewhat compromised by existing Gunnison sage-grouse life-history regulations to manage habitat loss fragmentation. Based on the current and requirements. Some local conservation (either direct or functional), endanger anticipated habitat threats and their efforts are effective and should be all Gunnison sage-grouse populations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59850 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

and the species as a whole. Threat conservation efforts have been easements, improved grazing practices, factors affecting the Gunnison sage- implemented and are effective in small additional travel management efforts grouse are summarized in Table 5 areas, they are not at a scale that is that benefit Gunnison sage-grouse) are below. As required by the Act, we have sufficient to ameliorate threats to the being planned, but there is substantial reviewed and taken into account efforts species as a whole. Other conservation uncertainty as to whether, where, and being made to protect Gunnison sage- efforts (such as habitat treatments, when they will be implemented, and grouse. Although some local establishment of conservation whether they will be effective.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59851 Overall Threat Low+ Moderate+ Low . a Future due to human presence and climate change Foreseeable Year 2050 Year 2050 Low Year 2050 High Year 2050 Moderate Year 2050 High Year 2050 Moderate+ Likely to increase indefinitely with cheatgrass invasion Likely to increase indefinitely increased Indefinitely Low Species’ Response to current habitat tion and degradation; degradation; increased predation; direct mortality and degradation; mortality and degradation; and degradation and degradation degradation; increased predation fragmentation and degradation. increased predation increased predation; direct increased predation contributes to habitat fragmentation and degrada- INDICATES HIGHER LEVEL OF THREAT . A ‘‘ + ’’ Likelihood GROUSE - nence Overall Immi- UNNISON SAGE G (percent) Exposure Intensity Magnitude Imminence Overall Magnitude High+ High 90% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation Moderate Low loss, High 90% Imminent High+ 75% High Habitat fragmentation, Imminent loss, Moderate 60% Imminent Low Habitat High Non-Imminent Low 10% fragmentation High loss, Habitat fragmentation and Habitat Moderate 65% Imminent fragmentation, loss, Moderate Habitat High Low 85% Imminent Moderate Habitat degradation Moderate Indefinitely Habitat High Low 85% Imminent Moderate HREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING 5. T ABLE on-Juniper Encroachment Low Low 15% Imminent Moderate Habitat fragmentation and ˜ Herbivory T A Water Development Low Low <20% Non-Imminent Low Past development A Development Low Past Non-Imminent Conversion to Agriculture Low <20% A Water Moderate Moderate 40% A Non-Imminent Residential Development A Low High+ Fences Past conversion contributes A Roads High 70% A Powerlines Imminent A Fire High Habitat loss, fragmentation A Plants Invasive A Pin A Domestic and Wild Ungulate Listing Factor Threat or Impact

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59852 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules Overall Threat Low Future .—Continued 40 years Foreseeable Year 2050 Low Year 2050 Low Climate models Low predict out to 2050 Year Indefinitely High Indefinitely Moderate+ Indefinitely Moderate Year 2050 Low Year 2050 High Year 2050 Moderate Year 2050 High Species’ Response degradation; increased predation degradation; increased predation tate increase in invasive plants and corresponding of adaptive potential stochastic events in species reproductive potential and degradation and degradation and degradation increased fire frequency degradation INDICATES HIGHER LEVEL OF THREAT Likelihood . A ‘‘ + ’’ nence GROUSE - Overall Immi- (percent) Exposure UNNISON SAGE G Intensity Magnitude Imminence Overall Magnitude Low Low 100% Non-Imminent Moderate Direct mortality Low Indefinitely Direct mortality Moderate Non-Imminent Moderate+ 90% Imminent Low 100% Indefinitely High Direct High Moderate+ Low Moderate 100% Low None Low 0% Non-Imminent Imminent Low Low+ Low Moderate Unknown, but could facili- Low+ 10% 50% Imminent Imminent Moderate Moderate Harassment; avoidance Harassment; direct mortality High Year 2050 Year 2050 Low Moderate+ Moderate+ Low Moderate+ 70% 60% Moderate+ High Imminent Imminent Low 2050 100% Low mortality High High Imminent Year Low+ Low Direct Inbreeding depression; loss Non-Imminent Population vulnerability to Low <5% 50% Moderate Habitat degradation; decline Imminent Moderate Harassment; avoidance Year 2050 Low Low+ Low+ 15% Non-Imminent Moderate Habitat fragmentation and fragmentation Low+ Habitat Moderate Moderate Low+ 15% 10% Non-Imminent Imminent Low Habitat fragmentation and High Moderate 50% Imminent High Habitat loss, fragmentation, fragmentation, loss, 50% Imminent loss, High Habitat High Moderate fragmentation, High 60% Imminent High Habitat Moderate loss, High 75% Imminent High Habitat HREAT SUMMARY FOR FACTORS AFFECTING 5. T ment and Regulations Development Regulations Regulations ABLE T A Non-renewable Energy A Non-renewable A Renewable Energy Develop- A Climate Change B Hunting B B Lek Viewing Scientific Research E E Genetic Complications E Small Population Size Drought E E Recreation E Contaminants Pesticides and Herbicides Low Low 10% Non-Imminent Low Direct mortality; habitat C Disease C Predation D D Inadequacy of Local Laws and D Inadequacy of State Laws and Inadequacy of Federal Laws The foreseeable future date of 2050 was determined for threats or impacts directly related to anthropogenic activities based on the furthest population projection from CWCB (2009, p. The foreseeable future date of 2050 was determined for threats or impacts directly related to anthropogenic activities based on a Listing Factor Threat or Impact 53).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59853

Listing factors include: (A) The Under the Service’s LPN Guidance, future. We believe the ability of all present or threatened destruction, the magnitude of threat is the first remaining populations and habitat areas modification, or curtailment of its criterion we look at when establishing a to retain the attributes required for long- habitat or range; (B) overutilization for listing priority. The guidance indicates term sustainability of this landscape- commercial, recreational, scientific, or that species with the highest magnitude scale species are highly diminished educational purposes; (C) disease or of threat are those species facing the indicating that the magnitude of threats predation; (D) the inadequacy of greatest threats to their continued is high. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) existence. These species receive the Under our LPN Guidance, the second other natural or manmade factors highest listing priority. We consider the criterion we consider in assigning a affecting its continued existence. threats that the Gunnison sage-grouse listing priority is the immediacy of We have carefully assessed the best faces to be high in magnitude because threats. This criterion is intended to scientific and commercial information the major threats (exurban development, ensure that the species facing actual, available regarding the present and inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms, identifiable threats are given priority future threats to the Gunnison sage- genetic issues, roads) occur throughout over those for which threats are only grouse. We have reviewed petitions, all of the species range. Based on an potential or that are intrinsically information available in our files, and evaluation of biotic, abiotic, and vulnerable but are not known to be other published and unpublished anthropogenic factors, no strongholds presently facing such threats. We information, and consulted with are believed to exist for Gunnison sage- consider the threats imminent because recognized Gunnison sage-grouse and grouse (Wisdom et al., in press, entire). we have factual information that the threats are identifiable and that the greater sage-grouse experts. We have All seven populations are experiencing species is currently facing them in many considered and taken into account habitat degradation and fragmentation portions of its range. These actual, efforts being made to conserve protect due to exurban development and roads. identifiable threats are covered in great the species. On the basis of the best Six of the seven populations of detail in Factors A, C, D, and E of this scientific and commercial information Gunnison sage-grouse currently contain finding and currently include habitat available, we find that listing of the so little occupied habitat that continued degradation and fragmentation from Gunnison sage-grouse is warranted degradation and fragmentation will exurban development and roads, throughout all of its range. However, place their continued existence in inadequate regulatory mechanisms, listing the Gunnison sage-grouse is question. The remaining population genetic issues, predation, invasive precluded by higher priority listing (Gunnison Basin) is so interspersed with plants, and drought/weather. In actions at this time, as discussed in the development and roads that it is likely addition to their current existence, we Preclusion and Expeditious Progress to degrade and fragment the habitat expect these threats to continue and section below. (Aldridge and Saher, in press, entire). likely intensify in the foreseeable future. Listing Priority Number We believe it is not functional for a The third criterion in our LPN species that requires large expanses of guidance is intended to devote The Service adopted guidelines on sagebrush. Six of the seven populations resources to those species representing September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to of Gunnison sage-grouse have highly distinctive or isolated gene pools establish a rational system for utilizing population sizes low enough to induce as reflected by taxonomy. The Gunnison available resources for the highest inbreeding depression, and all seven sage-grouse is a valid taxon at the priority species when adding species to may be losing their adaptive potential species level, and therefore receives a the Lists of Endangered or Threatened (Stiver 2008, p. 479). Predation is higher priority than subspecies or DPSs, Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying exerting a strong influence on all but a lower priority than species in a species listed as threatened to populations, but especially the six monotypic genus. endangered status. These guidelines, smaller populations. Invasive weeds are We will continue to monitor the titled ‘‘Endangered and Threatened likely to exert a strong influence on all threats to the Gunnison sage-grouse, and Species Listing and Recovery Priority populations in the future. Adequate the species’ status on an annual basis, Guidelines’’ address the immediacy and regulations are not in place at the local, and should the magnitude or the magnitude of threats, and the level of State, or Federal level to adequately imminence of the threats change, we taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning minimize the threat of habitat will re-visit our assessment of LPN. priority in descending order to degradation and fragmentation resulting Currently, work on a proposed listing monotypic genera (genus with one from exurban development. Regulatory determination for the Gunnison sage- species), full species, and subspecies (or mechanisms are not being appropriately grouse is precluded by work on higher equivalently, distinct population implemented such that land use priority listing actions with absolute segments of vertebrates). practices result in habitat conditions statutory, court-ordered, or court- As a result of our analysis of the best that adequately support the life-history approved deadlines and final listing available scientific and commercial needs of the species. Adequate determinations for those species that information, we assigned the Gunnison regulations are also not in place to were proposed for listing with funds sage-grouse an LPN of 2 based on our ameliorate the threats resulting from from FY 2009. Additionally, remaining finding that the species faces threats predation, genetic issues, or invasive listing funding from FY 2010 has been that are of high magnitude and are weeds. Due to the impacts resulting directed to work on listing imminent. These threats include the from the issues described above and the determinations for species at present or threatened destruction, current small population sizes and significantly greater risk of extinction modification, or curtailment of its habitat areas, impacts from other than the Gunnison sage-grouse faces. habitat; predation; the inadequacy of stressors such as fences, recreation, Because of the large number of high- existing regulatory mechanisms; and grazing, powerlines, and drought/ priority species, we further ranked the other natural or man-made factors weather are likely acting cumulatively candidate species with an LPN of 2. The affecting its continued existence. Our to further decrease the likelihood of at resulting ‘‘Top 40’’ list of candidate rationale for assigning the Gunnison least the six small populations, and species have the highest priority to sage-grouse an LPN 2 is outlined below. potentially all seven, persisting into the receive funding to work on a proposed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

listing determination (see the Preclusion Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In accompanying Public Law 97-304, and Expeditious Progress section addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal which established the current statutory below). This work includes all the year since then, Congress has placed a deadlines and the warranted-but- actions listed in the tables below under statutory cap on funds which may be precluded finding, states (in a expeditious progress. expended for the Listing Program, equal discussion on 90–day petition findings to the amount expressly appropriated Preclusion and Expeditious Progress that by its own terms also covers 12– for that purpose in that fiscal year. This month findings) that the deadlines were Preclusion is a function of the listing cap was designed to prevent funds ‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to priority of a species in relation to the appropriated for other functions under delay commencing the rulemaking resources that are available and the Act (for example, recovery funds for process for any reason other than that competing demands for those resources. removing species from the Lists), or for the existence of pending or imminent Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), other Service programs, from being used proposals to list species subject to a multiple factors dictate whether it will for Listing Program actions (see House greater degree of threat would make be possible to undertake work on a Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st allocation of resources to such a petition proposed listing regulation or whether Session, July 1, 1997). [that is, for a lower-ranking species] promulgation of such a proposal is Since FY 2002, the Service’s budget unwise.’’ warranted but precluded by higher- has included a critical habitat subcap to In FY 2010, expeditious progress is priority listing actions. ensure that some funds are available for that amount of work that can be The resources available for listing ‘‘ other work in the Listing Program ( The achieved with $10,471,000, which is the actions are determined through the critical habitat designation subcap will amount of money that Congress annual Congressional appropriations ensure that some funding is available to appropriated for the Listing Program process. The appropriation for the address other listing activities’’ (House (that is, the portion of the Listing Service Listing Program is available to Report No. 107 - 103, 107th Congress, 1st Program funding not related to critical support work involving the following Session, June 19, 2001)). In FY 2002 and habitat designations for species that are listing actions: Proposed and final each year until FY 2006, the Service has already listed). However these funds are listing rules; 90–day and 12–month had to use virtually the entire critical not enough to fully fund all our court- findings on petitions to add species to habitat subcap to address court- ordered and statutory listing actions in the Lists of Endangered and Threatened mandated designations of critical FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change habitat, and consequently none of the the status of a species from threatened critical habitat subcap funds have been our critical habitat subcap funds in to endangered; annual determinations available for other listing activities. In order to work on all of our required on prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ FY 2007, we were able to use some of petition findings and listing petition findings as required under the critical habitat subcap funds to fund determinations. This brings the total section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical proposed listing determinations for amount of funds we have for listing habitat petition findings; proposed and high-priority candidate species. In FY actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our final rules designating critical habitat; 2009, while we were unable to use any process is to make our determinations of and litigation-related, administrative, of the critical habitat subcap funds to preclusion on a nationwide basis to and program-management functions fund proposed listing determinations, ensure that the species most in need of (including preparing and allocating we did use some of this money to fund listing will be addressed first and also budgets, responding to Congressional the critical habitat portion of some because we allocate our listing budget and public inquiries, and conducting proposed listing determinations so that on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 public outreach regarding listing and the proposed listing determination and is being used to fund work in the critical habitat). The work involved in proposed critical habitat designation following categories: compliance with preparing various listing documents can could be combined into one rule, court orders and court-approved be extensive and may include, but is not thereby being more efficient in our settlement agreements requiring that limited to: Gathering and assessing the work. In FY 2010, we are using some of petition findings or listing best scientific and commercial data the critical habitat subcap funds to fund determinations be completed by a available and conducting analyses used actions with statutory deadlines. specific date; section 4 (of the Act) as the basis for our decisions; writing Thus, through the listing cap, the listing actions with absolute statutory and publishing documents; and critical habitat subcap, and the amount deadlines; essential litigation-related, obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating of funds needed to address court- administrative, and listing program- public comments and peer review mandated critical habitat designations, management functions; and high- comments on proposed rules and Congress and the courts have in effect priority listing actions for some of our incorporating relevant information into determined the amount of money candidate species. In 2009, the final rules. The number of listing available for other listing activities. responsibility for listing foreign species actions that we can undertake in a given Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, under the Act was transferred from the year also is influenced by the other than those needed to address Division of Scientific Authority, complexity of those listing actions; that court-mandated critical habitat for International Affairs Program, to the is, more complex actions generally are already listed species, set the limits on Endangered Species Program. Starting more costly. The median cost for our determinations of preclusion and in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is preparing and publishing a 90–day expeditious progress. being used to work on the actions finding is $39, 276; for a 12–month Congress also recognized that the described above as they apply to listing finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule availability of resources was the key actions for foreign species. This has the with critical habitat, $345,000; and for element in deciding, when making a 12– potential to further reduce funding a final listing rule with critical habitat, month petition finding, whether we available for domestic listing actions. the median cost is $305,000. would prepare and issue a listing Although there are currently no foreign We cannot spend more than is proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted species issues included in our high- appropriated for the Listing Program but precluded’’ finding for a given priority listing actions at this time, without violating the Anti-Deficiency species. The Conference Report many actions have statutory or court-

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59855

approved settlement deadlines, thus group of approximately 40 candidate taxonomic status. Because the Gunnison increasing their priority. The allocations species (‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate sage-grouse is a species, we assigned it for each specific listing action are species have had the highest priority to an LPN of 2 (the highest category identified in the Service’s FY 2010 receive funding to work on a proposed available for a species). Therefore, work Allocation Table (part of our listing determination. As we work on on a proposed listing determination for administrative record). proposed and final listing rules for those the Gunnison sage-grouse is precluded Based on our September 21, 1983, 40 candidates, we apply the ranking by work on higher priority candidate criteria to the next group of candidates guidance for assigning an LPN for each species; listing actions with absolute with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the candidate species (48 FR 43098), we statutory, court ordered, or court- next set of highest priority candidate have a significant number of species approved deadlines; and final listing species. with a LPN of 2. Using this guidance, determinations for those species that To be more efficient in our listing were proposed for listing with funds we assign each candidate an LPN of 1 process, as we work on proposed rules to 12, depending on the magnitude of from previous fiscal years. This work for the highest priority species in the includes all the actions listed in the threats (high vs. moderate to low), next several years, we are preparing immediacy of threats (imminent or tables below under expeditious multi-species proposals when progress. nonimminent), and taxonomic status of appropriate, and these may include the species (in order of priority: species with lower priority if they As explained above, a determination monotypic genus (a species that is the overlap geographically or have the same that listing is warranted but precluded sole member of a genus); species; or part threats as a species with an LPN of 2. must also demonstrate that expeditious of a species (subspecies, distinct In addition, available staff resources are progress is being made to add or remove population segment, or significant also a factor in determining high- qualified species to and from the Lists portion of the range)). The lower the priority species provided with funding. of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife listing priority number, the higher the Finally, proposed rules for and Plants. (Although we do not discuss listing priority (that is, a species with an reclassification of threatened species to it in detail here, we are also making LPN of 1 would have the highest listing endangered are lower priority, since as expeditious progress in removing priority). Because of the large number of listed species, they are already afforded species from the Lists under the high-priority species, we have further the protection of the Act and Recovery program, which is funded by ranked the candidate species with an implementing regulations. a separate line item in the budget of the LPN of 2 by using the following We assigned the Gunnison sage- Endangered Species Program. As extinction-risk type criteria: grouse an LPN of 2, based on our explained above in our description of International Union for the finding that the species faces immediate the statutory cap on Listing Program Conservation of Nature and Natural and high magnitude threats from the funds, the Recovery Program funds and Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, present or threatened destruction, actions supported by them cannot be Heritage rank (provided by modification, or curtailment of its considered in determining expeditious NatureServe), Heritage threat rank habitat; predation; the inadequacy of progress made in the Listing Program.) (provided by NatureServe), and species existing regulatory mechanisms; and As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, currently with fewer than 50 other natural or man-made factors expeditious progress in adding qualified individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. affecting its continued existence. One or species to the Lists is a function of the Those species with the highest IUCN more of the threats discussed above resources available and the competing rank (critically endangered), the highest occurs in each known population. These demands for those funds. Given that Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage threats are ongoing and, in some cases, limitation, we find that we are making threat rank (substantial, imminent considered irreversible. Under our 1983 progress in FY 2010 in the Listing threats), and currently with fewer than Guidelines, a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent Program. This progress included 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 high-magnitude threats is assigned an preparing and publishing the following populations, originally comprised a LPN of 1, 2, or 3 depending on its determinations:

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum Final Listing Threatened 74 FR 52013-52064 (Slickspot Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 74 FR 55177-55180 the American Dipper in the Black substantial Hills of South Dakota as Threatened or Endangered

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 74 FR 55524-55525 (Thymallus arcticus) in the Upper Review Missouri River System

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56757-56770 Population Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56770-56791 as Threatened Throughout Its Range with Special Rule

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage- Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 74 FR 61100-61102 grouse (Centrocercus minimus) Review

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 74 FR 63343-63366 the Black-tailed Prairie Dog as Not warranted Threatened or Endangered

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 74 FR 63337-63343 Sprague’s Pipit as Threatened or Substantial Endangered

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 74 FR 66260-66271 Nine Species of Mussels From Substantial Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 74 FR 66865-66905 to List 475 Species in the substantial and Subtantial Southwestern United States as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Notice of 12–month petition finding, 74 FR 66937-66950 Change the Final Listing of the Warranted but precluded Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx To Include New Mexico

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 605-649 and Bolivia as Endangered Throughout Their Range

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 286-310 Endangered Throughout Their Range

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Proposed rule, withdrawal 75 FR 310-316 Cook’s Petrel

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Final Listing Threatened 75 FR 235-250 Petrel and Heinroth’s Shearwater as Threatened Throughout Their Ranges

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave Notice of Intent to Conduct Status 75 FR 3190-3191 eggersiana and Solanum Review conocarpum

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 6437-6471 List the American Pika as Not warranted Threatened or Endangered

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 8601-8621 List the Sonoran Desert Population Not warranted of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or Endangered Distinct Population Segment

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List 75 FR 8621-8644 the Southwestern Washington/ Columbia River Distinct Population Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 13068-13071 the Berry Cave salamander as Substantial Endangered

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59857

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 13717-13720 the Southern Hickorynut Mussel substantial (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or Threatened

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 13720-13726 the Striped Newt as Threatened Substantial

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 13910-14014 the Greater Sage-Grouse Warranted but precluded (Centrocercus urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 16050-16065 the Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake Warranted but precluded (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 17062-17070 Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly as or Substantial Endangered

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 17352-17363 List the Mountain Whitefish in the Not warranted Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 17363-17367 Stonefly (Isoperla jewetti) and a substantial Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Re- Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 17667-17680 classify the Delta Smelt From Warranted but precluded Threatened to Endangered Throughout Its Range

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status Final ListingEndangered 75 FR 18959-19165 for 48 Species on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the Notice of Initiation of Status Review 75 FR 19591-19592 North American Wolverine in the Contiguous United States

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 19592-19607 the Wyoming Pocket Gopher as Not warranted Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 19925-19935 Distinct Population Segment of the Substantial Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Notice of Initiation of Status Review 75 FR 20547-20548 Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 21568-21571 the Harlequin Butterfly as Substantial Endangered

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 22012-22025 Susan’s Purse-making Caddisfly Not warranted (Ochrotrichia susanae) as Threatened or Endangered

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 22063-22070 the Mohave Ground Squirrel as Substantial Endangered with Critical Habitat

5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 23654-23663 Hermes Copper Butterfly as Substantial Threatened or Endangered

6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 30313-30318 Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis Substantial

6/1/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 30338-30363 List the White-tailed Prairie Dog as Not warranted Endangered or Threatened

6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 32728-32734 van Rossem’s Gull-billed Tern as Substantial Endangered orThreatened.

6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 34077-34088 List Seven Species of Hawaiian Substantial Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered

6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 35398-35424 the Least Chub as Threatened or Warranted but precluded Endangered

6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 35746-35751 the Honduran Emerald Substantial Hummingbird as Endangered

6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Proposed Listing Endangered Pro- 75 FR 35721-35746 Skyrocket) as Endangered posed Listing Threatened Throughout Its Range, and Listing Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as Threatened Throughout Their Range

6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 35990-36012 Damselfly and Pacific Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout Their Ranges

6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 36035-36057 Darter, Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges

6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Plover as Reinstatement of Proposed Listing 75 FR 37353-37358 Threatened Threatened

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 42033-42040 Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark Pine) Substantial as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

7/20/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 42040-42054 the Amargosa Toad as Threatened Not warranted or Endangered

7/20/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 42059-42066 the Giant Palouse Earthworm Substantial (Driloleirus americanus) as Threatened or Endangered

7/27/2010 Determination on Listing the Black- Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 43844-43853 Breasted Puffleg as Endangered Throughout its Range; Final Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59859

FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages

7/27/2010 Final Rule to List the Medium Tree- Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 43853-43864 Finch (Camarhynchus pauper) as Endangered Throughout Its Range

8/3/2010 Determination of Threatened Status Final ListingThreatened 75 FR 45497- 45527 for Five Penguin Species

8/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 46894- 46898 the Mexican Gray Wolf as an Substantial Endangered Subspecies With Critical Habitat

8/10/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 48294-48298 Arctostaphylos franciscana as Substantial Endangered with Critical Habitat

8/17/2010 Listing Three Foreign Bird Species Final Listing Endangered 75 FR 50813-50842 from Latin America and the Caribbean as Endangered Throughout Their Range

8/17/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, Not 75 FR 50739-50742 Brian Head Mountainsnail as substantial Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

8/24/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 90–day Petition Finding, 75 FR 51969-51974 the Oklahoma Grass Pink Orchid Substantial as Endangered or Threatened

9/1/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 53615-53629 the White-Sided Jackrabbit as Not warranted Threatened or Endangered

9/8/2010 Proposed Rule To List the Ozark Proposed Listing Endangered 75 FR 54561-54579 Hellbender Salamander as Endangered

9/8/2010 Revised 12-Month Finding to List the Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 54707-54753 Upper Missouri River Distinct Warranted but precluded Population Segment of Arctic Grayling as Endangered or Threatened

9/9/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Notice of 12–month petition finding, 75 FR 54822-54845 the Jemez Mountains Salamander Warranted but precluded (Plethodon neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat

Our expeditious progress also timelines, that is, timelines required they overlap geographically or have the includes work on listing actions that we under the Act. Actions in the bottom same threats as the species with the funded in FY 2010 but have not yet section of the table are high-priority high priority. Including these species been completed to date. These actions listing actions. These actions include together in the same proposed rule are listed below. Actions in the top work primarily on species with an LPN results in considerable savings in time section of the table are being conducted of 2, and selection of these species is and funding, as compared to preparing under a deadline set by a court. Actions partially based on available staff separate proposed rules for each of them in the middle section of the table are resources, and when appropriate, in the future. being conducted to meet statutory include species with a lower priority if

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED

Species Action

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

African penguin Final listing determination

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination

Mountain plover4 Final listing determination

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination

Sacramento splittail 12–month petition finding

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding

Wolverine 12–month petition finding

Agave eggergsiana 12–month petition finding

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding

Sprague’s pipit 12–month petition finding

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding

Thorne’s Hairstreak butterfly3 12–month petition finding

Hermes copper butterfly3 12–month petition finding

Actions with Statutory Deadlines

Casey’s june beetle Final listing determination

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail Final listing determination

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination

5 species southeast fish (Cumberland darter, rush darter, yellowcheek Final listing determination darter, chucky madtom, and laurel dace)

Salmon crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination

CA golden trout 12–month petition finding

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding

3 MT invertebrates (mist forestfly(Lednia tumana), Oreohelix sp.3, 12–month petition finding Oreohelix sp. 31) from 206 species petition

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59861

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

5 UT plants (Astragalus hamiltonii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium 12–month petition finding ostleri, Penstemon flowersii, Trifolium friscanum) from 206 species petition

2 CO plants (Astragalus microcymbus, Astragalus schmolliae) from 206 12–month petition finding species petition

5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis rossiae, Astragalus 12–month petition finding proimanthus, Boechere (Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii) from 206 species petition

Leatherside chub (from 206 species petition) 12–month petition finding

Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species petition) 12–month petition finding

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding

Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding

Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding

Rattlesnake-master borer moth (from 475 species petition) 12–month petition finding

3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa blanchardi, Agapema 12–month petition finding galbina) (from 475 species petition)

2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella lepida) (from 475 species 12–month petition finding petition)

3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus, 12–month petition finding Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species petition)

5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 474 species petition) 12–month petition finding

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding

Berry Cave salamander1 12–month petition finding

Striped Newt1 12–month petition finding

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mountain Range1 12–month petition finding

Mohave Ground Squirrel1 12–month petition finding

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12–month petition finding

Western gull-billed tern 12–month petition finding

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 12–month petition finding

HI yellow-faced bees 12–month petition finding

Giant Palouse earthworm 12–month petition finding

Whitebark pine 12–month petition finding

OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis)1 12–month petition finding

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover1 90–day petition finding

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90–day petition finding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 59862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules

ACTIONS FUNDED IN FY 2010 BUT NOT YET COMPLETED—Continued

Species Action

Red knot roselaari subspecies 90–day petition finding

Peary caribou 90–day petition finding

Plains bison 90–day petition finding

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90–day petition finding

Spring pygmy sunfish 90–day petition finding

Bay skipper 90–day petition finding

Unsilvered fritillary 90–day petition finding

Texas kangaroo rat 90–day petition finding

Spot-tailed earless lizard 90–day petition finding

Eastern small-footed bat 90–day petition finding

Northern long-eared bat 90–day petition finding

Prairie chub 90–day petition finding

10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90–day petition finding

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles 90–day petition finding

Golden-winged warbler 90–day petition finding

Sand-verbena moth 90–day petition finding

404 Southeast species 90–day petition finding

High-Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species2 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = Proposed listing 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9)

19 Maui-Nui candidate species2 (16 plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN Proposed listing = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8)

Dune sagebrush lizard (formerly Sand dune lizard)3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing

2 Arizona springsnails2 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing trivialis (LPN = 2))

New Mexico springsnail2 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2) Proposed listing

2 mussels2 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) Proposed listing

2 mussels2 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) Proposed listing

Altamaha spinymussel2 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell Proposed listing (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the complexity of these actions and competing priorities, these actions are still being developed. 3Partially funded with FY 2010 funds; also will be funded with FY 2011 funds.

We have endeavored to make our processes or achieve economies of scale, The Gunnison sage-grouse will be listing actions as efficient and timely as such as by batching related actions added to the list of candidate species possible, given the requirements of the together. Given our limited budget for upon publication of this 12–month relevant law and regulations, and implementing section 4 of the Act, these finding. We will continue to monitor the constraints relating to workload and actions described above collectively status of this species as new information personnel. We are continually constitute expeditious progress. becomes available. This review will considering ways to streamline determine if a change in status is

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 28, 2010 / Proposed Rules 59863

warranted, including the need to make References Cited Authority prompt use of emergency listing A complete list of references cited is procedures. The authority for this section is available on the Internet at http:// section 4 of the Endangered Species Act www.regulations.gov and upon request We intend that any proposed listing of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et from the Western Colorado Ecological action for the Gunnison sage-grouse will seq.). be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES will continue to accept additional section). Dated: September 7, 2010 information and comments from all Author(s) Paul R. Schmidt, concerned governmental agencies, the Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. The primary authors of this notice are scientific community, industry, or any [FR Doc. 2010–23430 Filed 9–27–10; 8:45 am] the staff members of the Western other interested party concerning this Colorado Ecological Services Field BILLING CODE 4310–55–S finding. Office.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:24 Sep 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28SEP2.SGM 28SEP2 WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS2