Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Gunnison Sage-Grouse

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2012-0108; 4500030114]

RIN 1018-AZ20

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Gunnison Sage-Grouse

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for the Gunnison sage-grouse (

Centrocercus minimus

), a bird species from southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah. The effect of this regulation will be to add the Gunnison sage-grouse to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

DATES:

This rule is effective December 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule is available on the internet at

http://www.regulations.gov

and

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/gunnisonsagegrouse.

Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this rule, are available for public inspection at

http://www.regulations.gov.

All of the comments, materials, and documentation that we considered in this rulemaking are available by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Field Office, 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 240, Grand Junction, CO 81501-5720; telephone 970-243-2778.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Linner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological Services Office, 134 Union Blvd., Suite 670, P.O. Box 25486 DFC, Denver, CO 80225; telephone 303-236-4774. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule.

Under the Endangered Species Act a species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened as those terms are defined in the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule. In this case, we are required by a judicially approved settlement agreement to make a final determination regarding the Gunnison sage-grouse by no later than November 12, 2014. Elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

we finalize the designation of critical habitat for the species.

This rule will

finalize the listing of the Gunnison sage-grouse (

Centrocercus minimus

) as a threatened species.

The basis for our action.

Under the Endangered Species Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

As described in detail below, we have determined that the most substantial threats to Gunnison sage-grouse currently and in the future include habitat decline due to human disturbance (Factor A), small population size and structure (Factor E), drought (Factor E), climate change (Factor A), and disease (Factor C). Other threats that are impacting Gunnison sage-grouse to a lesser degree or in localized areas include grazing practices inconsistent with local ecological conditions, fences, invasive plants, fire, mineral development, piñon-juniper encroachment, large-scale water development (Factor A); predation (Factor C), primarily in association with anthropogenic disturbance and habitat decline due to human disturbance (Factor A); and recreation (Factor E). As described in Factor D below, some existing regulatory mechanisms are in place to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse, but individually or collectively they do not fully address the substantial threats faced by the species, particularly habitat decline, small population size and structure, drought, climate change, and disease. The threats listed above are also acting cumulatively, contributing to the challenges faced by Gunnison sage-grouse now and into the future.

Multiple partners, including private citizens, nongovernmental organizations, and Tribal, State, and Federal agencies, are engaged in conservation efforts across the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous conservation actions have been implemented or are planned for Gunnison sage-grouse, and these efforts have provided and will continue to provide conservation benefit to the species. The Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Gunnison sage-grouse (CCAA), Gunnison Basin Candidate Conservation Agreement (CCA), conservation plans, multi-county commitments, habitat improvement projects, and similar non-regulatory conservation actions that address habitat-related impacts and issues are described and evaluated under Factor A in this rule. Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, conservation easements, and other regulatory mechanisms are evaluated under Factor D. Scientific research activities are described under Factor B and throughout this rule where applicable. Also, conservation efforts are described and evaluated as appropriate under relevant threat sections throughout this rule.

Peer review and public comment.

We sought comments on the proposed rule from independent and qualified specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and information received during each public comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Gunnison sage-grouse (78 FR 2486, January 11, 2013) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning this species. Federal actions that have occurred since that publication are described below.

On January 11, 2013, we published a rule proposing to list the Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered throughout its range (78 FR 2486), and a proposed rule to designate 1.7 million acres of critical habitat for the species (78 FR 2540). We opened a public comment period until March 12, 2013, that was subsequently extended until April 2, 2013 (78 FR 15925, March 13, 2013).

On July 19, 2013, we announced that we were extending the final rule deadline by 6 months, from September 30, 2013, to March 31, 2014; and reopened the comment period until September 3, 2013 (78 FR 43123). This extension served to solicit additional scientific information due to scientific disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant to our listing determinations for Gunnison sage-grouse.

On September 19, 2013, we announced the availability of a draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment for our proposal to designate critical habitat for

Gunnison sage-grouse, and reopened the public comment period on those subjects and the proposed listing and critical habitat rules until October 19, 2013. We also announced two planned public informational sessions and public hearings for the proposed rules (78 FR 57604).

On November 4, 2013, we reopened the public comment period on the proposed rules until December 2, 2013, and announced the rescheduling of three public information sessions and public hearings that were postponed due to the lapse in government appropriations in October 2013 (78 FR 65936).

Public information sessions and public hearings were held in Gunnison, Colorado, on November 19, 2013; Montrose, Colorado, on November 20, 2013; and Monticello, Utah, on November 21, 2013.

In a press release on February 12, 2014, available on our Web page at

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/,

we announced a 6-week extension, to May 12, 2014, for our final decision on our proposed listing and critical habitat rules. This extension was granted by the Court due to delays caused by the lapse in government appropriations in October 2013, and the resulting need to reopen a public comment period and reschedule public hearings.

In a press release on May 6, 2014, available on our Web page at

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/birds/gunnisonsagegrouse/,

we announced a 6-month extension, to November 12, 2014, for our final decision to list Gunnison sage-grouse under the Act. This extension was granted by the Court to provide the Service with additional time to complete a final listing determination for the Gunnison sage-grouse, and if listed, a final critical habitat designation. In the event the Service decided to list the species as threatened, the court order also allowed for the Service to publish a proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act (which are only available for threatened species) and finalize it with the final listing determination on November 12, if appropriate. We decided not to propose and finalize a 4(d) rule for the Gunnison sage-grouse at this time, but continue to evaluate the potential for issuing a section 4(d) rule in the future to tailor the take prohibitions of the Act to those necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse.

Elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

, we finalize the designation of critical habitat for the species.

Background

Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse (a similar, closely related species) have similar life histories and habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. 44). In this final rule, we use scientific information specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse where available but apply scientific management principles and scientific information for greater sage-grouse that are relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse threats, conservation needs, and strategies—a practice followed by the wildlife and land management agencies that have responsibility for management of both species and their habitat. Throughout this rule, we use

sage-grouse

in reference to both Gunnison and greater sage-grouse whenever the scientific data and information is relevant to both species.

Species Information

A detailed summary of Gunnison sage-grouse taxonomy, the species description, historical distribution, habitat, and life-history characteristics can be found in the 12-month finding published September 28, 2010 (75 FR 59804). More recent scientific information relevant to the species and our evaluation of the species is included throughout this final rule.

Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends

Gunnison sage-grouse currently occur in seven populations in Colorado and Utah, occupying 3,795 square kilometers (km

2

) (1,511 square miles [mi

2

]) (Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee) [GSRSC] 2005, pp. 36-37; CDOW 2009a, p. 1). The seven populations are Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, Monticello-Dove Creek, Piñon Mesa, Crawford, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and Poncha Pass (Figure 1). A summary of land ownership and recent population estimates among these seven populations is presented in Table 1, and Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The following information and Figures 2 and 3 are based on lek count data (systematic counts of male sage-grouse attendance at traditional breeding sites) and associated population estimates from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) for the period 1996-2014 (CDOW 2010a, p. 2; CPW 2012a, pp. 1-4; CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW 2014d, p. 1).

ER20NO14.000

Table 1—Percent Surface Ownership of Gunnison Sage-Grouse Occupied

a

Habitat

[GSRSC

b

2005, pp. D-3-D-6; CDOW

c

2009a, p. 1; CPW 2013e, spatial data]

Population

Hectares

Acres

Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat management and ownership

BLM

d

%

NPS

e

%

USFS

f

%

CPW

%

CO SLB

g

%

State of UT

%

Private

%

Gunnison Basin

239,641

592,168

51

2

14

2

<1

0

i

30

San Miguel Basin

41,177

101,750

g

35

0

1

11

g

3

0

h

49

Monticello-Dove Creek (Combined)

45,544

112,543

7

0

0

3

0

<1

90

Dove Creek

16,949

41,881

13

0

0

6

0

0

82

Monticello

28,595

70,661

5

0

0

0

0

1

94

Piñon Mesa

18,080

44,678

28

0

2

0

0

0

70

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa

15,039

37,161

13

<1

0

11

0

0

76

Crawford

14,170

35,015

63

12

0

0

0

0

24

Poncha Pass

11,229

27,747

48

0

20

0

4

0

28

Rangewide

384,880

951,061

42

2

10

3

<1

<1

43

a

Occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is defined as areas of suitable habitat known to be used by Gunnison sage-grouse within the last 10 years from the date of mapping, and areas of suitable habitat contiguous with areas of known use, which have no barriers to grouse movement from known use areas (GSRSC 2005, p. 54; CPW 2013e, spatial data).

b

Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Steering Committee.

c

Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

d

Bureau of Land Management.

e

National Park Service.

f

United States Forest Service.

g

State Land Board.

h

Estimates reported in San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Conservation Plan (San Miguel Basin Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group (SMBGSWG) 2009, p. 28) vary by 2 percent in these categories from those reported here. We consider these differences insignificant.

i

Includes approximately 12,000 ac of land on Pinecrest Ranch, west of Gunnison, Colorado. This is restricted fee status land held in private ownership by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

ER20NO14.001

ER20NO14.002

Lek count data are the primary means of estimating and monitoring Gunnison sage-grouse populations. However, sage-grouse populations can fluctuate widely on an annual basis, and there are concerns about the statistical reliability of population estimates based on lek counts (CDOW 2009b, pp. 1-3). Stiver

et al.

(2008, p. 474) concluded that lek counts likely underestimate population size. Another study (Davis 2012, p. 136) indicated that, based on demographic data, lek count indices overestimate population size. Although lek count data are available from as early as the 1950s for some populations, lek count protocols were first standardized and implemented in 1996 (GSRSC 2005, p. 46). Prior to 1996, lek count data are highly variable and uncertain, and are not directly comparable to recent population data (Braun 1998, p. 3; Davis 2012, pp. 139, 143). Therefore, for the purposes of evaluating current population sizes and trends, the analysis in this rule is focused on lek count data from 1996 to 2014. We also consider other available scientific information such as demographic data and population viability analyses (see Factor E). Historical distribution and population information is discussed under Factor A below.

The Gunnison Basin is the largest population (approximately 3,978 birds) and, while showing variation over the period of record, including drought cycles and harsh winters, has been relatively stable, based on lek count estimates (but see further discussion below and in the Factor E analysis). The Gunnison Basin population is the primary influence on the rangewide population size of Gunnison sage-grouse (see Figure 2); thus, the significance of this population to the species' survival and persistence is evident. The Gunnison Basin population area includes approximately 239,600 ha (592,053 ac) of occupied habitat.

In contrast, the remaining six populations, or satellite populations, are much smaller than the Gunnison Basin. All satellite populations were generally in decline until 2010; however, increases in several populations have been observed recently (Figure 3) and could be a product of numerous factors including but not limited to population cycles, translocation efforts, and increased access to leks. San Miguel and Piñon Mesa are currently the largest of the satellite populations, with 206 and 182 birds, respectively, in 2014. The Monticello-Dove Creek populations currently have less than 100 birds combined (74 and 24, respectively). The current (2014) population estimates for the two smallest populations, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and Poncha Pass, are 74 and 16, respectively (CPW 2014d, p. 1). A count of zero birds at Poncha Pass in 2013 suggests that extirpation of this population may have occurred, although 17 birds were translocated there later that fall, and ten more in spring of 2014, with 16 known to survive into summer 2014 (see Factor B, Scientific Research and Related Conservation Efforts). The satellite population areas are much smaller than the Gunnison Basin population area, all with less than 40,500 hectares (ha) (100,000 acres [ac]) of occupied habitat (Table 1) and, with the exception of the San Miguel population, fewer than 40 males counted on leks (CDOW 2009b, p. 5; CPW 2012a, p. 3; CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW 2014d, p. 1).

Lek count-based population estimates suggest some satellite populations have increased slightly over the last several years. However, lek count data spanning the last 19 years (1996 to 2014) as a whole indicate that all the satellite populations were generally in decline until 2010 (Figure 3). Several of the satellite populations remain in decline and all remain at population size estimates that indicate concern for their viability, ranging from 206 to 10 birds (Figure 3). Furthermore, some of the recent increases in population sizes can be attributed to translocation and survey efforts, rather than an actual increase in the population. For example, the 2014 estimated population for Piñon Mesa was 182 birds (CPW 2014d, p. 1), much greater than the 2012 estimate of 54 birds. The population in Crawford increased from 20 birds in 2010 to 157 in 2014. These increases may be due in part to the translocation of 93 birds to the Piñon Mesa population between the spring of 2010 and spring of 2013 and 73 birds to Crawford over the same period. (CPW 2014c, entire), and two new leks found in 2012 on Piñon Mesa (CPW 2012a, pp. 2-3). The potential historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse is discussed briefly below by population, and loss of historical range is discussed under Factor A.

Gunnison Basin Population

—The Gunnison Basin is an intermontane (located between mountain ranges) basin that includes parts of Gunnison and Saguache Counties, Colorado. The current Gunnison Basin population is distributed across approximately 239,640 ha (592,168 ac) (Table 1), surrounding the City of Gunnison. This population comprises approximately 84 percent of the rangewide population and 62 percent of occupied habitat for the species rangewide. Elevations in the area occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse range from 2,300 to 2,900 meters (m) (7,500 to 9,500 feet [ft]). Approximately 69 percent of the land area occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse in this population is managed by Federal agencies (67 percent) and CPW (2 percent), and the remaining 30 percent is primarily private lands, including approximately 12,000 ac on Pinecrest Ranch owned by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe under restricted fee status. Wyoming big sagebrush

(Artemisia tridentata

ssp.

wyomingensis)

and mountain big sagebrush

(A. t.

ssp.

vaseyana)

dominate the upland vegetation, with highly variable growth form depending on local site conditions.

In 1964, Gunnison County was one of five counties containing the majority of all sage-grouse in Colorado. This was likely the case before Euro-American settlement, around the turn of the century, as well (Rogers 1964, pp. 13, 20). The 2014 population estimate for the Gunnison Basin was 3,978 birds (CPW 2014d, p. 1). Population estimates from 1996 to 2014 meet or exceed the population target of 3,000 breeding birds (based on a 10-year average) for the Gunnison Basin, as set forth by the Gunnison Sage-grouse Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) (CPW 2013a, p. 10; GSRSC 2005, p. 270). Based on available habitat and other considerations, the RCP identified population targets as attainable population sizes sufficient to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse in each population (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). Approximately 45 percent of leks in the Gunnison Basin occur on private land; and 55 percent are on public land administered primarily by the BLM (GSRSC 2005, p. 75). Five physiographic zones or divisions are recognized in the Gunnison Basin population area for the purposes of monitoring and management actions (CSGWG 1997, pp. 6-7).

San Miguel Basin Population

— The San Miguel Basin population estimate in 2014 was 206 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1). Population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are less than 50 percent of the population target of 450 Gunnison sage-grouse (based on a 10-year average) for the San Miguel Basin, as set forth by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. 296). This population occurs in Montrose and San Miguel Counties in Colorado, and comprises six small subpopulations (Dry Creek Basin, Hamilton Mesa, Miramonte Reservoir, Gurley Reservoir, Beaver Mesa, and Iron Springs) occupying approximately 41,177 ha (101,750 ac). Gunnison sage-grouse use some of these areas year-round, while others are used seasonally. Gunnison sage-grouse in the San Miguel Basin move widely between the six

subpopulation areas (Apa 2004, p. 29; Stiver and Gibson 2005, p. 12). The area encompassed by this population is thought to have once served as critical migration corridors between populations to the north (Piñon Mesa) and northeast (Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa) and to the west (Monticello-Dove Creek) (Oyler-McCance

et al.

2005, pp. 635-636; SMBGSWG 2009, p. 9), but gene flow among these populations is currently very low (Oyler-McCance

et al.

2005, p. 635). Historically, Gunnison sage-grouse occupied the majority of available big sagebrush (

Artemisia tridentata

) plant communities in San Miguel and Montrose Counties (Rogers 1964, pp. 22, 115).

Habitat conditions vary among the six subpopulation areas of the San Miguel Basin population areas. The following discussion addresses conditions among the subpopulations beginning in the west and moving east. The majority of occupied acres in the San Miguel Basin population (approximately 25,130 ha (62,100 ac) or 62 percent of the total population area) occur in the Dry Creek Basin subpopulation (SMBGSWG 2009, p. 28). However, the Dry Creek Basin contains some of the poorest quality habitat and the fewest individual Gunnison sage grouse numbers in the San Miguel population (SMBGSWG 2009, pp. 28, 36). Sagebrush habitat in the Dry Creek Basin area is patchily distributed. Where irrigation is possible, private lands in the southeastern portion of Dry Creek Basin are cultivated. Sagebrush habitat on private land has been heavily thinned or removed entirely (GSRSC 2005, p. 96). Elevations in the Hamilton Mesa subpopulation are approximately 610 m (2,000 ft.) higher than in the Dry Creek Basin, resulting in more mesic (moist) conditions. Agriculture is very limited on Hamilton Mesa, and the majority of the vegetation consists of oakbrush (

Quercus gambelii

) and sagebrush. Gunnison sage-grouse use the Hamilton Mesa area (1,940 ha (4,800 ac)) in the summer, but use of Hamilton Mesa during other seasons is unknown.

Gunnison sage-grouse occupy approximately 4,700 ha (11,600 ac) around Miramonte Reservoir (GSRSC 2005, p. 96). Sagebrush stands there are generally contiguous with a mixed-grass and forb understory. Occupied habitat at the Gurley Reservoir area (3,305 ha (7,500 ac)) is negatively affected by human development. Farming attempts in the Gurley Reservoir area in the early 20th century led to the removal of much of the sagebrush, although agricultural activities are now restricted primarily to the seasonally irrigated crops (hay meadows), and sagebrush has reestablished in most of the failed pastures. However, grazing pressure and competition from introduced grasses have limited overall sagebrush representation (GSRSC 2005, pp. 96-97). Sagebrush stands in the Iron Springs and Beaver Mesa areas (2,590 ha and 3,560 ha (6,400 ac and 8,800 ac respectively)) are contiguous with a mixed-grass understory. The Beaver Mesa area has numerous scattered patches of oakbrush.

Monticello-Dove Creek Population

—This population includes two separate subpopulations of Gunnison sage-grouse, the Monticello and Dove Creek subpopulations. Genetic data suggest these two subpopulations could be considered one population (GSRSC 2005, p. 37), though we are unaware of any current connectivity between the two. The larger subpopulation is near the town of Monticello in San Juan County, Utah. Gunnison sage-grouse in this subpopulation inhabit a broad plateau on the northeastern side of the Abajo Mountains, with fragmented patches of sagebrush interspersed with large grass pastures and agricultural fields. In 1972, the estimated population size ranged from 583 to 1,050 individuals; by 2002, the population size had decreased, estimated at 178 to 308 individuals (UDWR 2011, p. 1). The 2013 and 2014 population estimates are 74 individuals (CPW 2013a, p. 1; CPW 2014d, p. 1)). Gunnison sage-grouse currently occupy an estimated 28,595 ha (70,661 ac) in the Monticello area (GSRSC 2005, p. 81).

The Dove Creek subpopulation is located primarily in western Dolores County, Colorado, north and west of Dove Creek, although a small portion of occupied habitat extends north into San Miguel County. The majority of sagebrush plant communities in Dolores and Montezuma Counties within Colorado were historically used by Gunnison sage-grouse (Rogers 1964, pp. 22, 112). Habitat north of Dove Creek is characterized as mountain shrub habitat, dominated by oakbrush interspersed with sagebrush. The area west of Dove Creek is dominated by sagebrush, but the habitat is highly fragmented by agricultural fields. Lek counts in the Dove Creek area were more than 50 males in 1999, suggesting a population of about 245 birds (C = High male count; C/0.53 + (C/0.53 × 1.6)), but declined to 2 males in 2009 (CDOW 2009b, p. 71), suggesting a population of 10 birds at that time. Low sagebrush canopy cover, as well as low grass height, exacerbated by drought, may have led to nest failure and subsequent population declines (Connelly

et al.

2000a, p. 974; Apa 2004, p. 30). The 2014 population estimate was 24 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1).

Combined, the Monticello-Dove Creek estimated population size in 2014 was 98 individuals (CPW 2014d, p. 1). Most population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are well below the population target of 500 breeding birds (based on a 10-year average) for the Monticello-Dove Creek population, as set forth by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. 278). Likewise, most population estimates from 1996 to the present time are well below the population target of 250 birds for each subpopulation alone (CPW 2013a, p. 12).

Piñon Mesa Population

—The Piñon Mesa population occurs on the northwestern end of the Uncompahgre Plateau in Mesa County, about 35 km (22 mi) southwest of Grand Junction, Colorado. Gunnison sage-grouse likely occurred historically in all suitable sagebrush habitat in the Piñon Mesa area, including the Dominguez Canyon area of the Uncompahgre Plateau, southeast of Piñon Mesa proper (Rogers 1964, pp. 22, 114). Their current distribution is approximately 18,080 ha (44,678 ac) (GSRSC 2005, p. 87) which, based on a comparison of potential presettlement distribution, is approximately 6 percent of presettlement habitat on the northern portion of the Uncompahgre Plateau in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah. The 2014 estimated population was 182 birds (CPW 2014d, p. 1), much greater than the 2012 estimate of 54 birds. Over the last 4 years, CPW has translocated 93 sage-grouse to this area, which may have contributed to the increase observed over the past 2 to 4 years (CPW 2014c, entire), in addition to the discovery of two formerly unknown leks in 2012 (CPW 2012a, pp. 2-3). Population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are below the population target of 200 breeding birds (based on a 10-year average) for the Piñon Mesa population, as set forth by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, p. 285). Of 12 known leks, only 4 were active in 2012 (CPW 2012a, pp. 2-3). The Piñon Mesa area may have other leks as well, but the high percentage of private land, a lack of roads, and heavy snow cover during spring make locating new leks difficult (CDOW 2009b, p. 109).

Crawford Population

—The Crawford population of Gunnison sage-grouse includes approximately 14,170 ha (35,015 ac) of occupied habitat in Montrose County, Colorado, about 13 km (8 mi) southwest of the town of Crawford and north of the Gunnison River. Basin big sagebrush

(A. t.

ssp.

tridentata)

and black sagebrush

(A.

nova)

dominate the mid-elevation uplands (GSRSC 2005, p. 62). The 2014 estimated population was 157 individuals (CPW 2014a, p. 1), much greater than the 2010 estimate of 20 birds, and 2011 estimate of 44 birds. This observed increase could be, in part, the product of the translocation of 72 birds to the Crawford population from 2011 to the spring of 2013 (CPW 2014c, entire), although natural increases or other reasons not understood could also be contributing. Furthermore, new lek count techniques for this population were implemented in 2012 (Gunnison County 2013a, p. 190), and increased survey efforts may be partly responsible for observed increases in high male counts and population estimates (Figure 3). Population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are well below the population target of 275 breeding birds (based on a 10-year average) for the Crawford population, as set forth by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, p. 264). Three leks are currently active in the Crawford population (CPW 2012a, p. 1), all on BLM lands near an 11-km (7-mi) stretch of road. This area represents the largest contiguous sagebrush plant community within the occupied area of the Crawford population (GSRSC 2005, p. 64).

Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa Population

—This population is divided into two geographically separate subpopulations, both in Montrose County, Colorado: The Cerro Summit-Cimarron and Sims Mesa subpopulations. It is unknown whether sage-grouse currently move between these subpopulations.

The Cerro Summit-Cimarron subpopulation is centered about 24 km (15 mi) east of the City of Montrose. Rogers (1964, p. 115) noted a small population of sage-grouse in the Cimarron River drainage, but did not report population numbers. The same publication also reported that four individual birds were observed during lek counts at Cerro Summit in 1959. Habitat in this subpopulation area includes 15,039 ha (37,161 ac) of patchy sagebrush habitat fragmented by oakbrush and irrigated pastures. Four leks are currently known in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron group, although only two have been active in recent years (GSRSC 2005, p. 257; CPW 2012a, entire).

The Sims Mesa area, about 11 km (7 mi) south of Montrose, consists of small patches of sagebrush fragmented by piñon-juniper, residential and recreational development, and agriculture (CDOW 2009b, p. 43). Rogers (1964, p. 95) recorded eight males from lek counts at Sims Mesa in 1960. In 2000, the CPW translocated six Gunnison sage-grouse from the Gunnison Basin to Sims Mesa (Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 12). There is only one currently known lek in the Sims Mesa and, since 2003, it has not been attended by Gunnison sage-grouse. However, lek counts on Sims Mesa did not occur in 2011. A lek is designated historic when it is inactive for at least 10 consecutive years, according to CPW standards. Therefore, the current status of the Sims Mesa lek is unknown (CDOW 2009b, p. 7; CPW 2012a, p. 1).

The Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population estimate in 2014 was 74 individuals (CPW 2014a, p. 1), with all birds in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron areas. Population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are below the population target of 100 breeding birds (based on a 10-year average) for this population, as set forth by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 11; GSRSC 2005, p. 258).

Available information indicates that some birds translocated to the Crawford area between 2011 and 2013 went to the Cerro Summit-Cimarron area, then moved back to Crawford (Crawford Area Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group 2014, p. 3). Translocated birds also returned to the Gunnison Basin permanently (Crawford Area Gunnison Sage-grouse Working Group 2014, p. 3). Genetic information (Oyler-McCance

et al.

2005, pp. 635-636; SMBGSWG 2009, p. 9) indicates that there was past gene flow between the Cerro Summit-Cimarron population and the San Miguel population. Therefore, we consider the Cerro Summit-Cimarron population to be an important linkage area, providing connectivity between the two largest populations, the Gunnison Basin and the San Miguel populations, as well as the Crawford population.

Poncha Pass Population

—The Poncha Pass Gunnison sage-grouse population is located in Saguache County, approximately 16 km (10 mi) northwest of Villa Grove, Colorado. The known population distribution includes 11,229 ha (27,747 ac) of sagebrush habitat from the summit of Poncha Pass extending south for about 13 km (8 mi) on either side of U.S. Highway 285. Sagebrush in this area is generally intact with little fragmentation, and habitat quality throughout the area appears adequate to support a population of the species (Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 25). Despite this, the area has struggled to sustain a viable population. San Luis Creek runs through the area, providing a perennial water source and wet meadow riparian habitat for brood-rearing. Decker and Rock Creeks also provide water most of the year. However, water flows in the area have been much lower and less dependable in recent years due to drought conditions (Nehring 2013a, pers. comm.).

The Poncha Pass population was reintroduced in the 1970s in a portion of the San Luis Valley where Gunnison sage-grouse were thought to have been extirpated by the 1950s (Rogers 1964, pp. 22, 27, 116). Reestablishment of this population began with 30 birds translocated from the Gunnison Basin in 1971 and 1972 (GSRSC 2005, p. 94). In 1992, a CPW effort to simplify hunting restrictions inadvertently opened the Poncha Pass area to sage-grouse hunting, and at least 30 grouse were harvested from this population. Due to declining population numbers since the 1992 hunt, CPW translocated 24 additional birds from the Gunnison Basin in the spring of 2000 (Nehring and Apa 2000, p. 11). In 2001 and 2002, an additional 20 and 7 birds, respectively, were moved to Poncha Pass by the CPW (GSRSC 2005, p. 94).

Translocated females have bred successfully (Apa 2004, pers. comm.), and male display activity resumed on the historical lek in the spring of 2001. The only known lek is located on BLM-administered land (CDOW 2011a, p. 1; CPW 2012a, p. 3). A high male count of 3 males occurred in 2012, resulting in an estimated population size of 15 for the Poncha Pass population. In 2013, no birds were counted at leks or in surrounding habitat despite considerable survey efforts, suggesting a population estimate of zero birds. In the fall of 2013, CPW translocated 17 birds to the Poncha Pass population from the Gunnison Basin. As of January 2014, 10 of these birds were known to be surviving (Nehring 2014, pers. comm.). In 2014, CPW translocated 10 more birds to the area. Sixteen birds were known to survive into summer of 2014 (all translocated birds had telemetry transmitters). Poncha Pass current and past population estimates from 1996 to 2013 are well below the population target of 75 birds, as set forth by the RCP (CPW 2013a, p. 12; GSRSC 2005, p. 291). We note that given the history of this population, lack of unique genetics (all sage-grouse were introduced from the Gunnison Basin), and concerns about translocation success, we do not consider this population necessary to the recovery of the species.

Additional Special Status Information

The Gunnison sage-grouse has an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Category of “endangered” (Birdlife International 2009). NatureServe currently ranks the Gunnison sage-grouse as G1-Critically

Imperiled (Nature Serve 2010, entire). The Gunnison sage-grouse is on the National Audubon Society's Watch List 2007 Red Category, which is “for species that are declining rapidly or have very small populations or limited ranges, and face major conservation threats.” This information is provided here for background only; these assessments were not factored into our analysis or listing determination in this rule.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

Based upon our review of the public comments, comments from other Federal and State agencies, peer review comments, issues raised at the public hearing, and new relevant information that has become available since the publication of the proposal, we have reevaluated our proposed listing rule and made changes as appropriate. Other than minor clarifications and incorporation of additional information on the species' biology and populations, this determination differs from the proposal in the following ways:

(1) Based on our analyses of the potential threats to the species, we have determined that Gunnison sage-grouse does not meet the definition of an endangered species, contrary to our proposed rule published on January 11, 2013 (78 FR 2486).

(2) Based on our analyses, we have determined that the species meets the definition of a threatened species. Subsequently, pursuant to this final rule, the species will be added to the list of threatened species set forth in 50 CFR Part 17.

(3) We have expanded the discussion of Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts, in Factor A below.

(4) We have found that the threat from current residential development in the Gunnison Basin is not as high as we previously concluded. See Factor A analysis and discussion.

Summary of Peer Review and Public Comments

In our January 11, 2013, proposed rules for Gunnison sage-grouse (proposed listing, 78 FR 2486; proposed critical habitat designation, 78 FR 2540), we requested written public comments on the proposal from all interested parties. At various times, public comment periods were extended or reopened (see Previous Federal Actions), with a final comment period on both proposals ending on December 2, 2013. We contacted appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, elected officials, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and invited them to comment. We also published notices inviting general public comment in local newspapers throughout the species' range.

Between January 11, 2013, and December 2, 2013, we received a total of 36,171 comment letters on the listing and critical habitat proposals. Of those letters, we determined that approximately 445 were substantive comment letters; 35,535 were substantive form letters; and 191 were non-substantive comment letters. Substantive letters generally contained comments pertinent to both proposed rules, although the vast majority of comments were related to the proposed listing rule. Responses to comments related to critical habitat are provided in the final rule to designate critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse, published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

. Also, we held three public hearings between November 19 and 21, 2013, in response to requests from local and State agencies and governments; we received oral comments during that time (see Previous Federal Actions). All substantive information provided during all comment periods and hearings that pertains to the listing of the species has been incorporated directly into this final rule or addressed below. For the readers' convenience, we combined similar comments and responses.

Comments From Peer Reviewers

In accordance with our peer review policy published in the

Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from five independent and qualified individuals with scientific expertise on Gunnison sage-grouse biology and conservation. The purpose of the peer review was to ensure that our decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, based on the input of appropriate experts and specialists. We received written responses from all five peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of the Gunnison sage-grouse. One peer reviewer concluded that our proposals included a thorough and accurate review of the available scientific and commercial data on Gunnison sage-grouse, but did not provide substantive comments. The remaining four letters provided additional relevant information on biology, threats, and scientific research for the species. Two peer review letters were opposed to the proposed listing and questioned our rationale and determinations. All substantive comments from peer reviewers are incorporated directly into this final rule or addressed in the summary of comments below.

(1)

Comment:

One peer reviewer noted that population growth models of greater sage-grouse (

C. urophasianus

) indicate adult annual survival is the most sensitive vital rate. However, in the proposed rule, we said that limitations in the quality and quantity of nesting and early brood-rearing habitats, in particular, are especially important because Gunnison sage-grouse population dynamics are most sensitive during these life-history stages (GSRSC 2005, p. G-15).

Our Response:

Juvenile recruitment has been identified as the most important demographic factor influencing or limiting greater and Gunnison sage-grouse population growth rates and viability (Connelly

et al.

2004, p. 3-11, GSRSC 2005, p. 173). In a recent demographic and population viability study of Gunnison sage-grouse (Davis 2012), juvenile survival was found to be the most influential vital rate in the Gunnison Basin population, a relatively stable population. However, adult survival was more influential in the San Miguel population, a smaller and steeply declining population where no juvenile recruitment occurred (Davis 2012, pp. 89, 93). Therefore, both juvenile survival and adult survival rates appear to be important to the species' viability. This topic is discussed further under Factor E in this final rule.

(2)

Comment:

One peer reviewer stated that the methods and rationale regarding the proposed rule's evaluation of residential development and estimated housing development in the Gunnison Basin are not clear for the following reasons: It was unclear how the potential spatial configuration of new housing units was estimated; thus calculations for habitat lost directly or indirectly are not transparent. The reviewer stated that the conclusion that the species should be listed as endangered relies heavily on the analysis of potential threats of additional anthropogenic infrastructure given increasing human populations. The peer reviewer commented that there are potential flaws in the estimated impacts of residential impact in the Gunnison Basin, which relied primarily on Aldridge

et al.

(2012, entire). The peer reviewer noted that to establish the scientific credibility of these conclusions, additional information is required describing the methodology and data used in the analysis as well as reporting the results; for example, citing the spatial data sources, specifically

establishing the methods used to come to the level of potential impact (spatially and temporally), providing results specific to each analysis, and specifically establishing the assumptions made. The peer reviewer also stated that an analysis of residential development in the satellite populations is lacking.

Our Response:

In Factor A of this final rule, we reevaluate the threat of residential development in the Gunnison Basin and in the six satellite populations, and explain the framework for our assessment. In that revised analysis, based on new information regarding the location and magnitude of past development patterns in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in the Gunnison Basin, we avoid the use of spatial zones of influence to estimate or extrapolate potential impacts of current and future development, focusing instead on human population growth rates and available developable private lands in occupied habitat.

(3)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule analysis indicated that approximately 85 percent of occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin has an increased likelihood of current or future road-related disturbance. This conclusion would suggest that the vast majority of sagebrush habitats in the Gunnison Basin are within 700 m of a road, an exceptionally dense road network—as a comparison, Knick

et al.

2011 (chapter 12 in Studies in Avian Biology No. 38 page 215) estimated that 89 percent of sage-grouse habitats were within 2.5 km of a road in Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Management Zone 7 (Colorado Plateau), road densities less than those reported here. The reviewer suggested that we provide more specificity on how we analyzed roads. The reviewer noted that, given that this analysis is specific to the spatial scale of the potential spread of invasive weeds associated with roads in general, it may benefit the discussion to include the amount of habitat within 700 m of improved surface roads as well as all roads (assuming two-tracks are included as roads in this analysis).

Our Response:

Our analysis included all road types (primary, secondary, etc.) in occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin, hence the relatively high density of road networks. We did not differentiate by road type, as our primary intent was to estimate exposure of occupied habitat to road networks in general. We revised this final rule to clarify that the extent and severity of weed invasion would vary by road type. See further discussion under “Roads” in Factor A.

(4)

Comment:

One peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule discusses the short-lived benefits of fire in sage-grouse habitats, including a flush of understory vegetation and forbs. The peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule states that beneficial effects of fire were found by studies in mesic habitats and that, therefore, some benefits may be expected from fire in those habitat types (but this is contradictory to the previous statement). The reviewer stated that effects in Wyoming sagebrush, where most studies have taken place, may be different from those in mountain sagebrush types (such as in Gunnison sage-grouse range).

Our Response:

As presented in this final rule, effects of fire in sagebrush habitat and to sage-grouse are highly variable. A clear positive response of Gunnison or greater sage-grouse to fire has not been demonstrated (Braun 1998, p. 9). The few studies that have suggested fire may be beneficial for greater sage-grouse were primarily conducted in mesic areas used for brood-rearing (Klebenow 1970, p. 399; Pyle and Crawford 1996, p. 323; Gates 1983,

in

Connelly

et al.

2000c, p. 90; Sime 1991,

in

Connelly

et al.

2000a, p. 972). In mesic habitat, small fires may maintain a suitable habitat mosaic by reducing shrub encroachment and encouraging understory, herbaceous growth. However, without available nearby sagebrush cover, the utility of these sites is questionable, especially within the six small Gunnison sage-grouse populations where fire could further degrade the remaining habitat. More recent research related to Gunnison sage-grouse indicated that due to the fragmented nature of remaining sagebrush habitat across the species' range, prescribed fire may be inappropriate if the goal is to improve sagebrush and overall habitat conditions for the species (Baker 2013, p. 8). This topic is discussed further under Factor A in this final rule.

(5)

Comment:

A peer reviewer recommended that our analysis include more discussion on the role of water developments in the proliferation of West Nile virus. The reviewer cited a study by Walker and Naugle (2011), arguing that West Nile outbreaks in small, isolated sage-grouse populations—similar to all except perhaps the Gunnison Basin population of Gunnison sage-grouse—may result in extirpation. Given the potential impact to populations from West Nile virus and the predicted spread of this disease associated with climate change, the reviewer stated that the effect of anthropogenic water sources that harbor mosquitoes should be analyzed.

Our Response:

In this rule, we reevaluated West Nile virus as a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse and included several new citations. We did not conduct a landscape analysis on the precise quantity or distribution of water developments, but instead focused our analysis on the known distribution of West Nile virus across Gunnison sage-grouse range. In this final rule we find that, due to the known and potential presence and distribution of West Nile virus across the majority of Gunnison sage-grouse range, the high risk of mortality and population-level impacts based on the biology of the species, and the immediacy of those potential impacts, West Nile virus is a potential future threat to Gunnison sage-grouse throughout its range. The threat of West Nile virus is currently lower in the high-elevation areas, such as the Gunnison Basin and most of the Piñon Mesa populations, but we expect it to increase in the near term due to increased drought and the predicted effects of climate change. This topic is discussed in detail under Factor C of this rule.

(6)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that limited evidence is provided to establish predation as a substantial threat to Gunnison sage-grouse.

Our Response:

We agree that research and data linking predation and Gunnison sage-grouse abundance and viability are limited. However, available scientific information (primarily for greater sage-grouse) presented in this rule indicates that, particularly in areas of intensive habitat alteration and fragmentation, and in smaller less resilient populations, sage-grouse productivity and, potentially, population persistence could be negatively affected by predation. Because the Gunnison and greater sage-grouse have similar behavior and life-history traits, it is reasonable to assume that predator impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse are similar to those observed in greater sage-grouse. The best available information indicates that predation is having an impact on Gunnison sage-grouse, particularly in the satellite populations, where there is some evidence that predation is affecting chick and juvenile survival, especially in smaller populations. Based on the greater sage-grouse data and the limited data available for Gunnison sage-grouse, we conclude that predation is a threat. While predation likely acts as a threat in localized areas across the range of the species, the stability of the Gunnison Basin population over the last 19 years indicates that predation is not having a significant impact on that population.

We believe, however, that the effects of predation are more pronounced in the satellite populations. Given the stability of the Gunnison Basin population, we do not believe that the magnitude of this threat is significant at the rangewide level. This topic is discussed in detail in Factor C of the rule.

(7)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule's analysis on non-renewable energy development is lacking.

Our Response:

This final rule includes a revised and expanded evaluation of mineral and energy development (Factor A).

(8)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that there are no data to support the conclusion that habitat conditions with respect to grazing are better on public lands than private lands, due in part to land health standards and more regulation.

Our Response:

We agree and have revised our statement in the final rule to more accurately reflect that in our analysis of grazing under Factor A.

(9)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule states, with respect to fences, that “we anticipate that the effect on sage-grouse populations through the creation of new raptor perches and predator corridors into sagebrush habitats is similar to that of powerlines.” The reviewer did not think this assumption was correct. The commenter noted that differences in height between a fence post and a utility pole would theoretically result in different spatial scales of functional habitat loss due to differences in the distance from the perch a predator could see while perched.

Our Response:

The final rule has been revised to state that fence posts create perching places for raptors and corvids, which may increase their ability to prey on sage-grouse (Braun 1998, p. 145; Oyler-McCance

et al.

2001, p. 330; Connelly

et al.

2004, p. 13-12). This topic is discussed in detail in Factor A of this rule.

(10)

Comment:

A peer reviewer suggested that we review a recent article by Blomberg

et al.

2012, related to climate change and invasive plants. This article suggests that characteristics of climate and landscape disturbance influence the dynamics of greater sage-grouse populations.

Our Response:

We reviewed this article and cited it in Factor A (Invasive Plants) and Factor E (Drought and Extreme Weather) of this rule.

(11)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that the Utah population of Gunnison sage-grouse was at its highest in the 1970s and 1980s (San Juan County Working Group (SJCWG) 2000, Lupis 2005, Prather 2010). During this period, the peer reviewer stated, the primary agricultural crops in the county were winter wheat (

Triticum

spp.) and dryland alfalfa (

Medicago

spp.). Many growers did not use herbicides or insecticides at this time because of the slim profit margin in growing these crops. The peer reviewer suggested that these practices may have resulted in a greater arthropod abundance as a result of increased green vegetation and forb availability, providing more food resources for Gunnison sage-grouse. The reviewer also reported that during this period landowners frequently reported observing flocks of sage-grouse in their fields during harvest and post-harvest periods.

Our Response:

While sage-grouse may forage on agricultural croplands (Commons 1997, pp. 28-35), when possible, they tend to avoid landscapes dominated by agriculture (Aldridge

et al.

2008, p. 991). Influences resulting from agricultural activities extend into adjoining sagebrush, and include increased predation and reduced nest success due to predators associated with agriculture (Connelly

et al.

2004, p. 7-23). Agricultural lands provide some benefits for sage-grouse as some crops such as alfalfa (

Medicago sativa

), winter wheat (

Triticum aestivum

), and pinto bean sprouts (

Phaseolus

spp.) are eaten or used seasonally for cover by Gunnison sage-grouse (Braun 1998, pers. comm., Lupis

et al.

2006, entire). Agricultural fields and their management may provide a surplus of arthropods and forbs for Gunnison sage-grouse, and for hens with broods, in particular. Despite these seasonal benefits, crop monocultures do not provide adequate year-round food or sagebrush cover (GSRSC 2005, pp. 22-30). This topic is discussed in Factor A of this rule (Conversion to Agriculture).

(12)

Comment:

One peer reviewer felt that the proposed rule neglected to discuss the importance of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands in Utah to Gunnison sage-grouse.

Our Response:

Lands within the occupied range of Gunnison sage-grouse enrolled into the CRP occur within Dolores and San Miguel counties in Colorado, and San Juan County in Utah (USDA FSA 2010, entire). A significant portion of the agricultural lands in the Monticello subpopulation are enrolled in the CRP program, and some CRP lands are sometimes used by Gunnison sage-grouse as early-brood-rearing and summer-late fall habitat when they are part of a landscape that otherwise encompasses the species' seasonal habitats (Lupis

et al.

2006, pp. 959-960; Ward 2007, p. 15). We therefore acknowledge the benefits of CRP lands to Gunnison sage-grouse, as habitat provided under this program is generally more beneficial to the species than lands under more intensive agricultural uses such as crop production. However, CRP lands are generally lacking in the sagebrush and shrub components typically critical to the survival and reproduction of Gunnison sage-grouse and vary greatly in plant diversity and forb abundance (Lupis

et al.

2006, pp. 959-960; Prather 2010, p. 32). As such, these CRP lands are generally of lower value or quality than native sagebrush habitats. This topic is discussed further in Factor A (Conversion to Agriculture).

(13)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that adult survival and nesting success in San Juan County was higher (Lupis 2005, Ward 2007) than that reported for other populations (Young 1994, Commons 1997, Apa 2004). The reviewer hypothesized that this difference may be due to the effort in San Juan County to reduce mammalian and corvid depredation (Lupis 2005, Ward 2007).

Our Response:

While we acknowledge that predator control may be effective under certain circumstances, the cited studies did not evaluate the effect of predator control, nor was that their objective. They only speculated regarding the potential positive effects of predator control on the Monticello (San Juan County) population of Gunnison sage-grouse. This topic is discussed further in Factor C (Predation) of this rule.

(14)

Comment:

A peer reviewer reported that the Gunnison sage-grouse population in San Juan County may be stable or increasing based on increases in brood sizes and hatch success between 1974 and 2005 (UDWR 1974; Lupis 2005). This reviewer noted that this hypothesis was not supported by lek count indices, which indicated that the population was declining.

Our Response:

Lek count data from 1996 through 2014 indicate a decline in the Monticello-Dove Creek population (located in the adjacent counties of San Juan, UT, and Dolores, CO, respectively) collectively and in both of these populations individually. Further, current population estimates are well below the Rangewide Conservation Plan (RCP) population target of 250 birds for each population alone (CPW 2013, p. 12). Sample size for the aforementioned study was limited to three nests, and predator control at the time may have contributed to relatively high nesting success (Lupis 2005, entire); the inference to be drawn from the study is, therefore, limited. The best available

scientific information indicates that the Monticello-Dove Creek population is neither stable nor secure. This topic is discussed further in this rule in the Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends section below; and in Factor E (Small Population Size and Structure).

(15)

Comment:

A peer reviewer provided data and information from pertinent studies conducted in Utah and Colorado that the reviewer thought could improve our analysis.

Our Response:

We reviewed the provided study information and literature and found that most had already been considered in our proposed rule. In this final rule, we included all new studies, data, and information relevant to our evaluation.

(16)

Comment:

A peer reviewer thought that the proposed rule was missing a description and summary of the two decades of conservation actions completed by local communities, landowners, public and private agencies, and organizations in Utah and Colorado to conserve the species. The reviewer indicated that stakeholders in both States dedicated significant resources to conservation of the species that have abated numerous threats. The peer reviewer recommended expanding discussion of the efforts of the local working groups, the State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and counties, as well as Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs, including the Sage-grouse Initiative Program.

Our Response:

We recognize the contributions made by multiple partners including private citizens, nongovernmental organizations, and Tribal, State, and Federal agencies that are actively engaged in conservation efforts across the range of Gunnison sage-grouse. Numerous conservation actions have been implemented for Gunnison sage-grouse, and these efforts have provided and will continue to provide conservation benefit to the species. The CCAA, Gunnison Basin CCA, conservation plans, habitat improvement projects, and similar conservation efforts that address habitat-related issues are described and evaluated under Factor A (see Conservation Programs and Efforts Related to Habitat Conservation) in this rule. Laws and regulations, conservation easements, and other regulatory mechanisms are evaluated under Factor D. Scientific research activities are described under Factor B and throughout this rule where applicable. Also, throughout this rule, conservation efforts are described under the relevant factor section.

(17)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that the proposed rule provides information regarding the estimated historical occupied Gunnison sage-grouse habitats, based largely on estimates of potential habitats. As such, these figures may overestimate the historical range of the species. The commenter noted that it is logical to assume that, if a species' habitat declines, so will the population. However, the peer reviewer could not find any data to support the idea that populations have declined over time.

Our Response:

Our listing decision is based on the current status of Gunnison sage-grouse and the current and future threats to the species and its habitat. However, the loss of historical range and decline in abundance, and the associated causes, are informative in that they can be used to help forecast how populations and the species may respond to current and future threats.

The onset of Euro-American settlement in the 1800s resulted in significant alterations to sagebrush ecosystems throughout North America, primarily as a result of urbanization, agricultural conversion, and irrigation projects (West and Young 2000, pp. 263-265; Miller

et al.

2011, p. 147). Areas in Colorado that supported basin big sagebrush were among the first sagebrush community types converted to agriculture because their typical soils and topography are well suited for agriculture (Rogers 1964, p. 13). Decreases in the abundance of sage-grouse paralleled the loss of range (Braun 1998, pp. 2-3), and a gradual but obvious decrease in sage-grouse distribution and numbers in Colorado had begun around 1910 (Rogers 1964, pp. 20-22).

The best available information indicates a reduction of Gunnison sage-grouse distribution since Euro-American settlement in the 1800s, with evidence of the loss of peripheral populations (Schroeder

et al.

2004, p. 371, and references therein) and a northward and eastward trend of extirpation (Schroeder

et al.

2004, p. 369, and references therein), meaning western and southern extents of the species' former range are now lost. Based on historical records, museum specimens, and potential sagebrush habitat distribution, the potential historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse was estimated to have been 21,376 square miles, or 13,680,590 ac (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32-35, as adapted from Schroeder

et al.

2004, entire). This range included parts of central and southwestern Colorado, southeastern Utah, northwestern New Mexico, and northeastern Arizona (Schroeder

et al.

2004, pp. 368, 370).

Braun

et al.

(2014, entire) provides more detail on historical distribution in Colorado that largely matches Schroeder

et al.

(2004). Not all of this historical range would have been occupied at any one time. The species' estimated current range is 1,822 square miles, or 1,166,075 ac, in central and southwestern Colorado, and southeastern Utah (Figure 1) (GSRSC 2005, pp. 32-35, as adapted from Schroeder

et al.

2004, entire). Based on these figures, the species' current range represents about 8.5 percent of its historical range (GSRSC 2005, p. 32). Similarly, Schroeder

et al.

(2004, p. 371) estimated the species' current overall range to be 10 percent of potential presettlement habitat (prior to European settlement in the 1800s). As estimated in our final rule to designate critical habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse (published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

), the species' “overall range” includes an estimated 1,621,008 ac in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah, comprising 923,314 ac (57 percent) of occupied habitat and 697,694 ac (43 percent) of unoccupied habitat. Based on these figures, the current overall range of 1,621,008 acres represents approximately 12 percent of the potential historical range of 13,680,640 ac. The estimates above indicate that approximately 88 to 93 percent of the historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse has been lost. This topic is discussed further under our introduction to Factor A.

(18)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that Davis (2012) suggested Gunnison sage-grouse populations in the Gunnison Basin declined slightly over the last 16 years, but that Davis concluded the Gunnison Basin population, which may comprise 85-90 percent of the entire population, is relatively stable. Population projection models based on Davis' 6-year study suggested that the Gunnison sage-grouse population in the Gunnison Basin is declining. However, the peer reviewer noted that lek count data extended farther back in time than the demographic estimates and showed that this population exhibited a considerable increase, so the peer reviewer indicated that inference from this study is limited.

Our Response:

Based on an integrated analysis of 16 years of lek count and demographic data (1996-2011), Davis found that the Gunnison Basin population may have been declining slightly through the period of study (Davis 2012, p. 137). That study indicated that the Gunnison Basin population may not be as stable as previously thought, although the time span of the study may not have been long enough to reveal a broader pattern

in a larger cyclical time series (Davis 2012, p. 38). A more recent manuscript by Davis

et al.

(

in press

) states that the Gunnison Basin population (1996-2012) is “slightly declining” (line 24), and, while the growth rate of this population has been variable, it is “near stable” (line 341). Consider also that the Gunnison Basin population may not be as large as lek count-based estimates suggest, which are based solely on counting males (Davis 2012, p. 136). Davis (2012, pp. 134, 136) found that, in comparison to demographic data, lek count data showed population growth rates that varied wildly and should be interpreted with caution. This is particularly true for the lek data collected prior to 1996, before the lek survey methodology was standardized (Davis 2012, pp. 136-139). Demographic stochastic simulations resulted in a mean extinction time of 58 years for the Gunnison Basin population, without removing any birds for translocation efforts (removal of birds decreased the estimated mean extinction time) (Davis 2012, pp. 111, 137). Davis (2012, p. 92) noted, however, that if the study had been conducted just a few years earlier or later, a different trend across time could have resulted, because it was based on a 6-year period of time when the population was experiencing a slight decline. This study and other population viability analyses are evaluated in detail in Factor E (Small Population Size and Structure) of this rule.

(19)

Comment:

One peer reviewer thought that it is difficult to assess what future conditions hold, be it vegetation responses to climate change or the effects of population growth and development resulting in fragmentation and associated effects on the species of conservation concern. The reviewer thought it is also difficult to evaluate how a species such as Gunnison sage-grouse might respond to projected changes, even 5 or 10 years into the future, let alone 50-100 years. Despite these uncertainties, the peer reviewer considered the short- and long-term viability for six of the seven populations of Gunnison sage-grouse to be tenuous, at best.

Our Response:

We agree with the reviewer that it is difficult to predict what will happen in the future. However, the Act requires us to determine if a species is endangered (in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or threatened (likely to become and endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range). Thus, we are required to make assumptions or predictions into the future based on the best available information.

We agree with the reviewer that the viability of the six smaller (“satellite”) populations is at risk (see Small Population Size and Structure below under Factor E).

(20)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that, while the Gunnison basin population appears to have stabilized more recently within a population cycle, the number of current and future threats makes one question whether this population will remain viable into the future. The reviewer thought existing threats, or levels of threats, appear to already threaten the Gunnison basin population. This reviewer questioned whether the remaining Gunnison basin population will persist, if other smaller populations disappear, which seems likely in the near future without considerable management efforts, given projected future threats. The reviewer also questioned whether the localized nature of a single remaining population in the Gunnison Basin is enough to prevent extirpation of the species, considering potential stochastic events and the likely continued and increasing effects of habitat degradation and fragmentation.

Our Response:

Based on the best available information, we found that survival of the Gunnison Basin population alone would be insufficient to ensure the species' long-term persistence in the face of ongoing and future threats (see Factor E (Small Population Size and Structure)).

(21)

Comment:

One peer reviewer questioned whether the Service had access to the considerable amount of telemetry data collected by Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) in recent years, primarily for birds located in the Gunnison Basin. This reviewer fully supported the use of existing information and models, in lieu of restricted access to other important data. The reviewer thought that the Service had done a realistic job of proceeding with existing information, whether it be from model applications to assist with broader habitat identification across the Gunnison Basin (see Aldridge

et al.

2012), or biological information and responses (i.e., effects of fences on sage-grouse mortality) based on studies conducted on the closely related greater sage-grouse.

Our Response:

We do not have access to the telemetry data collected by CPW. This data has not been published. We do have some telemetry information provided in overview maps and the information was discussed in meetings.

As pointed out in the Species Information section, Gunnison sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse (a similar, closely related species) have similar life histories and habitat requirements (Young 1994, p. 44). In this final rule, we use scientific information specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse where available but also apply scientific management principles and scientific information for greater sage-grouse that are relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse conservation needs and strategies, a practice followed by the wildlife and land management agencies that have responsibility for management of both species and their habitat. We have considered the best available information in our assessment, including data and studies provided by CPW.

(22)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that the effects of powerlines are not all the same, depending on the type of the powerline. The peer reviewer requested that we clarify what types of powerlines we are referring to, and which were evaluated in each of the studies we address.

Our Response:

As described in this rule, depending on the infrastructure design, size, location, and site-specific factors, powerlines can directly affect greater sage-grouse by posing a collision and electrocution hazard (Braun 1998, pp. 145-146; Connelly

et al.

2000a, p. 974) and can have indirect effects by decreasing lek recruitment (Braun

et al.

2002, p. 10, Walker

et al.

2007a, p. 2,644), increasing predation (Connelly

et al.

2004, p. 12-13, Howe

et al.

2014), fragmenting habitat (Braun 1998, p. 146), and facilitating the invasion of exotic annual plants (Knick

et al.

2003, p. 612; Connelly

et al.

2004, p. 7-25). We also specify types of powerlines (transmission or distribution) and their effects on Gunnison sage-grouse as appropriate. This topic is discussed further in Factor A (Powerlines) of this rule.

(23)

Comment:

A peer reviewer commented that the proposed rule reads as though Wisdom

et al.

(2011) tested electromagnetic fields and found sage-grouse avoidance of them. The reviewer indicates that was not the case. Wisdom

et al.

(2011) found a correlation between sage-grouse extirpations and the presence of powerlines. The reviewer suggested this effect may be related to electromagnetic fields. The reviewer cautioned that we ensure here, and throughout, that this supposition is not presented as a finding.

Our Response:

We revised our analysis to explicitly state that no studies have been conducted specifically on the effects of electromagnetic fields on sage-grouse.

This topic is discussed further in Factor A (Powerlines) of this rule.

(24)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that Gregg

et al.

(2004) did not actually test grazing impacts on vegetation causing reduction in nest success. Rather, they found that lower heights of grass cover (below 18 cm) resulted in increased nest predation. The peer reviewer suggested that careful choice of wording may be necessary to accurately reflect what was evaluated and found by a study, versus what was inferred and speculated from the results of the study. The reviewer stated that our proposed rule suggested that Gregg

et al.

(2004) evaluated livestock reduction in grass heights and showed a direct link to reduced nesting success for sage-grouse, which was not the case.

Our Response:

In this final rule, we clarified that, Gregg

et al.

(1994, p. 165) speculated that the reduction of grass heights due to livestock grazing in sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas may negatively affect nesting success when cover is reduced below the 18 cm (7 in.) needed for predator avoidance. This topic is discussed further under Factor A (Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory).

(25)

Comment:

A peer reviewer commented that one could argue that livestock grazing on private lands might be better managed than public lands, because individual landowners may be more cognizant of grazing practices on those lands.

Our Response:

In this final rule, we state that livestock grazing allotments containing both Federal and private lands can often be managed by Federal agencies to meet land health standards through coordination and cooperation with grazing permittees (BLM 2013c, p. 1-2). However, we have no information on the extent of grazing, management, or habitat conditions on private lands in Gunnison sage-grouse range, and therefore cannot make a definitive assessment of these areas. Furthermore, although Federal land and livestock grazing may be more regulated, we cannot make any generalizations about how habitat conditions in those areas might compare with private lands where livestock grazing occurs. This topic is discussed further under Factor A (Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory).

(26)

Comment:

A peer reviewer commented that the table displaying Land Health Standard data on Federal lands in Gunnison sage-grouse range is confusing.

Our Response:

In this final rule, we restructured the table and included additional columns and figures to better show how numbers were calculated (see Table 8 in Factor A (Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory)). The information in the table was also updated based on comments received from Federal agencies during the public comment periods for the proposed rules.

(27)

Comment:

One peer reviewer commented that mortality of handled Gunnison sage-grouse (ranging between zero and seven percent) could be significant. The peer reviewer would prefer to see a summary of the percentages by study and age class of birds handled and a sample size to indicate the potential overall population effect. The reviewer suggested that we link the summary to match with the cited number of research related mortalities being typically below three percent. The rule stated that “Mortality from scientific research is low (two percent) and is not a threat.” These all need appropriate citations, and the differences between these numbers should be reconciled.

Our Response:

In this final rule, we describe why, overall, we expect that scientific research and related conservation efforts, such as translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse, have a net conservation benefit for the species. However, some unintended, but minor negative effects are known to occur in the process. This topic is addressed further in Factor B (Scientific Research and Related Conservation Efforts, see especially Table 11 summarizing various research efforts).

(28)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that in our table of conservation easements, we have cumulated the percentages based on the area in easements out of the total area (rangewide) considered, as opposed to taking the average of the percentages for each population.

Our Response:

In this final rule we updated conservation easement information and acres, based on Lohr and Gray (2013, entire) (see Factor A (Other Regulatory Mechanisms: Conservation Easements)). Therein, we provide conservation easement acres by population and rangewide in occupied and unoccupied habitats. We feel this is a better representation of lands protected under conservation easement for Gunnison sage-grouse; averaging those values across populations would not accurately depict protected acres for the species.

(29)

Comment:

A peer reviewer expressed concern about what the reviewer perceived as the frequent use of speculation and commentaries as empirical evidence. The peer reviewer stated that we speculate about proposed threats (e.g., climate change) that we have no information on how they may, or may not, affect Gunnison sage-grouse. The reviewer stated that we also frequently use vague language (i.e., “may have”, or “is likely to”) and then make definitive statements about Gunnison sage-grouse in support for the proposed listing decision.

Our Response:

As noted above, throughout this rule, we have carefully identified and qualified instances of speculation or hypotheses from past scientific studies and publications. Our identification of current and future threats to Gunnison sage-grouse is based on the best available scientific information, and we acknowledge where there is uncertainty associated with data or predictions. For instance, in this final rule, we discuss that climate change predictions are based on models with assumptions, and there are uncertainties regarding the magnitude of associated climate change parameters such as the amount and timing of precipitation and seasonal temperature changes.

There is also uncertainty as to the magnitude of effects of predicted climate parameters on sagebrush plant community dynamics. These factors make it difficult to predict whether, or to what extent, climate change will affect Gunnison sage-grouse. We recognize that climate change has the potential to alter Gunnison sage-grouse habitat by facilitating an increase in the distribution of cheatgrass and concurrently increasing the potential for wildfires, and reducing herbaceous vegetation and insect production in drought years, all of which would have negative effects on Gunnison sage-grouse.

This topic is discussed further in Factor A (Climate Change) of this rule, and in Factor E (Drought and Extreme Weather).

(30)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that we frequently make generalizations about the decline of Gunnison sage-grouse abundance, such as, “Fragmentation of sagebrush habitats are a primary cause of the decline of Gunnison and greater sage-grouse populations.” However, the reviewer notes, lek counts in the Gunnison Basin population are currently at historic high levels and have increased substantially since the mid-1990s. The reviewer further notes that lek counts from 2005-2007 were the highest counts recorded in the Gunnison Basin population. Since 2007, lek counts in Gunnison Basin have averaged 703 males.

Our Response:

Loss, degradation, and fragmentation of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is discussed in Factor A of this rule. Population trends based on 1996-2014 lek count data show stable to

slightly declining levels from 1996 through 2004, then the high levels mentioned from 2005-2007; followed by lower but stable levels since (see Figure 2). The 2008-2014 population level is higher than levels prior to 2005, but around 20 percent lower than the 2006 peak (CPW 2014e. p.2). Population trends are discussed further in the section, Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends; and Factor E (Small Population Size and Structure) of this rule. Also see our response to State Comment 5 below.

(31)

Comment:

One peer reviewer stated that we had not presented a case that Gunnison sage-grouse are in danger of extirpation in the Gunnison Basin. It is the largest of all Gunnison sage-grouse populations, and three different population viability analyses have all concluded it is relatively stable.

Our Response:

In our proposed rule to list Gunnison sage-grouse as endangered (78 FR 2486; January 11, 2013), we found that the species is in danger of extinction throughout its range, primarily due to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation associated with residential and human development across its range and, in particular, in the Gunnison Basin. In this final rule we determined that the species is not currently in danger of extinction throughout its range, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. As a result, this final rule lists the species as threatened rather than endangered. The basis for this decision is set out in the Determination section below. We also assess the three population viability analyses (PVA) for the Gunnison Basin and other populations in Factor E (Effective Population Size and Population Viability Analyses).

(32)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that we present the PVA from the Rangewide Conservation Plan. However, the reviewer noted that there are two other PVAs we need to address: Garton (2005) and Davis (2012).

Our Response:

All three available PVAs for Gunnison sage-grouse are included in our assessment in this final rule (Factor E, Effective Population Size and Population Viability Analyses). Also see our response to peer review comment 31 above.

(33)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that in referring to the PVA in the Rangewide Conservation Plan, we state that small populations (<50 birds) are “at a serious risk of extinction within the next 50 years (assuming some degree of consistency of environmental influences in sage-grouse demography).” (p. 2531). However, environmental and democratic stochasticity were incorporated into the model (i.e., the model does not assume “consistency of environmental influences”).

Our Response:

The RCP and actual PVA (see GSRSC 2005, pp. 170 and G-27) state that the estimates assumed some degree of consistency of environmental factors over time. This topic is discussed further in Factor E (Small Population Size and Structure).

(34)

Comment:

A peer reviewer commented that we misapply the terms habitat loss, fragmentation, and loss.

Our Response:

In the scientific literature and community there are widely varying interpretations of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation processes, and various methods are applied to measure these processes. Therefore, in this final rule, we collectively refer to these processes as habitat decline, as prefaced in the Factor A section below. However, we do not alter the terminology as applied by peer-reviewed or other studies. For instance, if a particular study evaluated and presented results on habitat

fragmentation,

we did not interpret the study or authors to mean habitat

loss,

instead. This topic is discussed further in our introduction to Factor A in this rule.

(35)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that we argue more than once that while individual human activities or features may not be a significant threat, it is the cumulative impact of all these features that threatens the Gunnison sage-grouse. However, the peer reviewer stated that this reasoning ignores the spatial (and temporal) variation in these potential threats. The reviewer is of the opinion that proposed threats are not uniformly distributed across space and therefore will not uniformly impact Gunnison sage-grouse populations. The reviewer stated that development will only impact a very small proportion of the habitat in Gunnison Basin and will be restricted to zoned areas. The reviewer stated that preliminary analyses indicate that Gunnison sage-grouse are flexible in their movement patterns and the habitats they use (CPW Demography and Movement project, in prep.). The reviewer stated that the cumulative negative impacts are not as likely as we seem to assume.

Our Response:

The historic loss of habitat and current isolation of once connected populations, the declining status of several satellite populations, and presence of current and future threats to habitat all indicate that the cumulative loss or decline of habitat has negatively influenced populations and the species as a whole and is likely to continue to do so into the future. This topic is discussed further in our introduction to Factor A in this rule. Threats to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat are also discussed under Factor A in this rule. We agree that future residential development in occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin is likely to be more limited than we presented in the proposed rule (see Factor A (Residential Development), but nonetheless find, for the reasons stated in Factor A, that this development remains a threat to the species and supports our determination that the species is likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range in the foreseeable future.

(36)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that, related to livestock grazing, Williams and Hild (2011) showed that vegetation conditions in the Gunnison Basin met, or exceeded, the habitat structural guidelines in the Rangewide Conservation Plan. The peer reviewer also stated that we misrepresented the objective of this study in our proposed rule, stating that it was not a grazing study and therefore our criticism is not valid. With 392 transects distributed across Gunnison Basin for this study, the reviewer did not understand our statement that “sampling is limited”(p. 2503).

Our Response:

Because livestock grazing effects were not an objective of the Williams and Hild (2011) study, the extent of past or ongoing livestock grazing in these areas was not described, nor did the study compare un-grazed to grazed areas. The Williams and Hild study found that habitat conditions are likely favorable to Gunnison sage-grouse in a portion of the Gunnison Basin (Williams and Hild 2011, entire), although the relationship to livestock grazing effects in those areas is unknown. In this final rule, we clarify that there is limited ability to make inferences from this study for other areas in the Gunnison Basin, due to limitations of the study. Transect locations for the study were prioritized and selected in areas used by radio-collared Gunnison sage-grouse, potentially biasing study results. Therefore, the relationship between livestock grazing and habitat conditions is unclear in this study, and there is limited ability to infer from its conditions in other portions of the Gunnison Basin not prioritized for sampling. This topic is discussed further in Factor A (Domestic Grazing and Wildlife Herbivory) of this rule.

(37)

Comment:

A peer reviewer stated that our discussion of “presettlement” distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse was highly speculative. The peer reviewer also stated that we assume that

Gunnison sage-grouse distribution closely matches the distribution of sagebrush, and that this assumption is used by some authors (e.g., Schroeder,

et al.

2004, Wisdom

et al.

2011), but is not necessarily true. The peer reviewer stated that the map by Schroeder

et al.

(2004) is not meant to be a definitive description that accurately defines historical distribution, but a generalization based on available information (i.e., the model includes areas that are not habitat and omits other areas that are habitat). The peer reviewer noted that we also state Gunnison sage-grouse distribution depends on large areas of contiguous sagebrush. The peer reviewer also noted that this assumption does not seem to be well supported since Gunnison sage-grouse have existed in small, isolated populations for decades (Rogers 1964).

Our Response:

Related to potential historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse, and the estimated loss of historical range, see our response to Peer Reviewer Comment 17 above. Related to our position that the species depends on sagebrush on a landscape scale for its survival, the best available science supports this, and it is an empirical principle widely accepted by sage-grouse biologists and the scientific community. As discussed in this rule, Gunnison sage-grouse depend on sagebrush for their survival and persistence, and the historical and current distribution of the Gunnison sage-grouse closely matches that of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 9; Braun 1987, p. 1; Schroeder

et al.

2004, p. 364, and references therein). Habitat fragmentation resulting from human development patterns is especially detrimental to Gunnison sage-grouse because of their dependence on large expanses of sagebrush (Patterson 1952, p. 48; Connelly

et al.

2004, p. 4-1; Connelly

et al.

2011a, p. 72) and more contiguous sagebrush habitats (Rogers 1964, p. 19; Wisdom

et al.

2011, pp. 452-453). The overall declining status of several of the satellite populations (despite translocation/augmentation efforts) does not support the idea that the species is capable of persisting at low levels or in isolated conditions. Refer to Factor E in this rule for more discussion on this topic.

(38)

Comment:

A peer reviewer noted that we describe the genetic work by Oyler-McCance

et al.

(1999, 2005) that illustrates the lower genetic diversity of Gunnison sage-grouse compared to greater sage-grouse, and the lower genetic diversity of the small Gunnison sage-grouse populations compared to the Gunnison Basin population. The peer reviewer asserted that lower genetic diversity may have important consequences, but it is unlikely to have an effect anytime in the near future and that it must be demonstrated that low genetic diversity has negative consequences on individuals and populations.

The peer reviewer stated that it is inappropriate to suggest that there is a specific population size that is necessary for long-term population survival from a genetic perspective (i.e., that there should be 500-5,000 Gunnison sage-grouse in a population for it to be viable). The peer reviewer commented that the genetic viability of a population depends on the effective population size, the type of genetic variation in the population, and type of selection acting on the population. The peer reviewer noted it is possible that animals can rapidly adapt to inbreeding by the selective elimination of the genes responsible for inbreeding depression and although highly speculative, this may be operating in the small, isolated Gunnison sage-grouse populations. So, the peer reviewer suggested that to argue that inbreeding depression due to low genetic diversity is a basis for listing the species as endangered is not warranted without empirical data focused on this specific question.

Our Response:

In this final rule, we have determined that listing the species as threatened, not endangered, is the appropriate determination. We describe the potential negative consequences of genetic deterioration associated with small population size and geographic isolation under Factor E (Genetic Risks)). We also discuss this topic and other relevant information further under Factor E (Small Population Size and Structure) in this rule.

Comments From States

(1)

Comment:

The Arizona Game and Fish Department noted that there are no records of Gunnison sage-grouse ever existing in Arizona, and estimates of historical range in northeastern Arizona are based on pre-settlement occurrence of sagebrush (

Artemisia

spp.), which has largely been extirpated. Consequently, no viable habitat remains for the Gunnison sage-grouse in Arizona. Any future restoration efforts should focus on the remaining core distributions in Colorado and Utah.

Our Response:

Identification of potential pre-settlement Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in Arizona was based on both historical sagebrush distribution and a 1937 observation of sage-grouse in the northeastern corner of that state (Schroeder

et al.

2004, pp. 368-369, and references therein). Restoration or reintroduction of Gunnison sage-grouse in Arizona is not being proposed.

(2)

Comment:

The Colorado Office of the Governor noted that letters had been sent from Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA), and recommended that the Gunnison sage-grouse should be determined not warranted for listing.

Our Response:

The Colorado Office of the Governor referenced CPW and CDA letters in support of a not warranted determination for Gunnison sage-grouse, but provided no other information or data to support their position. We acknowledge receipt of letters from CPW and CDA. Their comments will be addressed in further detail in this section. Our listing determination for the Gunnison sage-grouse is explained in this final rule.

(3)

Comment:

CPW recommended the following hierarchy in the evaluation of biology and threats.

a. Use of only Gunnison sage-grouse data when it exists.

b. If Gunnison sage-grouse data does not exist, use greater sage-grouse data closest to Gunnison sage-grouse range in Colorado or Utah.

c. If greater sage-grouse data from adjacent populations does not exist, then proceed with the appropriate cautions and limited inference to available information within the range of greater sage-grouse.

Another State commenter suggested that references to greater sage-grouse be omitted altogether.

Our Response:

We generally used the above approach recommended by CPW, although we did not distinguish between greater sage-grouse data from populations closest to Gunnison sage-grouse's range. We did not explicitly state that in the proposed rule--we stated that the “best available scientific and commercial data” were used. We also noted that we used information specific to the Gunnison sage-grouse where available but still applied scientific management principles for greater sage-grouse that we determined were relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse management needs and strategies. We followed the same approach in this final rule.

(4)

Comment:

CPW and CDA stated that lek counts in the San Miguel, Crawford, and Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa populations have increased in recent years, in contrast to the statement in the listing proposal that population trends over the last 12 years indicate that six of the populations are in decline.

Our Response:

We used the same CPW lek survey data that these comments refer to in our assessment of

population trends from 2001 through 2012. Our conclusion was that the six smaller populations had stable to declining numbers from the first half of the survey period (2001-2006) to the second half of the survey period (2007-2012). We agree that the three previously mentioned populations have increased in the past 2-3 years, along with Piñon Mesa, as indicated in Figure 3 in the proposed listing rule (78 FR 2492, January 11, 2013). However, these populations are not at higher levels than in 2001-2006. It should also be noted that these declining trends in the smaller populations have occurred despite translocation efforts (see Scientific Research and Related Conservation Efforts). Without these translocations, bird numbers likely would be lower for these populations. Furthermore, in this final listing rule, we analyzed population estimates over a longer period, based on lek count data from 1996-2014 (lek count protocols were standardized in 1996 by CPW). Similar to our previous analysis, the long-term data indicate that, despite slight increases in the past several years, the satellite populations have declined overall, with the possible exception of the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population, which appears to be stable or increasing, and Piñon Mesa, with its highest count since standardized lek counts began in 1996. This topic is discussed further in the Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends section of this rule.

(5)

Comment:

CPW stated that the listing proposal does not acknowledge that male counts from recent lek surveys are at historic high levels in the Gunnison Basin, and notes that prior to 1996, surveys lacked a standard protocol and may have had an inconsistent counting effort.

Our Response:

The proposed listing rule stated that the Gunnison Basin population, while variable, has been relatively stable over the past 13 years. As the commenter noted, survey data was not standardized until 1996, making comparisons between current populations and populations prior to 1996 difficult. If data from 1953-2014 are considered, the highest lek count occurred in 2006, as shown in Figure 2 in this final listing rule. However, apparent increases in population size based on lek count data may be the result of increased survey effort in recent years. Davis (2012, p. 139) noted a sharp increase in lek areas counted in 1996, when the protocol for lek counts was standardized in the Gunnison Basin. Therefore, the variation in the lek counts may reflect a change in survey effort and not a change in population size. (Also see Davis 2012, p. 143, Figure 5.1, which displays the increase in lek areas counted beginning around 1996.) Additionally, Davis (2012, pp. 137-138) and Davis

et al.

(in press) indicate that the Gunnison Basin population, although relatively stable, has declined slightly in recent years, following earlier increases. These topics are discussed further in the following sections of this rule: Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends; and Small Population Size and Structure.

(6)

Comment:

CPW stated that both the PVA described in the RCP (GSRSC 2005) and the Garton (2005) PVA should be referenced and considered in the final rule. Another commenter stated that the Garton (2005) PVA overestimated the species' long-term viability.

Our Response:

We describe and evaluate the RCP and Garton PVAs, as well as that of Davis (2012), in this final rule (see Factor E).

(7)

Comment:

CPW noted that the proposed rule to list the species cites the RCP PVA regarding the risk of extinction for small populations less than 50 birds, but does not explain why several small populations have persisted at low numbers for decades.

Our Response:

The Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population has had an estimated population of less than 50 birds for 14 of the past 16 years. The Poncha Pass population has remained at less than 50 birds from 1999-2014, and lek surveys found no birds in 2013. Poncha Pass is nearing extirpation, and the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population may also be at risk--with five small leks known in the Cerro Summit-Cimarron subpopulations and only one lek, which is inactive, in the Sims Mesa subpopulation. The four remaining satellite populations generally have population estimates of more than 50 birds, but less than 500 birds. These four populations would be expected to persist for a longer period of time than the two smallest populations, but are not secure from the threats described in this final rule below. Additionally, as noted in our response to State comment 4, several smaller populations have been augmented with birds from the Gunnison Basin population. Without these translocations, the numbers would have likely been lower for these populations.

As presented in this final rule, based on 1996-2014 lek count data, a number of the satellite populations are declining. Several population viability analyses indicate a high extinction risk for all of the satellite populations (see response to Peer Review comment 31 above). Our assessment of the current and future threats to these populations indicates that these trends are likely to continue if the threats are not addressed. The best available information indicates a reduction of Gunnison sage-grouse distribution since Euro-American settlement in the 1800s, with evidence of the loss of peripheral populations and a northward and eastward trend of extirpation (Schroeder

et al.

2004, pp. 369, 371, and references therein). These downward trends and historical losses further indicate the high vulnerability of the satellite populations to extirpation. These topics are discussed further in the following sections of this rule: Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends; and Small Population Size and Structure.

(8)

Comment:

CPW stated that an updated refinement of historical habitat estimated by Schroeder

et al.

(2004) is critical to an accurate assessment of changes in distribution, since they believe this study likely overestimates the historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse.

Our Response:

Historical range estimates from Schroeder

et al.

(2004, pp. 370-371) were modified by the RCP (GSRSC 2005, pp. 34-35) based on more complete information on historical and current habitat and distribution of the species. We are not aware of any further refinements to estimates of historical range. Information from Braun

et al.

(2014) matches information presented by Schroeder

et al.

(2004) and does not add or detract from changes & additions to historical range presented in the RCP (GSRSC 2005, p. 33-35). Consequently, the RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) provides the best available information concerning the likely historical range of the species. That information indicates that the Gunnison sage-grouse currently occupies about 8.5 percent of its potential historical range. Further analysis in this final rule indicates that approximately 88 to 93 percent of the historical range of Gunnison sage-grouse has been lost since Euro-American settlement. While there is some uncertainty in all of these figures, the best available information indicates there has been a considerable loss of habitat and a reduction in the range and distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse. Our listing decision is based on the current status of Gunnison sage-grouse and the current and future threats to the species and its habitat. However, the loss of historical range and decline in Gunnison sage-grouse abundance, and their causes, have contributed to the species' current status. This topic is

discussed further in our introduction to Factor A of this rule.

(9)

Comment:

CPW noted a discrepancy between current occupied range estimates of 4,720 square kilometers (km

2

) in our 2006 decision and 3,795 km

2

in the 2013 proposed rule to list the species, which results in a loss of 925 km

2

of currently occupied range.

Our Response:

Both estimates cite GSRSC (2005). However, the 2006 final listing determination used an initial estimate based on Schroeder

et al.

(2004). The 2013 estimate is a refined estimate based on the GSRSC and CPW data.

(10)

Comment:

CPW recommended that we rely primarily on Rogers (1964) to determine historic distribution of the Gunnison sage-grouse, and noted three citations of Rogers (1964) in the proposed rule to list the species that should more precisely quote the author. Another commenter stated that historic distribution estimates by Rogers (1964) are inferior to Schroeder

et al.

(2004).

Our Response:

Rogers (1964) was written prior to the identification of Gunnison sage-grouse as a separate species, and summarized overall sage-grouse distribution in Colorado (including greater sage-grouse) based on both qualitative and quantitative data and reports from various sources. This study is informative in that it provides a broad picture of the species' status, distribution, and trends in Colorado over time, among other data and information. As such, Rogers (1964) is considered and cited in this final rule. However, the study did not conduct a spatial analysis of the species' potential historic range or the loss of habitat over time, as was done by Schroeder

et al.

(2004, entire). Consequently, we concluded it is appropriate to consider and evaluate this more recent, quantitative study specific to Gunnison sage-grouse (Schroeder

et al.

2004, entire), as modified by GSRSC (2005, pp. 34-35). We verified information derived from Rogers (1964, entire) and provided more precise citations in this final rule.

(11)

Comment:

CPW noted that the Wisdom

et al.

(2011) standard for identifying a population stronghold could likely never have been met in the range of Gunnison sage-grouse, even historically, due to the high elevation basins and naturally fragmented nature of sagebrush communities in Colorado.

Our Response:

We agree that the distribution of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is naturally disconnected due to the presence of unsuitable habitats such as forests, deserts, and canyons across the landscape (Rogers 1964, p. 19). This is evident in Figure 18.1 of Wisdom

et al.

(2011). The authors combined the occupied and extirpated ranges of both greater sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse for their “stronghold” analysis. Given the much larger range of greater sage-grouse, with typically larger patches of contiguous sagebrush habitat, conclusions from the analysis are likely more applicable to greater sage-grouse. Therefore, in this final rule, we discuss Wisdom

et al.

(2011, entire) and its conclusions, but do not further use the term “stronghold” because the term, based on the scale of analysis, was more applicable to greater sage-grouse. This topic and study is discussed further in our introduction to Factor A in this rule, and throughout the rule where applicable.

(12)

Comment:

CPW and others stated that the proposed rule used the rate of residential development associated with the entirety of Gunnison County, including the Crested Butte area, and is not representative of development rates in Gunnison sage-grouse habitats. Other commenters also noted that human population growth rates have slowed in recent years leading to slower rates of development. Lastly, commenters recommended that a single source of human population growth (such as Colorado Department of Local Affairs) be used. Other commenters suggested that the human population is increasing.

Our Response:

Our estimates regarding human population growth in the Gunnison Basin in the proposed rule to list the species were largely based on Colorado Water Conservation Board studies that included all of Gunnison County, including areas not occupied by Gunnison sage-grouse, and were derived before the economic downturn (78 FR 2495, January 11, 2013). We recognize that a large portion of projected human population growth for Gunnison County is expected to occur outside of Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat, such as in the Crested Butte area and within the City of Gunnison. For this final rule, we apply current data from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to our analysis of human population growth and project residential development in Gunnison and other counties across the Gunnison sage-grouse range. For each sage-grouse population area, we consider total private lands available for development as a proportion of total occupied habitat, accounting for perpetual conservation easements that would preclude or limit such development. This analysis indicates that human populations are expected to continue increasing across the species' range, but that residential development is a threat of a low magnitude in the Gunnison Basin now, but is expected to increase in the future. Residential development is a substantial current and future threat to the San Miguel, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa, and Poncha Pass populations. This topic is discussed further in the Factor A, Residential Development section of this final rule.

(13)

Comment:

CPW disagreed with the conclusion in the proposed rule that roads are a “major threat” to the continued existence of Gunnison sage-grouse and stated that the proposed rule used speculation from Oyler-McCance

et al.

(2001) that overstated the threat from roads and powerlines.

Our Response:

In its discussion of roads, the proposed rule stated that “Roads within Gunnison sage-grouse habitats have been shown to impede movement of local populations between the resultant patches, with road avoidance presumably being a behavioral means to limit exposure to predation (Oyler-McCance

et al.

2001, p. 330).” The proposed rule then gave several examples, with additional citations, of impacts due to roads including: increased disturbance, corridors for predators, invasion of exotic plants, and resultant avoidance by sage-grouse. The proposed rule does not cite Oyler-McCance

et al.

(2001) in its discussion of powerlines. In this final rule, we describe impacts from roads and conclude that increased road use and construction will continue at least through 2050, and is a current and future threat to the species (see Factor A).

(14)

Comment:

CPW and one other commenter questioned the use of Aldridge

et al.

(2012) regarding nest site selection and urged caution in applying results across the entire Gunnison Basin, particularly the firm conclusion that habitat within 2.5 km (1.6 miles (mi)) of roads and residential developments is unsuitable for the species. CPW also presented data from a GIS analysis that it conducted.

Our Response:

In the proposed rule to list the species, we did not use 2.5 km (1.6 mi) in any recommendations regarding thresholds for nest selection; although we did cite papers by Aldridge

et al.

(2008 and 2011). We agree that some recommendations from the modeling effort completed by Aldridge

et al.

(2012) are based on confusing probabilities regarding selection of nest sites, in particular, the relationship between relative probability of nest occurrence and distance to residential development. Figure 5f in Aldridge

et al.

(2012) indicates that the probability of nest occurrence is greatest when the nest is approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi)

from development. This probability decreases at both shorter and greater distances from development; although one would expect the probability of nest occurrence to continue to increase with increasing distance from residential development. The variable of residential density was more intuitive, with the likelihood of nesting decreasing with increasing residential density. Other variables such as the proportion of sagebrush cover and road density had more influence on nest site selection and were also more intuitive. For example, the probability of nesting decreased abruptly with decreasing sagebrush cover and with increasing road density. In this final rule, we updated our older citation (Aldridge

et al.

2011); we added a citation regarding CPW's preliminary GIS analysis of the frequency of successful and unsuccessful nests at increasing distances from roads (CPW 2013b); and we do not apply spatial zones of influence to evaluate impacts of residential development as is discussed in Factor A.

(15)

Comment:

CPW urged caution in citing Braun (1995), Bui

et al.

(2010), and Aldridge and Boyce (2007) regarding impacts from roads due to the speculative nature of authors' conclusions.

Our Response:

We did not cite Braun (1995) or Bui

et al.

(2010) in discussions of Factor A, including roads, in the proposed rule or in this final rule. Aldridge and Boyce (2007) were cited in discussions of residential development, roads, and nonrenewable energy development. Related to this comment, when citing Aldridge and Boyce (2007), we indicate that this and other studies cited were on greater sage-grouse. However, as discussed in our response to State comment 3 above, due to similar life histories and habitat requirements between these two species, we consider information specific to greater sage-grouse as relevant to Gunnison sage-grouse, a practice followed by the wildlife and land management agencies that have responsibility for both species and their habitats.

(16)

Comment:

CPW and some other commenters questioned the conclusions regarding powerlines and impacts on Gunnison sage-grouse from raptor perches and habitat fragmentation.

Our Response:

The discussion of powerlines in the proposed rule provided numerous citations regarding aspects such as raptor perches, habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive plants. Citations note when the studies were specific to greater sage-grouse. In some instances, the only information is specific to greater sage-grouse, in which case, we regard it as the best available information (see our response to comment 3). We revise our language in this final rule to clarify usage of the terms habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation (see our response to peer review comment 34).

(17)

Comment:

CPW disagreed with the conclusion in the proposed rule to list the species that grazing in combination with climate change and other factors is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse and questioned citations from Gregg

et al.

(1994) and Connelly

et al.

(2000a) regarding optimal grass height. CPW also noted a conflict between critical habitat requirements of grass height of 10-15 cm and aforementioned citations that recommend grass height of 18 cm or more.

Our Response:

In the proposed rule, we concluded that habitat degradation resulting from improper grazing (described in Factor A in the proposed rule), particularly with the interacting factors of invasive weed expansion and climate change, is a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse persistence. The proposed rule also noted that livestock grazing may have positive effects on sage-grouse (78 FR 2501, January 11, 2013). Properly managed livestock grazing is not likely to adversely impact Gunnison sage-grouse. Gregg

et al.

(1994) described a study conducted on greater sage-grouse in Oregon and speculated about potential impacts from livestock grazing. In this final rule, we clarify that “Gregg

et al.

(1994, p. 165) speculated that the reduction of grass heights due to livestock grazing in sage-grouse nesting and brood-rearing areas may negatively affect nesting success when cover is reduced below the 18 cm (7 in.) needed for predator avoidance.” Connelly

et al.

(2000a) was not cited in the grazing discussion in the proposed rule to list, but was cited in the proposed rule to designate critical habitat. Seasonally specific primary constituent elements described in the proposed and final rules to designate critical habitat include a guideline of 10-15 cm (4-6 in) grass height based on recommendations in the RCP (GSRSC 2005, p. H-6). In this final rule, we clarify that recommendations vary for Gunnison sage-grouse habitat requirements and vegetation characteristics. We note that Connelly

et al.

(2000a, p. 977) recommended greater than 18 cm (7 in) grass height for breeding habitats, and that the GSRSC (2005, p. H-6) (the basis of the critical habitat proposal for breeding habitats) recommended a grass height of 10-15 cm (3.9-5.9 in).

(18)

Comment:

CPW noted that the proposed rule to list the species suggests that livestock trample seedlings, and that this constitutes competition. CPW stated that they were unaware of any research that has demonstrated competition between grazers and sage-grouse. One other commenter stated that Connelly

et al.

(2004) does not describe trampling of sagebrush seedlings.

Our Response:

Connelly

et al.

(2004, p. 7-31) states that livestock trample sagebrush, and provides citations; we note in this final rule that Connelly

et al.

(2004) was citing other references. In the proposed rule, we surmised that livestock may compete directly with sage-grouse for rangeland resources by consuming forbs and shrubs. However, as the commenter mentions, this question has not been researched, and our conclusion is therefore inferred rather than proven. In this final rule, we deleted specific references to competition between livestock and sage-grouse. However, we present evidence that indicates consumption of important vegetation by livestock negatively affects sage-grouse that use those resources, such as the reduction of forbs and grasses that may affect chick survival (see Factor A).

(19)

Comment:

CPW disagreed with the conclusion and inference that browsing by big game on mountain shrubs resulted in a negative effect on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.

Our Response:

This final rule includes a discussion of available information regarding impacts of wild ungulate herbivory in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat, including one study (Japuntich

et al.

2010, pp. 7-9) that documented reduced size and vigor of mountain shrubs (not sagebrush), which could reduce accumulations of drifting snow, which might in turn reduce the availability of soil moisture for forbs and grasses. If all of these impacts occurred, nesting and brood-rearing habitat could be affected. In this final rule, we conclude that the effects of livestock grazing are likely being exacerbated by intense browsing of woody species by wild ungulates in portions of the Gunnison Basin and the Crawford area (see Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory).

(20)

Comment:

CPW asserted that the proposed rule relied on speculation by Braun (1998), Oyler-McCance

et al.

(2001), and Stevens (2011) regarding the effects of fences on Gunnison sage-grouse. CPW also provided additional information regarding research it conducted that tracked more than 1,000 radio-marked greater sage-grouse and documented two mortalities from collisions with fences. A follow-up

letter from CPW also noted four mortalities resulting from collisions with utility lines. One other commenter stated that fences fragment habitat.

Our Response:

We cite multiple references in Factor A of this final rule that implicate the potential impacts of fences on Gunnison sage-grouse. Based on the information provided by CPW specific to Gunnison sage-grouse, mortalities from collisions with fences and utility lines are likely minimal, and we have included the information that CPW provided on strike-related mortalities. We conclude that fences may be a contributing factor in the species' decline; however, we have no specific data on the scope of this threat (see Factor A, Fences).

(21)

Comment:

CPW stated that the Service does not know what the final measures in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Resource Management Plans (RMPs) will be concerning travel management, and that the Service overstates the threat of roads. Consequently, CPW states that our conclusion that the revised RMPs are inadequate to address that threat of roads outlined by Aldridge

et al.

(2012) was premature.

Our Response:

We use the best available information to reach our conclusion in this final rule that roads are a threat to Gunnison sage-grouse (see Factor A, Roads). The BLM is in the process of amending its RMPs and we do not know how road issues will be addressed in the amended plans. Under the Act, we are required to assess the adequacy of RMPs with respect to relevant threats based on the RMPs as they exist at the time of this listing decision. Thus, while we conclude that road impacts can be reduced by regulatory mechanisms, the existing mechanisms are currently not fully addressing the threat. We recognize the complexity of threats to Gunnison sage-grouse and the limited capacity of regulatory mechanisms to address some of those threats. For example, impacts caused by disease, small population size, or climate change are not easily addressed by regulatory mechanisms. However, other impacts such as current and future roads, hunting, grazing, or development can often be addressed with adequate regulatory mechanisms

(22)

Comment:

CPW stated that the discussion regarding vegetative structure guidelines incorporated into management plans and permit renewals is confusing.

Our Response:

We clarify discussions regarding vegetative structure guidelines in this final rule (see Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory).

(23)

Comment:

CPW asserted that the Service did not acknowledge that Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is highly variable rather than continuous across the landscape.

Our Response:

We acknowledge that Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is highly variable across the landscape, and we do not consider it to be continuous currently or historically. We included a discussion of the naturally disconnected nature of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in this final rule (see Factor A).

(24)

Comment:

CPW and several other commenters suggested that the Service evaluate structural habitat guidelines recommended in the RCP with data reported by the BLM and Williams and Hild (2011).

Our Response:

The final rule includes conclusions from vegetation monitoring efforts in the Gunnison Basin conducted by Williams and Hild in 2010 and 2011. This topic is discussed further in the Domestic Grazing and Wildlife Herbivory section in Factor A of this final rule.

(25)

Comment:

CPW presented new information regarding small populations and inbreeding depression.

Our Response:

We include and consider this information in this final rule. We note that this new information indicates that the San Miguel Basin Gunnison sage-grouse effective population size is below the level at which inbreeding depression has been observed to occur (Stiver

et al.

2008, p. 479), and that the authors postulated that the observed lowered hatching success rate of Gunnison sage-grouse in their study may be caused by inbreeding depression. Finally, we conclude that because the remaining Gunnison sage-grouse satellite populations are smaller than the San Miguel population, they are also likely small enough to induce inbreeding depression, and could be losing adaptive potential (see Factor E).

(26)

Comment:

CPW and two other commenters disagreed with conclusions in the proposed rule regarding minimum and effective population sizes, and the amount of habitat needed to support a viable population.

Our Response:

We do not recommend or adopt a specific number for a minimum viable population size, other than concluding that, based on the best available information, several of the satellite populations are trending toward extirpation. With their low absolute and effective population sizes, the satellite populations are particularly at risk from stochastic environmental and genetic factors (see Factor E, Small Population Size). We address the amount of habitat needed to provide for the conservation of the species in our final critical habitat determination for Gunnison sage-grouse published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

. In this final rule we also reviewed the three available PVAs for Gunnison sage-grouse, which applied various techniques to estimate the viability of populations. Collectively, these studies and population trends from 1996-2014 indicate that one or more of the satellite populations may become extinct within the foreseeable future (see Factor E).

(27)

Comment:

CPW noted that drought can impact nest success, but not adult survival, suggesting that Gunnison sage-grouse can accommodate drought cycles.

Our Response:

We agree that adults are less vulnerable to impacts from drought. Adult survival rates of Gunnison sage-grouse in the Gunnison Basin were not influenced by drought conditions in 2005 (CPW 2013c, p. 9; Davis 2012, p. 55). However, if a drought persists through multiple nesting seasons, recruitment will likely be impacted. This topic is discussed further under the following sections in this final rule: Drought and Extreme Weather, Small Population Size and Structure, and Climate Change.

(28)

Comment:

CPW and CDA noted that at least 79 percent of occupied habitat in the Gunnison Basin is protected from development, including government-owned lands, private lands with Conservation Easements, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances, and/or similar legal agreements that preclude development to the detriment of grouse. Therefore, these agencies asserted, the Gunnison Basin is adequately protected for the conservation of the species.

Our Response:

While the conservation and habitat protection efforts undertaken in the Gunnison Basin are commendable, and help reduce the impact of development on the species and its habitat, these measures vary in their capacity to avoid or minimize impacts such as the effects of habitat decline. Consequently, we were not able to conclude that Gunnison sage-grouse habitat is adequately protected, despite the benefits of the various conservation efforts. Conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms are evaluated in this final rule.

(29)

Comment:

CPW, the Utah Office of the Governor, and several other commenters requested clarification regarding the interpretation and use of the Significant Portion of Range (SPR) policy.

Our Response:

On July 1, 2014, we published a final policy interpreting the phrase “Significant Portion of its Range” (SPR) (79 FR 37578). In

accordance with that policy, the first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range, we list the species as an endangered or threatened species and no SPR analysis is required. In this case, we have determined in this rule that the Gunnison sage-grouse is threatened throughout all of its range, therefore we did not perform an SPR analysis.

(30)

Comment:

CPW, CDA, and the Utah Office of the Governor asserted that speculation in the literature was sometimes portrayed as science.

Our Response:

Under the standards of the Endangered Species Act (Act), we are required to base our determinations of species status on the best available information. Our first choice is information from recent, peer-reviewed publications that is specific to Gunnison sage-grouse. However, sometimes the only available information may be based on studies of greater sage-grouse. Additionally scientific data are sometimes limited, studies are conflicting, or results are uncertain or seemingly inconclusive. Scientific information includes both empirical evidence, and expert knowledge or opinion. In this final rule, we carefully identified and qualified instances of speculation or hypotheses from past scientific studies and publications.

(31)

Comment:

CDA noted that agriculture in Colorado generates $40 billion annually, with cattle anticipated to contribute approximately $3.5 billion to agricultural production in 2013. CDA stated that cattle production would likely be seriously harmed, should the species be listed.

Our Response:

The Act does not allow us to consider economic impacts in decisions on whether to list a species, which must be made solely on the basis of scientific and commercial information related to the 5 factors in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Economic impacts may be considered in the designation of critical habitat, and are discussed in our final critical habitat rule. Our final critical habitat determination for Gunnison sage-grouse is published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

.

(32)

Comment:

The Utah Office of the Governor noted that the timing on the proposed rule is based solely on the need to meet a court approved settlement date, which did not include participation by the States of Utah or Colorado. Some commenters suggested that more time is needed for public review.

Our Response:

The publication deadline for the proposed rule was set by a court approved settlement agreement; however, the timeline for this final rule was initially set according to the statutory requirements of the Act and has been extended several times by court order. The Act requires that a final listing rule be published within one year of the publication of the proposed rule. As allowed by the Act, however, we extended this statutory deadline by 6 months due to substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of available data relevant to our determination. Invoking this statutory extension postponed the final listing decision from September 30, 2013 to March 31, 2014. We also re-opened the public comment period several times. In addition, due to a government shutdown in October 2013 that caused us to postpone and reschedule public meetings, the court granted our request for an additional 6 weeks beyond the statutory timeline. Finally, the court granted our subsequent request for an additional 6 month extension to allow us to consider the possibility that the species should be listed as threatened rather than endangered, and to consider whether a 4(d) rule would be appropriate. This action extended the deadline for this final rule until November 12, 2014.

(33)

Comment:

The Utah Office of the Governor stated that the Service's 2010 warranted-but-precluded finding and 2013 proposed rule to list Gunnison sage-grouse under the Act differs from the 2006 finding that concluded the species was not warranted for listing, without presentation of any new information that would indicate a different conclusion is justified. Several commenters asserted that the decision to list was due to litigation.

Our Response:

Litigation resulted in a settlement agreement that established a schedule for us to submit a proposed rule to list the species or a finding that listing was not warranted by a date certain. The litigation had nothing to do with the ultimate decision to list, or not. The 2006 not-warranted, the 2010 warranted-but-precluded finding, and the 2013 proposed rule to list the species were based upon the best scientific and commercial information available at that time. The 2006 finding concluded that the rangewide population was stable to slightly increasing (71 FR 19961-19962, April 18, 2006). The 2013 proposed listing rule included information from new studies, 8 additional years of recent survey information (2006-2013), as well as population data from 1996-2000, and concluded that the Gunnison Basin population was relatively stable and the six smaller populations were in decline (78 FR 2488, January 11, 2013). This final rule incorporates additional information received since publication of the proposed rule. The basis for our determination in this final rule is provided in the Determination section of this rule.

(34)

Comment:

The Utah Office of the Governor and one other commenter stated that a Federal listing of the species at this time provides no additional protection or resources from those already in place and that voluntary cooperation of private landowners will be much more effective in improving habitat than protections than what may be afforded by listing and critical habitat designation. The Utah Office of the Governor also noted that a final regulation providing for a listing will cause the State to reassess its conservation efforts for this species, and may result in reallocation of these efforts to other species.

Our Response:

By statute, the Service must list a species if it meets the definition of threatened or endangered. There is no provision in the Act that would allow us to decline to list a species that meets the definition of threatened or endangered if no additional protection would occur. Moreover, the Act would confer additional protection to the Gunnison sage-grouse that could help arrest and reverse its decline. Once listing of the Gunnison sage-grouse becomes effective, actions authorized, funded or carried out by Federal agencies that may affect the species will require section 7 consultations under the Act in all areas occupied by the species. Section 9 prohibitions against “take” will further protect the species from human-caused mortality due to both direct effects and indirect effects such as continued habitat decline and harassment. We recognize that the voluntary cooperation of private landowners has improved conservation of the species in many areas. However, declining population trends indicate that these efforts have not been able to stabilize rangewide conditions (habitat and populations) for the species. We maintain that the best chance for conservation and ultimately recovery of the species will require both the protections afforded by listing and critical habitat designation as well as voluntary conservation measures undertaken by private landowners, with support from the States in accomplishing these measures.

(35)

Comment:

The Utah Office of the Governor described efforts of the San

Juan Local Working Group, by Federal and State agencies, private landowners, and universities to address concerns regarding declining numbers of Gunnison sage-grouse. Similarly, Colorado's Office of the Governor identified dozens of conservation efforts that have been carried out in Colorado that they believe address Gunnison sage-grouse.

Our Response:

We acknowledge and commend conservation efforts undertaken in Utah and recognize their importance in a county where more than 90 percent of occupied habitat is on private lands. We also commend the conservation efforts undertaken in Colorado by CPW, local jurisdictions and other entities. This final rule describes many of the conservation measures, including local, State, and Federal laws and regulations, conservation easements, the Gunnison Basin CCA, and enrollment in the Colorado CCAA, that have been undertaken to improve or protect Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We have carefully considered the projects and programs noted by Colorado and Utah in the development of this final rule.

(36)

Comment:

The Utah Office of the Governor described Gunnison sage-grouse population trends in Utah and stated that reliance on current population figures would be an arbitrary and capricious application of facts because adequate time has not been allowed to determine if numbers will return to stable levels following the severe winter in 2010. In contrast, CPW stated that severe winters are not a threat to the species.

Our Response:

We recognize that there is annual variability in population numbers for the Gunnison sage-grouse. Consequently, we place more emphasis on longer-term population trends over a number of years than on population estimates from any given year. Our analysis considers Gunnison sage-grouse population trends from 1996 (when lek count protocols were standardized) through 2013. We do not conclude that severe winters are a threat to the species.

Comments From Federal Agencies

(37)

Comment:

We received multiple comments expressing concerns regarding the long-term viability of the Poncha Pass population, noting that bird movement between Poncha Pass and the Gunnison Basin is not likely. One commenter suggested that Poncha Pass and other small populations may be better managed as satellite populations, rather than individual self-sustaining populations.

Our Response:

We are also concerned about the long-term viability of the Poncha Pass population, particularly in view of the 2013 lek count surveys, which did not detect any birds. CPW translocated 17 additional birds from the Gunnison Basin in the fall of 2013, and 10 more in spring of 2014 (CPW 2014e, p.7). Six males were counted in the Poncha Pass population during the spring 2014 lek count (CPW 2014d, p.2). This population will likely require repeated augmentations to avoid extirpation. This topic is discussed further under the following sections in this final rule: Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends; and Factor E.

(38)

Comment:

One agency noted that although the proposed rule to list the species repeatedly states that the effects from grazing are inconclusive, the final conclusion was that habitat degradation from improperly managed grazing, particularly with the interacting factors of invasive weed expansion and climate change, is a threat to the species. Several commenters recommended that historical grazing practices be differentiated from improved current grazing practices.

Our Response:

The key word in our conclusion in the proposed rule is “improperly.” Livestock grazing that is done in a manner consistent with local ecological conditions, including soil types, precipitation zones, vegetation composition and drought conditions, is not likely to negatively impact Gunnison sage-grouse, and is compatible with the needs and conservation of the species. See discussion under Factor A. The final rule also notes that properly managed livestock grazing may have positive effects on sage-grouse. We also recognize that maintenance of sustainable grazing practices on private rangelands can aid in recovery of the Gunnison sage-grouse by discouraging further conversion of the species' habitat into habitat unsuitable to the species (i.e., due to development).

(39)

Comment:

Several commenters noted that the proposed rule might have overstated the impacts from grazing on Gunnison sage-grouse habitat as indicated by BLM Land Health Assessments (LHA). A comment stated that available data may vary by office, and the LHA is only a snapshot in time; therefore, it cannot indicate trends. Additionally, grazing is only one of many causal factors on land health. The commenter also noted that failure to meet indicators for Land Health Standard 4 (which evaluates ecological indicators for Special Status Species) may be due to population trends rather than existing habitat conditions.

Our Response:

This final rule recognizes the limitations and uncertainties associated with LHA and supporting data. Our conclusion for livestock grazing effects on Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat also acknowledges limitations associated with LHA data (see Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wildlife Herbivory).

(40)

Comment:

One commenter recommended we clarify the impact from different fence types with regard to habitat fragmentation, increased predator activities, and collisions.

Our Response:

This final rule discusses the various factors that influence fence strike risks. We acknowledge that those risks vary depending on fence design, landscape topography, and spatial configuration. In the Factor A discussion of fences, we note that in 10 years of tracking radio-collared sage-grouse in Colorado, CPW has documented only two fence strike mortalities in Gunnison sage-grouse. This information suggests that direct mortality of Gunnison sage-grouse due to fence strikes is low.

(41)

Comment:

We received a comment requesting that the Service recognize that fire and fuels treatment projects managed under very narrow parameters may be a beneficial tool in managing Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. The commenter also noted that impacts from cheatgrass on fire regimes in Colorado do not appear to be the same as in the Great Basin, and suggests that fire has a role to play in rejuvenating unoccupied or marginal habitats by creating “micro-mosaics” that benefit the species during different portions of its life cycle.

Our Response:

The final rule acknowledges that small fires may have beneficial impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse habitat and concludes that fire is currently not a threat to the species. It also concludes that wildfires may become a threat in the future if cheatgrass continues to expand. Recent research indicates that prescribed fire may be inappropriate due to the direct loss and fragmentation of the remaining sagebrush habitat within the species' range, (Baker 2013, p. 8). We include this information and citation in this final rule (see Factor A, Fire).

(42)

Comment:

One commenter expressed concern regarding the potential effects of climate change to the long-term sustainability of Gunnison sage-grouse, particularly in the Dove Creek and Dry Creek areas.

Our Response:

We too are concerned about the potential effects of climate change on Gunnison sage-grouse

rangewide. The final rule concludes that climate change is currently not a threat to the species, but is likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future. Our analysis includes consideration of climate change projections for the western U.S. A climate change vulnerability assessment for the Gunnison Basin described the Gunnison sage-grouse as highly vulnerable to impacts from climate change (TNC

et al.

2011, p. iii). This topic is discussed further under Factor A, Climate Change in this final rule.

(43)

Comment:

The United States Forest Service (USFS) suggested expanding the CCA from Gunnison Basin to other Gunnison sage-grouse populations on Federal lands. One other commenter expressed concern regarding a possible expansion of the CCA to areas outside of the Gunnison Basin.

Our Response:

We agree that the CCA could have benefitted Gunnison sage-grouse in other populations outside of the Gunnison Basin, and provided a means for Federal land agencies to streamline ESA section 7 requirements associated with their programs and activities. Although CCAs cannot be implemented for listed species, adoption of a similar plan that builds on the principles of the CCA is a viable option for the satellite populations in the future. We also note the BLM is now in the process of amending all field office resource management plans within the range of the Gunnison sage-grouse to increase protections for this species. This effort will likely build on what was included in the CCA for BLM-managed lands in the Gunnison Basin.

Comments From the Public

(44)

Comment:

Several commenters asserted that listing the Gunnison sage-grouse will adversely impact the local economy.

Our Response:

The Act does not allow us to consider economic impacts in decisions on whether to list a species, which must be made solely on the basis of scientific and commercial information regarding the 5 factors in Section 4(a)(1) of the Act. However, economic impacts may be considered in the designation of critical habitat. Our final critical habitat determination for Gunnison sage-grouse is published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

. As part of the process of completing the final critical habitat rule, we completed an Economic Analysis that evaluates the potential economic impacts of designating critical habitat on transportation, livestock grazing, mineral and fossil fuel extraction, residential development, recreation, agriculture, and renewable energy (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014). We also completed an environmental assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on the proposed critical habitat designation that evaluated the affected environment, including potential economic impacts to the human environment. These are discussed further in our final critical habitat rule, published elsewhere in today's

Federal Register

.

(45)

Comment:

Several commenters suggested that the Service should work cooperatively with other Federal agencies, State wildlife agencies, farm bureaus, and local governments to partner with landowners on conservation efforts. One commenter asserted that the Service has no on-the-ground experience with Gunnison sage-grouse conservation.

Our Response:

We encourage partnerships between the Service, other agencies, and landowners and have worked cooperatively in such partnership to further Gunnison sage-grouse conservation. In 2005, for example, we participated in development of the RCP (GSRSC 2005). This Plan established management guidelines throughout the range of the species. In 2006, we entered into a CCAA for the Gunnison sage-grouse with Colorado Division of Wildlife (now CPW). We estimate, in of December, 2014 when this rule becomes effective, 40 Certificates of Inclusion (CI) will have been completed for private properties, enrolling 94,391 ac in four Gunnison sage-grouse populations, although only roughly 81,156 ac of these acres fall within suitable Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. We also cooperated with Federal agencies and other stakeholders in the Gunnison Basin to complete a CCA to promote conservation of the species in the Gunnison Basin population on Federal lands. As stated above, our listing decision is based on the best available scientific information. Accordingly, our focus is on well-supported, scientific data and information for the species, generally at a broader scope than is acquired at the local level.

(46)

Comment:

Several commenters expressed differing views on whether livestock grazing in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat should be restricted.

Our Response:

We determined that grazing that is inconsistent with local ecological conditions is a threat to the species, and grazing in general may have inadvertent effects at a local level (Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory).

Although grazing on both public and private lands may affect Gunnison sage-grouse, privately owned lands typically lack a Federal nexus for section 7 consultations under the Act, in which case grazing practices would not be affected by the Act unless they were to result in “take” of Gunnison sage-grouse, as prohibited by section 9 of the Act. However, more than 300 Federal grazing allotments on nearly 405,000 ha (1,000,000 ac) are located within the final critical habitat designation (Industrial Economics, Inc. 2014, p. 3-1). On Federal allotments, through the section 7 consultation process, the managing agency (BLM or USFS) may choose to implement AUM reductions, seasonal restrictions, rotational grazing, or other changes to minimize impacts or avoid jeopardy to the species and any adverse modification to critical habitat. We do not intend to preclude grazing within critical habitat, but may seek grazing modifications where warranted to promote the conservation and recovery of the species. We discuss livestock grazing under Factor A, Domestic Grazing and Wild Ungulate Herbivory in this final rule.

(47)

Comment:

Several commenters expressed differing views on whether energy and mineral development should be further restricted.

Our Response:

The Monticello-Dove Creek and San Miguel Basin populations support numerous mineral and fossil fuel extraction activities. One wind project and one potash mine are under development in the Monticello-Dove Creek population. There are no active uranium mines in Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Oil and gas extraction occurs on both Federal and private lands within the species' range. Mineral and fossil fuel extraction activities on private lands without Federal mineral rights are unlikely to have a Federal nexus for section 7 consultations under the Act. Existing Federal regulations, such as BLM RMPs, and State regulations from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) provide some protection to the species and its habitat. With respect to mineral and energy development projects on Federal lands or that otherwise have a Federal nexus (e.g., the project is authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal agency), we may seek project modifications during ESA section 7 consultations to benefit Gunnison sage-grouse. We consider current energy and mineral development a low threat to the species, as discussed under Factor A, Mineral Development and Renewable Energy Development, in this final rule.

(48)

Comment:

Several commenters expressed differing views regarding the effectiveness of predator control.

Our Response:

Predator removal efforts may sometimes provide short-

term gains in sage-grouse numbers, but predator numbers quickly rebound without continual control efforts (Hagen 2011, p. 99). The impacts of predation on greater sage-grouse can increase where habitat quality has been compromised by anthropogenic activities such as exurban development and road development (Coates 2007, pp. 154-155; Bui 2009, p. 16; Hagen 2011, p. 100). This is discussed further under Factor C, Predation.

(49)

Comment:

Several commenters stated that conservation efforts and recovery should focus on public lands.

Our Response:

Conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse will require collaboration between Federal, State, and local agencies wherever the species occurs. Federal agencies manage 54 percent of currently occupied habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse. Although there is an abundance of public lands within the current range of the Gunnison sage-grouse, Federal lands alone are insufficient to conserve the species. Therefore, conservation and recovery efforts limited to public lands are not sufficient to ensure conservation of the species.

(50)

Comment:

Some commenters support or oppose development of a captive breeding program or translocation of Gunnison sage-grouse. One commenter stated that the State of Colorado does not have the funds necessary to conduct a long-term captive breeding program.

Our Response:

Establishing wild populations from captive-reared gallinaceous birds is very difficult, expensive, and only rarely successful; a captive breeding program in Idaho for greater sage-grouse had only minimal success (GSRSC 2005, p. 181). The CPW started a captive-rearing program in 2009 to study whether techniques can be developed to captively rear and release Gunnison sage-grouse. To date, survival of captive-reared chicks has been low, as we cited in our proposed rule (78 FR 2518, January 11, 2013). Translocation of wild Gunnison sage-grouse from Gunnison Basin to other populations has had some success, although our understanding of translocation contributions is limited. Without these translocations, current numbers would likely be lower for these populations. These topics are discussed further under Scientific Research and Related Conservation Efforts in this final rule.

(51)

Comment:

Some commenters suggested that a Gunnison sage-grouse working group or recovery team should be established.

Our Response:

Local working groups including landowners, interested individuals and groups, local governments, land management agencies, and State wildlife agencies have developed conservation plans for the following Gunnison sage-grouse populations: Gunnison Basin, Crawford, Dove Creek, San Miguel Basin, Monticello, Piñon Mesa, and Poncha Pass. As a result, all populations with the exception of the Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa population have conservation plans. Following the development of these local conservation plans, the RCP (GSRSC 2005, entire) was developed, which included participation by the BLM, CPW, NPS, NRCS, USFS, the Service, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). The RCP was intended to supplement local plans and provide guidance to aid in conservation of the Gunnison sage-grouse. Population targets were recommended for each population. These planning efforts are discussed in further detail in Factor A of this final rule. We also discuss future conservation measures for this species below in this final rule. The Act requires development of a recovery plan in most cases for endangered and threatened species, which often results in establishment of a recovery team.

(52)

Comment:

Some commenters suggested that sagebrush habitat should be preserved and, when necessary, recovered.

Our Response:

Because sage-grouse are obligate users of sagebrush, preserving and recovering sagebrush habitat is key to sage-grouse conservation. Other habitat types such as riparian meadows and agricultural lands may also be important for Gunnison sage-grouse, but only if they are in close proximity to sagebrush-dominated habitat (75 FR 59808, September 28, 2010). Several Federal agencies as well as CPW and UDWR continue to work to improve the quality of sagebrush communities through grazing management, fencing, re-seeding, fuels management, and other habitat improvement strategies (GSRSC 2005, pp. 214-219). Listing the species and designating critical habitat will further conserve Gunnison sage-grouse habitat.

(53)

Comment:

Several commenters noted the importance of open water and wet meadows and some also suggested that these habitat types should be re-established in some areas by removal of sagebrush.

Our Response:

High quality brood-rearing habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse includes mesic meadows, springs, seeps, and low vegetation riparian areas, all dependent on adequate moisture and consequently at risk in today's changing climate (TNC

et al.

2011, p. H-9). Prescribed burning and mechanical treatments can be used on a small scale to create a mosaic of small open patches; however, care should be taken to avoid further fragmentation of sagebrush habitat (GSRSC 2005, pp. 206-207).

(54)

Comment:

Some commenters suggested that seasonal closures of roads and recreation areas should be implemented as appropriate.

Our Response:

Closures have been authorized and used by Federal agencies and counties to protect Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in several populations (BLM 2013c, attachment 2; Gunnison County Board of County Commissioners 2013a, Appendix A; NPS 2013, p. 1; USFS 2013, pp. 11 and 14). We evaluate these efforts in this final rule (see Factor A, Roads, and Factor D).

(55)

Comment:

One commenter suggested that number of leks, number of birds on leks, survival rates, and other ecological parameter be monitored and used as triggers for requiring additional conservation efforts.

Our Response:

The local and rangewide conservation plans include monitoring plans. The CPW has conducted annual monitoring of these parameters following a standard protocol since 1996. Monitoring of habitat conditions, treatment actions, and compliance are an integral part of the CCAA for Gunnison sage-grouse.

(56)

Comment:

Several commenters stated that the Gunnison sage-grouse population in the Gunnison Basin is stable and not at risk of extinction; consequently, since this is a significant portion of the species' range, the species is not endangered. One commenter noted that the six smaller populations did not constitute a significant portion of the species' range.

Our Response:

Please see our response to comment 29 above. We include an explanation of how we considered and applied the concept of SPR in this final rule.

(57)

Comment:

Several commenters expressed various opinions regarding the stability of the six smaller populations outside of Gunnison Basin.

Our Response:

The six satellite populations are small, all were generally in decline from 1996 until 2010, and several continue to show a declining trend. The San Miguel and Piñon Mesa populations are currently the largest of the satellite populations, with 206 and 182 birds, respectively, in 2014. The Monticello-Dove Creek population currently has less than 100 birds total. Population estimates in 2014 for what have been the two smallest populations, Cerro Summit-Cimarron-Sims Mesa and

Poncha Pass, were 74 and 16, respectively (CPW 2014a, p.1). Based on lek count-based population estimates, some satellite populations have increased slightly over the last several years, or intermittently over time. However, the last 19 years (1996 to 2014) of lek count data as a whole indicate all the satellite populations are were in decline in 2010. Several of the satellite populations have increased since 2010. Although population estimates for Piñon Mesa are currently higher than in any year since 1996, this population has been augmented with 93 birds from Gunnison Basin since 2010. The Crawford population has also been augmented, with 73 birds over the same period; and while the 2014 population estimate of 157 in this population is the highest since 2006, it is considerably less than the post-1996 high of 270 in 1998.

For all six satellite populations, population estimates from 1996 to 2014 are below population targets (based on a 10-year average), set forth by the RCP (CPW 2014d, p. 1; GSRSC 2005, pp. 255-302). The RCP population targets are the number of birds thought necessary to conserve Gunnison sage-grouse in those population areas (GSRSC 2005, p. 255). Combined, the satellite populations comprise about 16 percent of the rangewide population of Gunnison sage-grouse and include approximately 37 percent of rangewide occupied habitat. These topics are discussed further in Factors A and E of this rule.

(58)

Comment:

Several commenters stated that lek counts are not accurate.

Our Response:

As described in this final rule (see Current Distribution and Population Estimates and Trends), lek count data are the primary means of estimating and monitoring Gunnison sage-grouse populations. However, sage-grouse populations can fluctuate widely on an annual basis, and there are concerns about the statistical reliability of population estimates based on lek counts (CDOW 2009b, pp. 1-3). Stiver

et al.

(2008, p. 474) concluded that lek counts likely underestimate population size. Another study (Davis 2012, p. 136) indicated that, based on demographic data, lek count indices overestimate population size. Although lek count data are available from a

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.