[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76058-76079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21135]



[[Page 76057]]

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

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-
Grouse as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 19, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 76058]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
Petitions to List the Mono Basin Area Population of the Greater Sage-
Grouse as Threatened or Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on two petitions to list the Mono Basin area population 
of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the Bi-State area 
of California and Nevada as threatened or endangered under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the petitions 
do not present substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that listing this population may be warranted. Therefore, we 
are not initiating a status review in response to these petitions. We 
ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes 
available concerning the status of this population or threats to it or 
its habitat at any time.

DATES: This finding was made on December 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Nevada 
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1340 
Financial Blvd., Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502. Submit new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this species 
to us at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert D. Williams, Field Supervisor, 
Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) or 775-861-6300 
(voice), or 775-861-6301 (fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that the Service make 
a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a 
species presents substantial scientific or commercial information 
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Such findings 
are based on information contained in the petition and information 
otherwise available in our files at the time we make the determination. 
To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 
90 days of our receipt of the petition, and publish our notice of the 
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
    In making this finding, we based our decision on information 
provided by the petitioners in petitions dated December 28, 2001, and 
November 10, 2005, and otherwise available in our files at the time of 
the petition review. As part of an active and ongoing partnership with 
the States of California and Nevada in collaborative sage-grouse 
conservation efforts, we contacted the Nevada Department of Wildlife 
(NDOW) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) subsequent 
to receiving the 2005 petition, to obtain information about sage-grouse 
for the Mono Basin area, as sage-grouse are a game species managed by 
the States. We received information from these agencies on population 
levels, lek distribution, harvest and harvest seasons, and 
implementation of projects of benefit to sage-grouse. We also contacted 
the U.S. Geological Survey--Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), 
Dixon Field Station of the Western Ecological Research Center, to 
obtain reports from a 3-year study of sage-grouse in the Bi-State area 
that was mostly funded by the CDFG and the Service. New information 
(i.e. information not already in our files) obtained from NDOW, CDFG, 
and USGS-BRD as a result of these contacts, was not used as a basis for 
this 90-day finding. Specifically we did not utilize the new 
information we obtained in our evaluation of threats (see Threats 
Analysis, below), which is the basis of this finding. This approach is 
consistent with recent court decisions that invalidated the Service's 
90-day findings for the Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Center for 
Biological Diversity, et al v. Morgenweck, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1137, 1143-
44 (D. Colo. 2004)) and the Colorado River cutthroat trout (Colorado 
River Cutthroat Trout, et al. v. Kempthorne et al., No. 00-2497, slip 
op. at 12 (D. D.C. September 7, 2006)). In these cases, the courts 
ruled that the Service over-reached the limited review involved in a 
90-finding by soliciting information from State and Federal agencies 
after the receipt of the petition and relied on that information to 
supplement petition findings. Therefore, the Service did not rely on 
any new information received from the States or from USGS-BRD in the 
threats analysis. We have however, included some of the new information 
in the Species Information section (see below) to help the public 
understand the status of the population.
    We evaluated the information in the petitions in accordance with 
our regulations at title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
Sec.  424.14(b). The process of making a 90-day finding under section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Sec.  424.14(b) of our regulations is based 
on a determination of whether the information in the petition meets the 
``substantial scientific information'' threshold.
    Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information 
with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that amount of 
information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the 
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). 
If we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or 
commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a status 
review of the species.
    On January 2, 2002, we received a petition, dated December 28, 
2001, from the Institute for Wildlife Protection requesting that the 
greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) occurring in the 
Mono Basin area of Mono County, California, and Lyon County, Nevada, be 
emergency listed as an endangered distinct population segment (DPS) 
under the Act. Although the petitioner referred to greater sage-grouse 
in the Mono Basin area by the subspecific epithet ``phaios'' we have 
concluded that the subspecies designations for greater sage-grouse are 
inappropriate give current taxonomic standards (September 12, 2006, 
Federal Register, p. 53781). In response to recent judicial direction, 
the Service is in the process of revisiting our current interpretation 
of the taxonomic status of the greater sage-grouse subspecies. We have 
not included subspecies designations any further in this finding.
    The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the 
requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required 
in 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a March 20, 2002, letter to the petitioners, we 
responded that we reviewed the petition and determined that an 
emergency listing was not necessary. On December 26, 2002, we published 
a 90-day finding that this petition did not present substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned 
action may be warranted (67 FR 78811). Our finding was based the lack 
of substantial information in the petition indicating that the Mono 
basin area sage-grouse is a distinct population segment (DPS) under our 
DPS policy (61 FR 47222), and thus we concluded it was not a listable 
entity (Federal Register, December 26, 2002, pp. 78813-78814).

[[Page 76059]]

Our 2002 finding also included a determination that the petition did 
not present substantial information that the Mono Basin area sage 
grouse was threatened with extinction (Federal Register, December 26, 
2002, p. 78814).
    On November 15, 2005, we received a formal petition dated November 
10, 2005, submitted by the Stanford Law School Environmental Law Clinic 
on behalf of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds Project, 
the Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for 
Conservation to list the Mono Basin area greater sage-grouse 
(Centrocercus urophasianus) as threatened or endangered. The petition 
clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite 
identification information for the petitioners, as required in 50 CFR 
424.14(a). In a March 28, 2006, letter to the petitioners, we responded 
that we reviewed the petition and determined that emergency listing was 
not warranted. We also stated that due to court orders and settlement 
agreements for other listing and critical habitat actions that required 
nearly all of our listing and critical habitat funding for fiscal year 
2006, we would not be able to further address the petition at that 
time. On April 17, 2006, we received a 60-day notice of intent letter 
from the Stanford Environment Law Clinic, dated April 14, 2006, 
notifying us that the petitioners intend to sue the Service for 
violating the Act's requirement to make a petition finding within 12 
months after receiving a petition.
    On November 18, 2005, the Institute for Wildlife Protection and Dr. 
Steven G. Herman filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 
Relief in United States District Court for the Western District of 
Washington (Institute for Wildlife Protection et al. v. Norton et al., 
No. C05-1939 RSM) challenging the Service's finding in 2002 that their 
petition did not present substantial information indicating that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. On April 11, 2006, we reached a 
stipulated settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. Under this 
settlement agreement we agreed to evaluate both the November 2005 
petition submitted by the Sagebrush Sea Campaign, Western Watersheds 
Project, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Christians Caring for 
Conservation (hereafter referred to as the November, 2005 petition), 
and to reconsider the December 2001 petition submitted by the Institute 
for Wildlife protection (hereafter referred to as the December, 2001 
petition). The settlement agreement calls for the Service to submit to 
the Federal Register a completed 90-day finding by December 8, 2006, 
and if substantial, to complete the 12-month finding by December 10, 
2007. This notice constitutes the 90-day finding on the November 2005 
petition and reevaluation of the December 2001 petition. In completing 
this finding, we reviewed the December 2001 petition in the context of 
whether it provided additional information not discussed in the 
November 2005 petition.

Species Information

    The sage-grouse is the largest North American grouse species. Adult 
males range in size from 65 to 75 centimeters (cm) (26 to 30 inches 
(in)) and weigh between 1.7 and 2.9 kilograms (kg) (3.8 and 6.4 pounds 
(lb)); adult females range in size from 50 to 60 cm (19.7 to 23.6 in) 
and weigh between 1 and 1.8 kg (2.2 and 3.9 lb) (Schroeder et al. 1999, 
p. 19-20). Males and females have dark grayish-brown body plumage with 
many small gray and white speckles, fleshy yellow combs over the eyes, 
long pointed tails, and dark-green toes (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 2). 
Males also have blackish chin and throat feathers, conspicuous 
phylloplumes (specialized erectile feathers) at the back of the head 
and neck, and white feathers forming a ruff around the neck and upper 
belly. During breeding displays, males also exhibit olive-green apteria 
(fleshy bare patches of skin) on their breasts (Schroeder et al. 1999, 
p. 2).
    Sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub steppe habitats throughout 
their life cycle, and are particularly associated with several species 
of sagebrush (Artemisia spp.). Throughout much of the year, adult sage-
grouse rely on sagebrush to provide roosting cover and food (Schroeder 
et al. 1999, p. 4). During the winter, they depend almost exclusively 
on sagebrush for food (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 5). The type and 
condition of shrub steppe plant communities strongly affect habitat use 
by sage grouse populations. However, these populations also exhibit 
strong site fidelity. Sage-grouse populations may disperse up to 160 
kilometers (km) (100 miles (mi)) between seasonal use areas; however, 
average population movements are generally less than 34 km (21 mi) 
(Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 3). Movements between season use areas may 
involve dispersal over areas of unsuitable habitat.
    During the spring breeding season, primarily during the morning 
hours just after dawn, male sage-grouse gather together and perform 
courtship or strutting displays on areas called leks (an area where 
animals assemble and perform courtship displays) (Connelly et al. 2004, 
p. 3-8). Areas of bare soil, short grass steppe, windswept ridges, 
exposed knolls, or other relatively open sites may serve as leks 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-7). Leks range in size from 1 hectare (ha) 
(2.5 acre (ac)) to at least 16 ha (39.5 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 
3-7) and can host several to hundreds of males. Some leks are used for 
many years. These ``historic'' leks are typically surrounded by smaller 
``satellite'' leks, which may be less stable in both size and location 
within the course of 1 year and between 2 or more years. A group of 
leks where males and females may interact within a breeding season 
(approximately late February to early June each year) or between years 
is called a lek complex. Males defend individual territories within 
leks and perform elaborate displays with their specialized plumage and 
vocalizations to attract females for mating (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 
3-7 to 3-8).
    Females may travel over 20 km (12.5 mi) after mating, and typically 
select nest sites under sagebrush cover, although other shrub or 
bunchgrass species are sometimes used (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 970). 
Nests are relatively simple and consist of scrapes on the ground. 
Clutch sizes range from about 6-9 eggs (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-10). 
Nest success ranges from 12 to 86 percent (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 
969). Sage grouse generally have low reproductive rates and high annual 
survival compared to other grouse species (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 
970). Shrub canopy and grass cover provide concealment for sage grouse 
nests and young, and may be critical for reproductive success (Connelly 
et al. 2000, p. 971).
    Sage-grouse typically live between 1 and 4 years. However, sage-
grouse up to 10 years of age have been recorded in the wild (Connelly 
et al. 2004, p. 3-12). Annual survival ranges from about 36 to 78 
percent for females and about 30 to 60 percent for males (Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 3-12). The generally higher survival rate of females 
accounts for a female-biased sex ratio in adult birds (Schroeder et al. 
1999, p. 14).
    Prior to settlement of the western United States by European 
immigrants greater sage-grouse were found in 13 States and 3 Canadian 
provinces--Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, 
Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona, 
British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 
368). Greater sage-grouse still occur in most of these states and 
provinces except for Nebraska, British Columbia, and possibly Arizona 
where they have been extirpated (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp.

[[Page 76060]]

368-369). Sagebrush habitats that potentially supported greater sage-
grouse covered approximately 1,200,483 square kilometers (sq km) 
(463,509 square miles (sq mi)) before the year 1800 (Schroeder et al. 
2004, p. 366). Current distribution is estimated at 668,412 sq km 
(258,075 sq mi) or 56 percent of the potential pre-settlement 
distribution (Schroeder et al. 2004, p. 369).
    The number of greater sage-grouse that existed in North America 
prior to European expansion across the continent is unknown. The 
Western States Sage- and Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Technical 
Committee (WSSCSTGTC) estimated there were 1.1 million sage-grouse in 
1800 (WSSCSTGTC 1999), although this estimate was for both greater 
sage-grouse and Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus). Braun 
(1998, unpaginated) estimated that there were about 142,000 sage-grouse 
(both greater and Gunnison sage-grouse) rangewide in 1998. Connelly et 
al. (2004, p. 13-5) did not estimate a rangewide population for greater 
sage-grouse, but did state that the number is probably much greater 
than the estimate by Braun (1998).
    Although Connelly et al. (2004) were unable to estimate rangewide 
population numbers for greater sage-grouse, they did use lek count data 
as an indication of population changes since 1965 (Connelly et al. 
2004, Chapter 6). They reported substantial declines from 1965 through 
2003 with an average decline of 2 percent of the population per year 
during this time period (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). The decline 
was more pronounced from 1965 through 1985, with an average annual 
change of 3.5 percent (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71). However, the 
rate of decline rangewide slowed from 1986 to 2003 to 0.37 percent 
annually (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 6-71).
    The best available scientific and commercial information regarding 
the past, present, and future threats faced by the greater sage-grouse 
were reviewed by the Service, including information on population 
declines. Based on that review, on January 12, 2005, the Service 
published a finding that listing the greater sage-grouse was not 
warranted (70 FR 2243). The Service noted that although sagebrush 
habitat and sage-grouse populations had declined and were continuing to 
decline in some areas, the most recent data indicated overall 
population declines had slowed, stabilized, or populations had 
increased, and that the threats, when considered in relation to the 
status, trend, and distribution of the current population, were not 
sufficient to result in the greater sage-grouse becoming an endangered 
species in the foreseeable future (Federal Register, January 12, 2005, 
pp. 2280-2281).

Mono Basin Area Sage Grouse

    The States of California and Nevada jointly supported development 
of a conservation plan, entitled Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 
for Nevada and Eastern California (Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2004). 
A draft version of the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada 
and Eastern California was submitted to a seven-person team for 
external science peer review (Sage-Grouse Conservation Team 2004, p. 
6). The conservation plan written specifically for sage-grouse in the 
Mono Basin area is the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the 
Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern California (Bi-State Plan) 
(Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004), and is an appendix of the Greater 
Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada and Eastern California. The 
2005 petition frequently refers to the Bi-State Plan. The Bi-State Plan 
was not peer reviewed. The group that developed the Bi-State Plan 
consisted of local biologists, land managers, land users, and others 
with concerns about sage-grouse in western Nevada and eastern 
California (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. vi).
    The Bi-State Plan covers the same geographic area described in the 
2001 and 2005 petitions as the Mono Basin area, but refers to it as the 
Bi-State area (Bi-State Local Planning Group 2004, pp. 4-5). The Mono 
Basin area includes portions of Alpine and Inyo Counties, and most of 
Mono County in California and portions of Lyon, Douglas, Carson City, 
Esmeralda, and Mineral Counties in Nevada.
    Sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area historically occurred 
approximately throughout Mono, eastern Alpine, and northern Inyo 
Counties, California (Hall 1995, Figure 1); and parts of Carson City, 
Esmeralda, Mineral, Lyon, and Douglas Counties, Nevada. The current 
range of the population in California is reduced from the historic 
range (Leach and Hensley, 1954, p. 386; Hall 1995, p. 54). Gullion and 
Christensen (1957, pp. 131-132) documented that sage-grouse occurred 
throughout most of their historic range in Nevada, including 
occurrences in Esmeralda, Mineral, Lyon, and Douglas Counties, but not 
in Carson City County, although Espinosa (2006) hypothesized that birds 
may still persist in this County. Sage-grouse habitat has been lost in 
the Nevada portion of the Bi-State area but the extent of the loss has 
not been estimated (Stiver 2002).
    Prior to development of the Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan 
for Nevada and Eastern California, the State of Nevada sponsored 
development of the Nevada Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy (Sage-
Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001). This Strategy established 
Population Management Units (PMUs) for Nevada and California as 
management tools for defining and monitoring sage-grouse distribution 
(Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 31). The PMU 
boundaries are based on aggregations of leks, sage-grouse seasonal 
habitats, and existing sage-grouse telemetry data (Sage-Grouse 
Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 31). PMUs that comprise the Mono 
Basin area include the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, 
Bodie, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. The Bi-State Plan (2004) 
is the only existing assessment of greater sage-grouse populations and 
habitats specific to the PMUs that comprise the Mono Basin area.
    Currently in the Mono Basin area, sage-grouse leks occur in the 
Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono, and White 
Mountains PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). Most of the leks occur in the 
Bodie and South Mono PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004). Of the 122 known lek 
locations in the Mono Basin area: 56 are on Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) land, 30 are on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land, 4 are on 
Department of Defense land, 2 are on State of California land, 9 are on 
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power land, and 21 occur on private 
land (Espinosa 2006; Taylor 2006). Overall, 83 percent of the leks are 
on public land and 17 percent occur on private land. Based upon the 
extent of previous survey work, it is unlikely that more leks will be 
found in the Nevada portions of the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales 
PMUs (Espinosa 2006). Due to long-term and extensive survey efforts, it 
also is unlikely that new leks will be found in the California portion 
of the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs or the Bodie and South Mono 
PMUs (Gardner 2006). However, it is possible that more leks will be 
discovered in the Mount Grant PMU and the Nevada portion of the White 
Mountains PMU because these are less accessible and there has been less 
survey effort in them (Espinosa 2006). More leks also may be discovered 
in the California portion of the White Mountains PMU, which is 
difficult to access and has not been well surveyed (Gardner 2006).
    Sage-grouse population trends analyzed for California and Nevada 
for 1965-2003 (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-

[[Page 76061]]

24 to 6-26 and 6-36 to 6-39) led to a conclusion that populations in 
California had slightly increased over this timeframe while those in 
Nevada had declined (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-67 to 6-68). However, 
this analysis was performed at the State level and did not specifically 
analyze population trends for the Mono Basin area.
    The Bi-State Plan (2004) provides some information on population 
trends for some of the PMUs in the Mono Basin area, and indicates that 
in some areas population declines occurred historically. However, the 
number of leks surveyed, survey methodology, and techniques for 
estimating population size are inconsistent and have varied 
considerably over time, making it very difficult to interpret or rely 
on the information. In 2003, the NDOW began estimating population 
numbers based on a peer reviewed and accepted formula (NDOW, 2006, p. 
1), and consequently we believe the most accurate population estimates 
for the Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area start in 2003. Prior to 
that, Nevada survey efforts varied from year to year, with no data for 
some years, and inconsistent survey methodology. Although CDFG methods 
for estimating populations of sage-grouse have been more consistent 
prior to 2003, using population estimates for sage-grouse derived 
before 2003 would lead to invalid and unjustified conclusions given the 
variation in the number of leks surveyed, survey methodology, and 
population estimation techniques between NDOW and CDFG. Due to past 
differences in consistency in population estimation techniques for the 
two States, in this description of populations we are only presenting 
population numbers from 2003-2006. During this period of time, both 
states used the same population estimation methods. We provide this 
information to help inform the public, and for the reasons described 
above, we did not consider this information in our Threats Analysis 
(below) and it was not part of the basis for making this finding.
    CDFG and NDOW annually coordinate sage-grouse lek counts in the 
California and Nevada portions, respectively, of the Mono Basin area. 
Results from these lek counts are used by CDFG and NDOW to estimate 
sage-grouse populations for PMUs in the Mono Basin area. CDFG and NDOW 
calculate low and high sage-grouse population estimates for the PMUs, 
based on low and high lek detection rates, respectively, to account for 
the range in lek detection rates.
    The following spring population estimates are based on lek counts 
for the South Mono, Bodie, Mount Grant, and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs 
(CDFG 2006; NDOW 2006). They also include population estimates from the 
Nevada portion of the Pine Nut PMU (NDOW 2006). However, they do not 
include population estimates for the White Mountains PMU or the 
California portion of the Pine Nut PMU (CDFG 2006; NDOW 2006). The 
White Mountain PMU and the California portion of the Pine Nut PMU 
together comprise about 41 percent of the Mono Basin area. Due to the 
lack of information on sage-grouse habitat for the Mono Basin, we 
cannot state what percent of the current habitat occurs in these two 
areas for which population estimates are unavailable. The recent spring 
population estimates for the areas described above are as follows: 
2003--a low estimate of 2820 birds and a high estimate of 3181 birds, 
2004--a low estimate of 3682 birds and a high estimate of 4141 birds, 
2005--a low estimate of 3496 birds and a high estimate of 3926 birds, 
and 2006--a low estimate of 4218 birds and a high estimate of 4740 
birds (CDFG 2006; NDOW 2006). Spring populations largely reflect the 
number of breeding sage-grouse in this area. The number of breeding 
sage-grouse is representative of effective population size and probably 
one of the best ways to assess the health of the overall population.
    At a minimum, the spring population estimates for sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area indicate that the surveyed populations have not 
declined in recent years. Indeed, 2004 to 2006 spring lek counts for 
the Long Valley lek complex, which comprises most of the leks in the 
South Mono PMU, are the highest numbers counted in the last 30 years 
and sage-grouse in this area are more productive than anywhere else in 
California (Gardner 2006).
    Casazza et al. (2006) conducted a 3-year study on sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area to determine movements. The researchers radio-
marked birds in Mono County within the Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, White 
Mountains, and South Mono PMUs (Casazza et al. 2006, unpaginated). The 
greatest distances moved by radio-tagged birds between two points is as 
follows: About 29 percent moved 0-8 km (0-5 mi); about 41 percent moved 
8-16 km (5-10 mi); about 25 percent moved 16-24 km (10-15 mi); about 4 
percent moved 24-32 km (15-20 mi); and about 1 percent moved a distance 
greater than 32 km (20 mi) (Overton 2006). Female sage-grouse home 
range size ranged from 2.3 to 137.1 sq km (0.9 to 52.9 sq mi), with a 
mean home range size of 38.6 sq km (14.9 sq mi) (Overton 2006). Male 
sage-grouse home ranges ranged in size from 6.1 to 245.7 sq km (2.3 to 
94.9 sq mi), with a mean home range size of 62.9 sq km (24.1 sq mi) 
(Overton 2006).

Distinct Population Segment

    We consider a species for listing under the Act if available 
information indicates such an action might be warranted. ``Species'' is 
defined by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish and 
wildlife or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of 
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532 (16)). 
We, along with the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), developed the 
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments (DPS Policy) (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722) to help us in 
determining what constitutes a DPS. The policy identifies three 
elements that are to be considered in a decision regarding the status 
of a possible DPS. These elements include (1) the discreteness of a 
population in relation to the remainder of the species to which it 
belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the species 
to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation 
status in relation to the Act's standards for listing. Our policy 
further recognizes it may be appropriate to assign different 
classifications (i.e., threatened or endangered) to different DPSs of 
the same vertebrate taxon (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722).

Discreteness

    The November 2005 and December 2001 petitions assert that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse qualify as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) 
based on discreteness. Both petitions cite the Services' DPS policy 
under the Act (February 7, 1996, 61 FR 4722) and both assert that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse are discrete based on genetic distinctiveness. 
The DPS policy states that a population segment may be considered 
discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It 
is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon as a 
consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation. (2) It is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant 
in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In a previous 90-

[[Page 76062]]

day finding, we reviewed the December 2001 petitioners' claim that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse are a DPS, and found that there was not 
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse may be discrete from other greater sage-grouse 
(December 26, 2002, Federal Register, p. 78811). Our 2002 determination 
was based on a lack of information to demonstrate that Mono Basin sage-
grouse are physically isolated from other nearby populations, the 
limited extent of sage-grouse genetic sampling within the Mono Basin 
area at that time, information from a comparative study which indicated 
that Mono Basin sage-grouse are not behaviorally different from other 
populations of great sage-grouse, and the lack of any morphological 
information on Mono Basin sage-grouse.
    We still believe that there are no significant behavioral 
differences between sage-grouse populations. Young et al. (1994) 
compared greater sage-grouse behavioral attributes for populations in 
the Mono Basin area and outside it for males displaying on leks. This 
study concluded that sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area do not exhibit 
any appreciable behavioral differences in male mating displays from 
other greater sage-grouse populations (Young et al., 1994).
    In contrast to results from comparative behavioral studies, 
comparative genetics studies have documented genetic differences 
between greater sage-grouse populations in the Mono Basin area and 
those outside of it. The November 2005 petition correctly cites 
Benedict et al. (2003), Oyler-McCance et al. (2005), and the Bi-State 
Plan (2004) with regard to how sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area are 
genetically unique from other populations of greater sage-grouse. Since 
we published our previous 90-day finding, comparisons of genetic 
material from many sage-grouse populations across the range of the 
species have been completed and demonstrate that Mono Basin area sage-
grouse contain unique haplotypes not found elsewhere within the range 
of the greater sage-grouse (Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 
2005). Genetic sampling continues in the Mono Basin area, as the full 
geographic extent of this genetic uniqueness has not yet been 
determined. However since our previous 90-day finding on Mono Basin 
area sage-grouse (December 26, 2002, 67 FR 78811), most leks in the 
Mono Basin area have now been genetically sampled. Although the full 
extent of this genetic uniqueness is undetermined, there now exists 
sufficient evidence to suggest that Mono Basin area sage-grouse are 
genetically distinct from other greater sage-grouse populations 
(Benedict et al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005). The November 2005 
petitioners assert that genetic work by Benedict et al. (2003) or 
Oyler-McCance et al. (2005) support their contention that Mono Basin 
area sage-grouse area are presently isolated from other sage-grouse 
populations by present day habitat conditions, but this claim is 
inaccurate. These genetic studies provided evidence that the present 
genetic uniqueness exhibited by Mono Basin area sage-grouse occurred 
over thousands and perhaps tens of thousands of years (Benedict et al. 
2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307). Hence, the genetic 
uniqueness of this sage-grouse population developed prior to the Euro-
American settlement in the Mono Basin area that resulted in changes in 
habitat conditions for this population.
    The Services' DPS policy requires that only one of the discreteness 
criteria be satisfied in order for a population segment of a vertebrate 
species to be discrete. There is substantial information indicating 
that Mono Basin area sage-grouse are genetically distinct from other 
greater sage-grouse populations. Therefore, we conclude that there is 
substantial information indicating that the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may satisfy the discreteness criterion of the DPS policy.

Significance

    Both the December 2001 petition and the November 2005 petition also 
assert that Mono Basin area sage-grouse further qualify as a DPS based 
on significance. The DPS policy (February 7, 1996, Federal Register, p. 
4725) states that if a population segment is considered discrete under 
one or more of the discreteness criteria then its biological and 
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional 
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``* * * sparingly'' 
while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In such an 
examination, the Service considers available scientific evidence of the 
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it 
belongs. As specified in the DPS policy February 7, 1996, Federal 
Register, p. 4725), this consideration of the significance may include, 
but is not limited to, the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete 
population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique to the 
taxon; (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would 
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) Evidence that 
the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural 
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an 
introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) Evidence that 
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations 
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    The November 2005 petition claims that the Mono Basin area is a 
unique ecological setting and cites a map in Rowland et al. (2003) to 
support this claim. This petition also asserts that the loss of the 
Mono Basin area population would result in a significant gap in the 
range of the greater sage-grouse and that the population differs 
markedly from other sage-grouse populations in genetic characteristics.
    The Mono Basin area sage-grouse populations do occur in an 
ecological province labeled the Mono province in Rowland et al. (2003, 
p. 63). However, this ecological province is part of the Great Basin, 
and on a gross scale all the ecological provinces that comprise this 
area are characterized by basin and range topography. Basin and range 
topography covers a large portion of the western United States and 
northern Mexico. It is typified by a series of north-south oriented 
mountain ranges running parallel to each other, with arid valleys 
between the mountains. Most of Nevada and eastern California are 
covered by basin and range topography. Hence, we do not concur that 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse occur in an ecological setting that is 
unique for the taxon. Based on the extant range of greater sage-grouse 
provided by Schroeder et al. (2004, p. 369), we do not agree that the 
loss of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse population would result in a 
significant gap in the range of greater sage-grouse. Schroeder et al. 
(2004, p. 363) estimated total extant range of greater sage-grouse to 
be 668,412 sq km (258,075 sq mi) and the total area of the PMUs that 
comprise the Mono Basin area is 18,310 sq km (7,069 mi) (Bi-State Plan 
2004). Hence, the total area comprised by the Mono Basin represents at 
most about 3 percent of the total extant range of greater sage-grouse 
and loss of the population in this area would not result in a 
significant gap in the range of the species. Mono Basin area sage-
grouse are not the only surviving occurrence of the taxon, and as 
previously discussed represent a small proportion of the total extant 
range of the species. However, existing genetic evidence (Benedict et 
al. 2003; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005) does indicate that Mono Basin area 
sage-grouse differ from other populations of greater sage-grouse in 
their genetic

[[Page 76063]]

characteristics, as discussed previously with regard to the 
discreteness criterion. Therefore, based on information regarding 
genetics, we conclude that there is substantial information indicating 
that the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may satisfy the significance 
criterion of the DPS policy.

DPS Conclusion

    We have reviewed the information presented in the petitions, and 
have evaluated the information in accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). In 
a 90-day finding, the question is whether a petition presents 
substantial information that the petitioned action may be warranted. We 
do not make final determinations regarding DPSs at this stage; rather, 
we determine whether a petition presents substantial information that a 
population may be a DPS. On the basis of our review, we find that the 
November 2005 petition, and our files, do present substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that Mono Basin area 
sage-grouse may be a DPS based, on genetic evidence, which may meet 
both the discreteness and significance criteria of the DPS policy. 
Based on this preliminary assessment, we proceeded with an evaluation 
of information presented in both petitions, as well as information in 
our files, to determine whether there is substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing this population may be 
warranted. Our threats analysis and conclusion follow.

Threats Analysis

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more 
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) 
Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. In making this 90-
day finding, we evaluated whether information on threats to the Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse in our files and presented in the November 2005 
and the December 2001 petitions constitutes substantial scientific or 
commercial information such that listing under the Act may be 
warranted. Our evaluation of this information is presented below.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
the Species' Habitat or Range

Geographic Range
    The November 2005 petition asserts that the range of sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area is greatly reduced and that the populations are 
scattered among several counties in western Nevada and eastern 
California. Petitioners cite the work of Schroeder et al. (2004) and 
claim that in pre-settlement time the habitat for the species was 
continuous along the California-Nevada border and extended from Inyo 
County, California, into Oregon. The petition further states that by 
2000 the Mono Basin area population had become physically isolated from 
other sage-grouse populations and now only occurs in small isolated 
groups. The petitioners cite a Western States Sage Grouse Technical 
Committee report (WSSGTC 1999) and state that for the Nevada portion of 
the Mono Basin area sage-grouse are extirpated from Storey and Carson 
City Counties, at extreme risk in Douglas and Esmeralda Counties, and 
at risk in Lyon and Mineral Counties. Regarding sage-grouse range in 
California, the petition cites Hall (1995) and states that there has 
been a 55 percent reduction statewide in the range of the species from 
its historic range. More specific to the Mono Basin area, the 
petitioners cite our December 26, 2002, 90-day finding (67 FR 78811), 
which states that suitable habitat for the California portion of the 
Mono Basin area has declined approximately 71 percent from historic 
levels based on information in Hall (1995). The petitioners also cited 
Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) to state that extirpations of local 
populations of Gunnison sage-grouse have occurred because of the loss 
and fragmentation of habitat caused by human activities; cited Barbour 
(1988, unpaginated) regarding impacts to sagebrush habitat in 
California; and cited Braun's (1998, unpaginated) assessment of factors 
that have caused sage-grouse declines across the western United States, 
which included habitat loss.
    We agree with the petitioners that there has been a reduction in 
the distribution of greater sage-grouse along the California-Nevada 
border (Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368-369). Distribution in the Mono 
Basin area is much more disjunct now compared to pre-settlement 
conditions; however, the southern limit of sage-grouse distribution 
along the California-Nevada border has not changed (Schroeder et al. 
2004, pp. 368-369). A considerable amount (approximately 71 percent) of 
the original sage-grouse habitat has been lost in the California 
portion of the Mono Basin area (Hall, 1995, p. 54; December 26, 2002, 
Federal Register, p. 78813). The extent of habitat has also declined 
within the Nevada portion of the Mono Basin area, but no estimates are 
provided in the petitions or available in our files regarding the 
Nevada portion. The Bi-State Plan (2004) provides limited anecdotal 
information about the historic range of the population in the Mono 
Basin area, and the distribution and range discussion is focused 
primarily on current conditions. Additionally the work cited from 
Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) and Braun (1998) is not specific to the 
Mono Basin area. Connelly et al. (2004) did assess changes for the 
sagebrush ecosystem, but this analysis was also performed at the 
rangewide level for sage-grouse and not specific to the Mono Basin 
area. Although sage-grouse habitat and range has been reduced from pre-
settlement conditions, and some additional habitat losses may be 
occurring at present, neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide 
information on the rate or extent of habitat losses for the Mono Basin 
area. The Bi-State Plan (2004) documents some loss of specific 
localized habitat areas due to wildfire. The Service recognizes that 
historically there has been destruction and modification of the habitat 
and range of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. However, historic 
impacts are not the focus of the evaluation called for under Factor A; 
rather, Factor A specifically addresses the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range. Although 
the petitioners and our files contain information on historic 
reductions in range, neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide 
substantial information that documents the present or threatened loss 
of sage-grouse range for sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. Therefore, 
we conclude that there is not substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing may be warranted due to the 
present or threatened destruction or modification of habitat or range 
for the sage-grouse population in the Mono Basin area.
Private Land Development
    The November 2005 petition cites private land development as a 
significant threat to Mono Basin area sage-grouse. The petitioners 
state that over 329,000 acres (close to 12 percent) of land in the Mono 
Basin area is

[[Page 76064]]

privately owned and susceptible to development. They cite the Bi-State 
Plan (2004) regarding private land development in several of the PMUs 
and reference discussions of: community expansion in the Pine Nut PMU; 
conversion of private rangeland to residential and vacation homes, 
conversion of grouse winter habitat to irrigated pasture and hay 
fields, and increased pressure of subdivision and development in the 
Desert Creek-Fales PMU; increasing development of private lands for 
residential, commercial and recreational purposes in the Bodie PMU; and 
development of private lands in the South Mono PMU. The petitioners 
claim that Mono County intends to significantly expand the Benton 
Crossing Landfill, which could impact sage-grouse through direct 
habitat loss, increased predation, and a potential increase in disease 
(Mono County 2004). They also cite a process to revise the Mammoth 
Lakes general plan (Mammoth Lakes 2005) and claim the revised plan will 
allow for more development on non-Federal lands. The petitioners assert 
that expansion of the Mammoth Lakes airport to accommodate commercial 
jets and construction of an adjacent business park would pose a 
significant impact to sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU. Petitioners 
cite a California Department of Fish and Game memo (California 
Department of Fish and Game 2001) and state that the California 
Department of Fish and Game expressed serious concerns about the 
impacts of the proposed airport expansion on sage-grouse. The 
petitioners claim that California Department of Fish and Game expressed 
several concerns, including that aircraft may disturb birds on leks and 
while they are wintering and that the airport expansion project would 
have growth-inducing impacts to the region. Finally, they claim that a 
number of other proposed developments could affect the South Mono sage-
grouse population.
    The December 2001 petition also cited development and habitat 
conversion to suburbs and ranchettes as a threat to sage-grouse. 
However, this petition did not provide additional information beyond 
what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    The November 2005 petition is incorrect in asserting that close to 
12 percent of the Mono Basin area is privately owned. Their figures do 
not include the White Mountains PMU, which comprises about 38 percent 
of the total area; including this PMU, approximately 8 percent of lands 
within the Mono Basin area are privately owned (Bi-State Plan 2004). 
Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-25, 7-26) included some analysis of the 
effects of development (including associated infrastructure) on sage-
grouse, but the analysis was conducted at the rangewide scale (Connelly 
et al. 2004, pp. 12-1 to 12-23) and not specific to the Mono Basin 
area. The Bi-State Plan (2004) recognizes urban expansion as a risk to 
sage-grouse in the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 24), the Desert 
Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 47), the Bodie PMU (Bi-State 
Plan 2004, p. 88), and the South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169).
    Although development of private lands may impact sage-grouse 
habitat (Connelly et al. 2004) and there are concerns about private 
lands being developed for housing in the Mono Basin area (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 4), about 89 percent of the land area within the Mono Basin 
area is federally managed land, primarily USFS and BLM lands (Bi-State 
Plan 2004). These public lands are not the areas where traditional 
development into housing communities is occurring and are not subject 
to such development. Furthermore, although some housing development has 
occurred on private lands within the Mono Basin area, the five housing 
subdivisions cited by the petitioners are considered speculative, as 
they have not moved beyond the planning stage. The petitioners are 
correct that the Town of Mammoth Lakes General Plan is being updated 
and does allow for more housing development on private land; however, 
the petitioners fail to note that this growth is planned to occur 
within the Mammoth Lakes Urban Growth Boundary (Town of Mammoth Lakes 
2005, pp. 3-9 to 3-14), well away from known lek sites, and therefore 
it will not directly impact sage-grouse. Additionally, the Benton 
Crossing Landfill will not be expanded as the petition asserts (Town of 
Mammoth Lakes 2005, p. 2-38).
    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has dropped its proposal 
to expand the Mammoth Yosemite Airport (FAA 2006). However, the FAA is 
currently proposing to resume regional commercial air service using the 
existing Mammoth Yosemite Airport facilities, with two winter flights 
per day initially and potentially increasing to a maximum of eight 
winter flights per day by 2012-2013 (FAA 2006). The Mammoth Yosemite 
Airport had regional commercial air service from 1970 to the mid-1990s 
(FAA 2006) and it currently supports about 400 flights per month, 
primarily single-engine aircraft (Town of Mammoth Lakes 2005, p. 4-
204). Therefore, sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU that occur in lek 
areas in the near proximity of the Mammoth Yosemite Airport have been 
exposed to commercial air traffic in the past, and they are presently 
exposed to private air traffic. Effects of the FAA proposal to 
reinstate commercial air traffic at the Mammoth Yosemite Airport on 
sage-grouse are unknown at this time, as the level of commercial flight 
traffic these birds may be exposed to is undetermined and subject to 
commercial success by the airlines. Also, since the proposal by FAA has 
yet to be implemented, any assessment of effects is speculative. The 
FAA will develop an environmental analysis for the proposed project 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (FAA 2006), 
which will include an assessment of impacts to wildlife. The Town of 
Mammoth Lakes is proposing commercial development on a tract of land 
immediately adjacent to the existing airport (Town of Mammoth Lakes 
2005, p. 2-9). We do not have information in our files to determine 
whether the area of proposed development involves sage-grouse habitat.
    In summary, development of private lands for housing and the 
associated construction of roads and power lines within the Mono Basin 
area would occur mostly in areas where sage-grouse are not present. 
Furthermore, petitioners' claims about expansion of the Mammoth 
Yosemite Airport are no longer valid, and they did not provide 
information which documents how the proposed resumption of commercial 
air service at the Airport, combined with the construction of an 
adjacent business park, would impact sage-grouse in the South Mono PMU. 
Most significantly, about 89 percent of the Mono Basin area is 
federally managed land (Bi-State Plan 2004), where development into 
housing communities is not occurring. Neither the petitioners, nor our 
files, provide information on the extent or magnitude of private 
development to indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to 
private land development.
Public Land Development
    The November 2005 petition states that the majority of the Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse habitat is managed by BLM and the USFS under 
multiple-use policies that have harmed sage-grouse and degraded their 
habitat. Petitioners assert that public land is subject to some forms 
of development and that private land development often affects the

[[Page 76065]]

integrity and health of adjacent public lands. The petitioners cite the 
Bi-State Plan (2004) with regard to the Bodie PMU and state that 
habitat loss and fragmentation associated with land use change and 
development is not restricted to private lands in this PMU. Petitioners 
further assert that development of private lands can also have indirect 
effects on sage-grouse populations and habitat on public lands. They 
cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) for the Desert Creek-Fales PMU and note 
that residential development may reduce habitat, resulting in risks to 
habitat quality and fragmentation. The petitioners indicate that the 
Bi-State Plan provides no new regulatory measures or funding for 
mitigation of threats from private land use and development.
    The petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) to support their 
claim that 13 sites have been authorized for monitoring for wind energy 
development in the Pine Nut PMU and wind turbines may be constructed on 
these sites. The petitioners also state that numerous geothermal energy 
developments have been proposed or approved on public and private land 
in the South Mono PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004) and specifically reference a 
proposal for the Inyo National Forest claiming that sage-grouse have 
been found within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the proposed project and that the 
project may displace individual sage-grouse by eliminating suitable 
habitat for the species (USFS 2005).
    The petition claims that a myriad of other smaller projects or 
activities are authorized and developed on Federal lands. In support of 
this assertion, the petitioners indicate that records they obtained 
from the BLM-Carson City Field Office for these smaller projects and 
lesser activities authorized between 2001 and 2005 included 55 records 
of categorical exclusions and 13 findings of no significant impact 
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The petitioners 
further stated that these decisions were for a variety of projects, 
including rights-of-way, road construction, communication towers, power 
lines, gas/water/sewer pipelines, water tanks, fiber optic/telephone 
cables, seismometer stations, irrigation facilities, monitoring wells, 
and a railroad. The petition asserts that, although the size and scope 
of these are considered minor by Federal management agencies, and hence 
their potential environmental impacts are not assessed under NEPA, 
their cumulative impact fragments and degrades sagebrush habitat in the 
Mono Basin area.
    As noted previously, the majority of the land area in the Mono 
Basin area, and therefore most of the sage-grouse habitat, is managed 
by BLM and the USFS; approximately 89 percent of the land in the Mono 
Basin area is administered by these agencies (Bi-State Plan 2004). Both 
of these Federal agencies manage public lands on a multiple-use basis 
under Federal laws (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. 2272, 
2274). The multiple-use management approach allows for a wide array of 
actions on Federal lands, including some forms of development that may 
be detrimental, as well as conservation measures that are beneficial, 
for habitat of wildlife species such as sage-grouse. When private lands 
adjacent to public lands are developed, there can be impacts to sage-
grouse on the public lands (Braun 1998, unpaginated) and Connelly et 
al. (2004, pp. 7-24 to 7-26), both document impacts to sage-grouse as a 
result of urbanization, such as loss of habitat.
    Several urban and suburban areas in this PMU are continuing to 
expand in the Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 24). For the Bodie 
PMU, the Bi-State Plan does indicate that habitat loss and 
fragmentation associated with land use change and development is not 
restricted to private lands (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 88). Rights-of-ways 
across public lands for roads, utility lines, sewage treatment plants 
and other public purposes are frequently requested, and granted, to 
support development activities on adjacent private lands (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 88). But the Bi-State Plan concludes that land use and 
development on most lands in the Bodie PMU are guided by existing land 
use plans and that the development is a manageable risk for sage-grouse 
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 88). Residential development was reported to be 
very low in the White Mountains PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 124). 
Effects of public land development were not cited among the risk 
factors described for the Mount Grant PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004).
    We have also evaluated the threat of energy development as 
presented by the petitioners. According to the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 
31) three sites in the Pine Nut PMU have been authorized for monitoring 
wind energy potential, not 13 sites as presented by the petitioners. 
The Bi-State Plan expresses concern about possible threats arising from 
infrastructure, such as roads and power lines, associated with wind 
energy development in this area (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 31). Connelly 
et al. (2004, p. 7-43) discuss wind energy development as a factor that 
could impact sagebrush ecosystems. There is also potential for wind 
energy and geothermal energy development in the South Mono PMU (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 178). The South Mono PMU has an existing geothermal 
plant and the Bi-State Plan discusses four other proposed geothermal 
energy projects in the PMU, only one of which has been approved (Bi-
State Plan 2004, pp. 178-181). The Bi-State Plan indicates that 
geothermal development in the South Mono PMU is a manageable risk, and 
that the USFS and BLM both have management plans in place that consider 
effects of this activity on sage-grouse (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 181). 
One of the geothermal projects discussed in the Bi-State Plan is being 
evaluated by the USFS (Inyo National Forest 2005). The project would 
occur in suitable habitat for sage-grouse, and birds have been 
documented within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of the site (Inyo National Forest, 
2005, p. 7). However, the USFS evaluation concluded that while the 
proposed geothermal project may affect individuals it would not likely 
result in a loss of sage-grouse viability because: the area was 
surveyed for leks and none were found; only about 3 acres of habitat 
would be lost; prior to construction, an area adjacent to the 
construction corridor would be surveyed for nests and if nests are 
located, construction would not be allowed within 30 meters (100 feet) 
until after the young had fledged (Inyo National Forest 2005, p. 22).
    We acknowledge that development of public lands for a variety of 
purposes (including rights-of-ways for roads, power lines, utility 
lines, and wind and geothermal energy development) may impact some 
sage-grouse habitat. However, neither the petitioners, nor our files, 
provide information on the present or future extent or magnitude of 
public development as a threat for the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we 
conclude that there is not substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may be warranted as a result of the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to 
public land development.
Fences, Power Lines, Roads
    The November 2005 petition cites Braun (1998) in stating that 
fences and power lines fragment sage-grouse habitat, cause direct 
mortality, and provide perches for avian predators. The petition cites 
a Sierra Pacific Power Company report (Sierra Pacific Power Company 
2003) and states that construction of transmission lines can

[[Page 76066]]

increase weed invasion in sagebrush. The petitioners also cite a 
personal communication with F. Hall from the Bi-State Plan (2004) which 
indicates that, in northern California, power lines had a negative 
effect on lek attendance and strutting activity, and fewer radio-marked 
birds were lost as distance from power lines increased. For the Pine 
Nut PMU the petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that: 
The North Pine Nut lek is bordered on two sides by power lines; 
strutting grounds and nest sites are within the hunting territory of 
ravens (Corvus corax) that nest on power lines; and more new power 
lines have been requested in the area. The petitioners also cite a BLM 
Environmental Assessment (BLM-Carson City Field Office 2004) in stating 
that BLM recently authorized construction of a power line in the Pine 
Nut PMU and this area includes suitable sage-grouse habitat and is 
within 5 miles of a lek. For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, petitioners 
cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that recent declines in this 
PMU may be linked to power line construction in the last 10 years. 
Petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) and state that in the Bodie 
area, a number of power lines may be affecting sage-grouse, and in the 
South Mono PMU, sage-grouse are currently impacted by power lines and 
more may be constructed due to energy development.
    The November 2005 petition cites a BLM-Bishop Field Office document 
(BLM-Bishop Field Office undated), which indicates that mortalities 
increase and lek use decreases when fences or power lines are built 
nearby. Petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that 
fences in the Bodie area have been identified as a potentially 
significant threat and they also cite Fatooh et al. (undated), which 
reports that sage-grouse in the Bodie Hills area were displaced from 
one lek area by a fence.
    Regarding roads as a threat to sage-grouse, the November 2005 
petition cites Oyler-McCance et al. (2001) in stating that roads are an 
important cause of fragmentation and degradation of Gunnison sage-
grouse habitat. Petitioners also cite the assessment by Wisdom et al. 
(2003) in asserting that human disturbances from roads and other 
activities can also exacerbate the spread of cheatgrass into sagebrush 
ecosystems, and that disturbances such as road construction and use, 
inappropriate grazing, energy development, mining, and recreational 
activities can cause cheatgrass expansion.
    The December 2001 petition also cited fences, power lines, and 
roads as a threat to sage-grouse. However, this petition did not 
provide additional information beyond what was provided in the November 
2005 petition.
    The effects of fencing on sage-grouse include direct mortality 
through collisions, creation of predator (raptor) perch sites, the 
potential creation of a predator corridor along fences (particularly if 
a road is maintained next to the fence), incursion of exotic species 
along the fencing corridor, and habitat fragmentation (January 12, 
2005, 70 FR 2257). Power lines can directly affect sage-grouse by 
posing a collision and electrocution hazard, and can have indirect 
effects by increasing predation, fragmenting habitat, and facilitating 
the invasion of exotic annual plants (January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2256). 
Impacts from roads to sage-grouse may include direct habitat loss, 
direct mortality, the creation of barriers to migration corridors or 
seasonal habitats, providing predator travel corridors, facilitation of 
the spread of invasive plant species, and other indirect influences 
such as noise (January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2257).
    The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 28) does state that in the Pine Nut PMU 
there are power lines bordering the North Pine Nut lek. However, it 
also indicates that these power lines are 3.2-4.8 km (2-3 mi) away from 
active strutting grounds (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 28) so they do not 
occur in close proximity to the leks. The petitioners other assertions 
about the Pine Nut PMU are accurate. The BLM-Carson City Field Office 
did recently authorize construction of a power line in the Pine Nut PMU 
as stated by petitioners (BLM-Carson City Field Office 2004). However, 
sage-grouse habitat is not present along the power line route or in its 
vicinity (BLM-Carson City Field Office 2004, p. 3-15) and the closest 
known leks to the line are more than 8 km (5 mi) away (BLM-Carson City 
Field Office 2004, p. 3-20). For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU the Bi-
State plan concludes that power lines are one of several types of 
infrastructure that are a risk to sage-grouse which can impact habitat 
for the species (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). It also states that recent 
declines in the Fales population in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU may be 
related to construction of power lines and other associated land use 
activities (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). In the Bodie PMU, the Bi-State 
Plan (2004, p. 81) characterizes utility lines as a past, current, and 
future risk that affects multiple sites and multiple birds. Also, the 
Bodie PMU utility line discussion in the Bi-State Plan cites a personal 
communication with F. Hall indicating that in northern California these 
lines have a negative effect on lek attendance and strutting activity 
and that radio-tagged sage-grouse lost to avian predation increased as 
the distance to utility lines decreased (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 81). 
The Bi-State Plan (2004, pp. 81-82) identifies several utility lines in 
the Bodie PMU that may be negatively affecting sage-grouse. Land use 
plans in Bodie PMU do not predict or plan for any additional major, 
multi-line, or high-voltage utility lines in this PMU (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 82). For the Mount Grant PMU, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 137) 
indicates that a power line fragments this PMU and that the line 
provides perches for raptors. In the South Mono PMU, transmission lines 
were considered to be a risk to sage-grouse on a yearlong basis (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 169). The Bi-State Plan also mentions three 
transmission lines that either are impacting sage-grouse or may 
potentially impact them, and that future geothermal development may 
result in expansion of transmission lines in the South Mono PMU (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 169). The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 120) indicates 
that construction of new transmission lines may fragment occupied or 
potential sage-grouse habitat in the White Mountains PMU.
    BLM-Bishop Field Office (undated) documented increased sage-grouse 
mortality and decreased use of leks when fences or power lines are 
built nearby although the source of this statement was a summary sheet 
of information put together for a presentation, not a published report 
or study. Fatooh et al. (undated) reported that sage-grouse were 
displaced from one lek area by fence construction. Fences were 
considered a risk to sage-grouse in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 54) and the Bodie PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 80). 
Within the Bodie PMU, there have been instances where sage-grouse 
avoided habitat areas following fence construction and several 
documented cases where mortalities resulted from collisions with fences 
(Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 80). However, the Bi-State Plan discussion of 
fences in the Bodie PMU also indicated that properly designed and sited 
fences are an important management tool that may improve sage-grouse 
habitat quality, and that fencing is clearly a manageable risk (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 80). For the White Mountains PMU, fences can 
potentially affect sage-grouse populations or habitat negatively, and 
construction of new fences may fragment occupied or potential habitat 
for the species (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 120, 124). In the South Mono 
PMU, fences and other types of infrastructure are considered to be a 
risk

[[Page 76067]]

to sage-grouse and sage-grouse mortality caused by collision with a 
fence has been documented (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 169). However, the 
South Mono PMU discussion also indicated that fences are a valuable 
rangeland management tool and that mitigation of potential impacts to 
sage-grouse from fences includes design and placement (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 169). Fences were not considered to be a risk factor for 
either the Pine Nut or Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004).
    Roads were one of several factors causing habitat degradation for 
the Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado (Oyler-McCance et al. 2001, p. 
324). Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 10-3) indicates that disturbance factors, 
including roads, can facilitate cheatgrass spread. For the Desert 
Creek-Fales PMU, roads were considered to be a type of risk to sage-
grouse for the (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 54). Roads were considered as a 
type of disturbance in the White Mountains that can potentially 
negatively impact sage-grouse populations or habitat (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 124), and construction of new roads in this PMU may fragment 
occupied or potential habitat for the species (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 
120). For the South Mono PMU, roads are listed as a risk factor that 
affect sage-grouse habitat and populations (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 
169). Roads were not presented as a specific risk factor for the Pine 
Nut, Bodie, or Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004).
    Fences, power lines, and roads are present in all the PMUs that 
comprise the Mono Basin area. The presence of this type of human 
infrastructure in areas where sage-grouse occur may have direct or 
indirect impacts to the species (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, 
pp. 2256-2258). In the Bi-State area, power lines and fences are 
considered to be a risk factor for most of the PMUs, but roads were not 
(Bi-State Plan 2004). Although the Bi-State Plan (2004) provides some 
direct examples of impacts to sage-grouse from fences, power lines, and 
roads, most of what it presents is the potential for impacts to sage-
grouse without providing documentation that this infrastructure 
threatens sage-grouse or specifically how it is a threat and whether 
this infrastructure has actually affected populations. In general, we 
acknowledge that where fences, power lines, and roads occur in close 
proximity to occupied sage-grouse habitat, they may impact the species. 
However, neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide information on 
the extent or magnitude of fences, power lines, and roads as a threat 
for sage-grouse habitat in the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude 
that there is not substantial scientific or commercial information to 
indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to the impacts of 
fences, power lines, or roads.
Mining
    The November 2005 petition states that mining directly eliminates 
habitat wherever it occurs in sagebrush steppe, may poison surface 
water, and may expose wildlife to toxic chemicals. Petitioners also 
assert that mining often requires the construction of roads, power 
lines, ditches, pipelines, and slagheaps that fragment habitat. The 
petition claims that hard-rock mining for silver and gold is a 
prominent threat in the Bodie PMU, citing the Bi-State Plan, stating 
that within this PMU: Mineral exploration is likely to continue for the 
foreseeable future; recent proposals to mine for gold, silver, sand and 
gravel would affect a sage-grouse summer concentration near the 
Panamount Mine and a lek area on Dry Lakes Plateau; and disturbances 
associated with these activities include noise, stream sedimentation, 
water and soil contamination, and habitat removal (Bi-State Plan, pp. 
89-90). Additionally, the petitioners cite Braun (1998) in asserting 
that there is no evidence that sage-grouse populations are able to 
reach their pre-mining numbers on reclaimed areas. The petition states 
that sage-grouse may use areas reclaimed from mining, but only if 
migration corridors from source populations are available (Braun 1998). 
Petitioners also cite problems in mineland reclamation, including that 
it is difficult to establish sagebrush and forbs on reclaimed areas, 
reclamation is expensive, invasive weeds can spread on reclaimed sites, 
and shrub densities on reclaimed sites may not be adequate to support 
sage-grouse.
    The December 2001 petition also cited mining as habitat conversion 
that is a threat to sage-grouse. However, this petition did not provide 
additional information beyond what was provided in the November 2005 
petition in relation to mining and its relationship to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the habitat or 
range of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area.
    We previously have concluded that surface mining for any mineral 
resource will result in direct habitat loss for sage-grouse if the 
mining occurs in occupied habitat (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, 
p. 2260). The actual effect of this loss, however, depends on the 
quality, amount, and type of habitat disturbed; in some cases, if the 
type of habitat disturbed is not a limiting factor for a local 
population, then loss of that habitat will not result in a population 
decline. However, the effects of mining on sage-grouse populations are 
not well known (Connelly et al. 2000, p. 974).
    The petition correctly cites the Bi-State Plan (2004, pp. 89-90) in 
describing potential mineral exploration in the Bodie PMU and the 
associated impacts. However, most of the discussion of mining impacts 
for the Bodie PMU relate to either effects of past mining operations, 
or the potential for future mining impacts should mineral deposits be 
discovered and developed (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89-90). The 
discussion for the Bodie PMU concludes that the current risk is 
restricted to small-scale gold and silver exploration and sand and 
gravel extraction activities that are considered to have minimal 
impacts on sage-grouse (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 90). Furthermore, 
although Braun (1998) indicated that mining and the associated 
infrastructure negatively impact sage-grouse numbers and habitat in the 
short term, there is some recovery of populations following initial 
development and subsequent reclamation of the affected sites (although 
sage-grouse may not attain population levels present prior to 
development) (Braun 1998).
    Within the Mono Basin area, sage-grouse were impacted by past 
mining in the Bodie PMU. While mining could potentially impact some 
sage-grouse habitat in the Bodie PMU in the future, petitioners' claims 
regarding this are speculative, since the potential for mining will 
depend largely on where mineral deposits are discovered and developed 
(Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 89-90). Also, the potential impacts of future 
mineral development would be influenced by factors such as new 
technology and economic considerations. Furthermore, the amount of 
suitable habitat that might be involved, the number of sage-grouse that 
might be impacted, and the actual nature of the impacts resulting from 
mining are inherently speculative at this time and would depend on 
local conditions, including whether the habitat impacted was a limiting 
factor for the local sage-grouse population in that area.
    Neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide information on the 
present or future extent, magnitude, or immediacy of mining as a threat 
for the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is not 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that

[[Page 76068]]

listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted due to the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
sage-grouse habitat or range due to mining activities.
Livestock Grazing
    The November 2005 petition asserts that livestock grazing is 
associated with the widespread decline of sage-grouse across their 
range through habitat degradation, loss, and fragmentation and cites 
Connelly and Braun (1997) and Webb and Salvo (2002) to support this 
assertion. According to the petitioners, Beck and Mitchell (2000) found 
that there were more negative impacts than positive impacts of 
livestock grazing; negative impacts often affect large areas, whereas 
positive grazing affects are localized; and livestock grazing appears 
to affect sage-grouse productivity.
    The petitioners cite Gregg and Crawford (1991) and Holloran et al. 
(2005) in asserting that livestock eat and trample sagebrush, and the 
grasses and forbs around sagebrush, which degrades or eliminates 
nesting habitat; and the petitioners cite Gregg et al. (1994), Delong 
et al. (1995), and Sveum et al. (1998) to state that this affects both 
nesting success and chick survival. The petitioners cite information 
from multiple authors and studies in asserting the following: the 
availability of forbs during the pre-laying period may affect the 
nutritional status of hens and their reproductive success (Barnett and 
Crawford 1994); herbaceous cover is important in nest site selection 
(Connelly et al. 1991; Wakkinen 1990); nest success is positively 
correlated with presence of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and 
thick grass and forb cover (Beck and Mitchell 2000; Connelly et al. 
1991; Gregg et al. 1994); herbaceous cover is important for nesting 
sage-grouse for concealment, security, and shelter from weather and 
predators (Schroeder and Baydack 2001; Sveum et al. 1998); unsuitable 
nesting habitat may contribute to lower nesting success (Connelly and 
Braun 1997); the presence of livestock can cause sage-grouse to abandon 
their nests (Rasmussen and Griner 1938; Call 1979); consumption of 
forbs by livestock in late spring and early summer may limit their 
availability for sage-grouse chicks (Call 1979); insects are an 
important food source for sage-grouse chicks (Pyle and Crawford 1991; 
Johnson and Boyce 1990) and insects are less abundant in degraded 
habitats; the availability of primary foods directly affects the diets 
of sage-grouse chicks (forbs and insects comprise over 75 percent of 
chick diets in areas where forbs and arthropods were more available, 
whereas in less productive habitats sage-grouse chicks consumed 65 
percent sagebrush) (Drut et al. 1994).
    The petitioners cite an Inyo National Forest sage-grouse management 
plan (Inyo National Forest 1966) in claiming that livestock grazing was 
a factor in historic declines in Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
populations. Petitioners also claim that livestock grazing affects 
other seasonal habitats for sage-grouse. In support of this claim, they 
cite Belsky et al. (1999) in stating that livestock damage riparian 
areas and associated meadows; they cite Owens and Norton (1992) in 
stating that livestock eat and trample sagebrush; and they cite Bedunah 
(1992) in asserting that livestock grazing introduces and spreads 
unpalatable weeds in sagebrush habitat, which reduces sage-grouse food 
sources. Further, the petition asserts that the range developments that 
support livestock grazing also harm sage-grouse. The petitioners state 
that fence posts provide raptor perches, and livestock water 
developments may artificially increase sage-grouse predators or 
competitors. They cite Autenrieth (1981) in asserting that conversion 
of sagebrush to crested wheatgrass and other livestock forage species 
eliminates sage-grouse habitat. The petitioners cite Wilkenson (2001) 
in stating that sage-grouse are low fliers and frequently collide with 
fences used to manage livestock.
    The November 2005 petition claims that commercial livestock grazing 
on public lands affects broad swaths of sage-grouse habitat in the Mono 
Basin area. The petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in listing 
the number of livestock allotments in the Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, 
and Mount Grant PMUs and in stating that about 75 percent of the Bodie 
PMU is subject to grazing. They also assert that all PMUs in the Bi-
State area are subject to livestock grazing. The petitioners further 
cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in stating that: enforcement of permit 
conditions, seasons of use, numbers of livestock, and trespass grazing 
is a concern for part of the Pine Nut PMU; riparian habitats are being 
adversely impacted by grazing in the White Mountains PMU; and trespass 
livestock are impacting habitat in the Mount Grant PMU. Finally, the 
petitioners cite two Great Basin assessments (Wisdom et al. 2003; 
Rowland et al. 2003) in stating that vast areas of sagebrush habitat in 
Nevada are at risk of cheatgrass invasion and may be sensitive to 
inappropriate livestock grazing.
    The December 2001 petition also cited grazing as a threat to sage-
grouse. However, this petition did not provide additional information 
beyond what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    In reviewing several of the documents cited by the petitioners 
(Beck and Mitchell 2000; Connelly and Braun 1997; Holloran et al. 2005; 
Gregg and Crawford 1991; Schroeder and Baydack 2001; and Call 1979), we 
found that the cited materials offered a more comprehensive discussion 
of the threats from grazing. For example, although Beck and Mitchell 
(2000) found more negative than positive impacts of grazing, they 
concluded that indirect impacts of livestock grazing have affected 
sage-grouse habitat more than direct impacts (Beck and Mitchell 2000, 
p. 997) and that presently little information is available regarding 
the direct impacts of grazing on sage-grouse habitat (Beck and Mitchell 
2000, p. 993). Connelly and Braun (1997, p. 231-232) stated that 
although excessive grazing during the breeding season may have negative 
impacts on sage-grouse populations, there is little direct evidence 
linking grazing practices to sage-grouse population levels and that 
more information is needed on the relationship of livestock grazing to 
sage-grouse production. Additionally, although several authors 
(Holloran et al. 2005; Gregg and Crawford 1991; Gregg et al. 1994; 
Delong et al. 1995; Sveum et al. 1998; 1994; Connelly et al. 1991; and 
Wakkinen 1990) discuss the relationship between sagebrush grass and 
herbaceous cover and nesting success as presented by the petitioners, 
none of these studies are direct comparisons of grazed versus non-
grazed sites, but rather they all compare successful to unsuccessful 
nest sites and hypothesize that grazing may negatively impact nesting 
success. Furthermore, neither Holloran et al. (2005) nor Gregg and 
Crawford discuss livestock eating sagebrush and trampling sagebrush or 
the grasses and forbs around them as asserted by the petitioners. Beck 
and Mitchell (2000) did not demonstrate that sagebrush cover and grass 
or herbaceous cover was important to nest success but rather summarized 
the work of other researchers. Sveum et al. (1998, p. 268) did find 
that sagebrush cover and tall grass cover was greater for successful 
nests than for those lost to predation, but Schroeder and Baydack 
(2001) only discuss predation for prairie grouse species in general 
without providing specific conclusions for sage-grouse. Call (1979, p. 
25) cites work by Patterson (1950) in which livestock

[[Page 76069]]

presence at a site resulted in nest desertion and destruction, but Call 
(1979; p. 30) also states that while sheep can cause nest abandonment, 
cattle are generally not considered to cause nest desertion. Call 
(1979, p. 25) indicates that consumption of forbs by livestock in 
spring and summer may have an adverse impact on young sage-grouse, but 
this was not based on a comparative study of grazed versus ungrazed 
sites. Barnett and Crawford (1994, p. 114) documented the importance of 
forb availability to nesting females, but as with other studies, they 
did not compare grazed sites to ungrazed sites to directly address 
grazing effects on forb availability.
    Both Pyle and Crawford (1991) and Johnson and Boyce (1990, pp. 90-
91) demonstrated that insects were important in the diet of young sage-
grouse. However, Pyle and Crawford did not compare grazed to ungrazed 
sites, and the results in Johnson and Boyce (1990, pp. 89-91) are based 
on captive birds, not a field study. Furthermore, Johnson and Boyce 
(1990, p. 91) state that results from their work cannot be related 
directly to effects of insect reductions on wild populations, because 
insect types and abundance needed for young sage-grouse to meet their 
requirements are unknown. Drut et al. (1994, pp. 91-92) did document 
that sage-grouse chicks ate more forbs and insects at a site where 
these were more abundant, and they consumed more sagebrush at another 
study site where forbs and insects were less available. However, they 
did not directly compare grazed to ungrazed sites and only make 
inferences about land use practices based on major outcomes of their 
work (Drut et al. 1994, p. 93).
    The sage-grouse management plan developed for the Inyo National 
Forest (Inyo National Forest 1966, p. 2) does suggest that livestock 
grazing was a factor in historic declines of sage-grouse populations in 
Inyo and Mono Counties. However, this plan is 40 years old and it 
refers to livestock as a factor in historic declines in sage-grouse 
that occurred in the 20th century, and does not relate directly to 
present conditions or present grazing management practices in the Mono 
Basin area.
    The petitioners correctly cite other works (Belsky et al. 1999; 
Owens and Norton 1992; and Bedunah 1992) that document effects of 
grazing on sagebrush habitat. However these authors only present 
effects of livestock grazing on habitat and do not document how grazing 
directly impacts sage-grouse. Petitioners do correctly cite Autenrieth 
(1980, p. 772) regarding conversion of sagebrush to grasslands and 
Wilkinson (2001), who documents sage-grouse mortalities caused by 
fences used to manage livestock.
    For the Mono Basin area, all the sage-grouse PMUs are subject to 
livestock grazing (Bi-State Plan 2004), as stated by petitioners. 
Petitioners also accurately characterize the number of grazing 
allotments for the Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-
State Plan 2004, pp. 56-57, 82, and 138). The petition accurately 
characterizes concerns related to grazing for the southern part of the 
Pine Nut PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 29); however, the Bi-State Plan 
indicates that public land grazing in this PMU is being managed in such 
a way that it is not known to be impacting sage-grouse habitat at this 
time (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 29). Petitioners asserted that riparian 
habitats in general are being impacted in the White Mountains PMU; 
whereas, according to the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 122), impacts are 
discussed for only three specific riparian areas and there is no 
indication that livestock grazing is considered to be a major risk for 
sage-grouse in this PMU. For the Mount Grant PMU, the petitioners 
assert that trespass livestock are impacting habitat in this PMU, 
whereas the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 138) only states that there are 
some trespass cattle present in one specific area. There is no 
indication in the Bi-State Plan (2004, pp. 138-139) that livestock 
grazing is considered to be a major risk for the Mount Grant PMU. Nor 
is livestock grazing considered to be a major risk for sage-grouse in 
the Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 56-57). The Bi-
State Plan does characterize livestock grazing as a risk to sage-grouse 
for the Bodie PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 82); however, it also states 
that permitted grazing is a manageable risk with current management 
practices representing a significant improvement over historic use (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 85). Finally, for the South Mono PMU, the Bi-State 
Plan (2004, pp. 175-176) states the livestock grazing occurs on public 
lands in this PMU but it does not characterize grazing as a major risk 
to sage-grouse.
    The petition accurately characterizes both the Wisdom et al. (2003, 
p. xiv) and Rowland et al. (2003, p. 16) assessments of the Great Basin 
and Nevada regarding the large area at risk to cheatgrass displacement 
and sensitivity to inappropriate grazing. However, both of these 
assessments were completed at a large geographic area scale. Neither of 
these assessments is specific to the Mono Basin area. With regard to 
inappropriate livestock grazing, the Rowland et al. (2003, p. 16) 
assessment only states that very little of the sagebrush habitat in 
Nevada is on lands protected outright from disturbances like energy 
development or inappropriate grazing, and this information is not 
specific to the Mono Basin area.
    Petitioners accurately cite a BLM Environmental Assessment 
authorizing livestock grazing (BLM-Bishop Field Office 2003, pp. 22-
23). However, the 2005 petitioners' assessment of grazing actions for 
BLM-Bishop Field Office lands is not consistent with the 
characterization of grazing provided in the Bi-State Plan. Most of the 
land administered by the BLM-Bishop Field Office occurs in the Bodie 
and South Mono PMUs. For these two PMUs, the discussions of livestock 
grazing in the Bi-State Plan do not indicate that livestock grazing is 
a major risk, or that it is having major impacts on sage-grouse 
populations in these areas (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 82-85 and 175-176).
    Beck and Mitchell (2000), Connelly et al. (2000), Connelly et al. 
(2004), and Crawford et al. (2004) present information about the 
effects of livestock grazing on sage-grouse, including what is 
documented and what has not been documented. Livestock grazing has some 
effects on sagebrush habitat and therefore some effects on sage-grouse. 
Most of the impacts on sage grouse appear to be indirect (Beck and 
Mitchell 2000, p. 993). There is little direct experimental evidence 
linking grazing practices to sage-grouse population levels (Connelly et 
al. 2004, p. 974). Excessive livestock grazing has negatively impacted 
sage-grouse habitat by creating conditions that favor annual grasses 
and reducing perennial grasses used as nesting and escape cover by 
sage-grouse (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 12). However, the specific 
relationship between grazing pressure and sage-grouse nest success has 
not been evaluated, and more research is needed to address the direct 
effects of livestock grazing on the species (Crawford et al. 2004, p. 
12).
    Specific to the Mono Basin area, most of the land area that is 
grazed by livestock in the Mono Basin area is public land managed by 
BLM and USFS under rangeland management practices guided by agency land 
use plans. Livestock grazing is a long-term and historic use in the 
Mono Basin area, and sage-grouse have persisted here over time. Neither 
the petitioners, nor our files, provide information on the present or 
threatened extent, magnitude, or immediacy of livestock grazing as a 
threat for the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is 
not substantial scientific or commercial

[[Page 76070]]

information to indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may be warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to 
livestock grazing.
Non-Native Species
    The November 2005 petition states that non-native plants are common 
in sagebrush-steppe habitat and degrade habitat quality for sage-
grouse. The petitioners cite the description of the impacts of 
cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invasion and other invasive plants on 
sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse provided by Connelly et al. (2004). 
They also cite the Bi-State Plan in stating that in the Pine Nut PMU 
noxious weeds and cheatgrass are invading sagebrush and wet meadow 
sites throughout the PMU. Petitioners cite Wisdom et al. (2003) as 
reporting that 26 percent of sage-grouse habitat in Nevada is at 
moderate risk and another 14 percent of this habitat is at high risk of 
cheatgrass invasion, and that 44 percent of all sagebrush habitat in 
Nevada currently faces a moderate or high risk of being replaced by 
non-native cheatgrass. The petitioners cite a related assessment 
completed by Rowland et al. (2003) in stating that sage-grouse habitat 
for the BLM-Carson City District lands, where Mono Basin area sage-
grouse occur, are at moderate risk of displacement by cheatgrass, and 
13 percent of these lands are at high risk of displacement by 
cheatgrass.
    The December 2001 petition also cited invasive species as a threat 
to sage-grouse. However, this petition did not provide additional 
information beyond what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    We recognize that a wide variety of plant species are considered 
invasive across the range of the sagebrush ecosystem that sage-grouse 
occupy (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 2265). Cheatgrass is a 
non-native annual grass species that was introduced to western North 
America and was well established by the late 1920s (Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 7-14). Cheatgrass readily outcompetes native plant species for 
water and nutrients, and standing dead cheatgrass is more flammable 
than native species, leading to increased fire intensity and frequency, 
which greatly shortens the fire return interval in areas where it 
dominates compared to native sagebrush ecosystems (Connelly et al. 
2004, p. 7-14). The more frequent fires encouraged by the presence of 
cheatgrass directly eliminate native shrubs, forbs, and perennial 
grasses, resulting in self-perpetuating stands of cheatgrass (Connelly 
et al. 2004, p. 7-14).
    Wisdom et al. (2003, pp. 4-3 to 4-13) assessed the risk of 
cheatgrass displacement of native vegetation and presented their 
results for the Great Basin eco-region and then separately for the 
State of Nevada. We agree with petitioners that for their Nevada 
assessment, Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xi) reported that 44 percent of 
existing sagebrush habitat was at either a moderate or high risk of 
displacement by cheatgrass, but we also note that 56 percent of 
sagebrush habitat is at low risk of displacement (Wisdom et al. 2003, 
p. xi). Wisdom et al. (2003, p. xii) also stated that for Nevada sage-
grouse habitat, 14 percent was at high risk and another 26 percent was 
at moderate risk of cheatgrass replacement within Nevada, but that 60 
percent of sage-grouse habitat in Nevada is at low risk of being 
displaced by cheatgrass (Wisdom et al. 2003, p. xii). Furthermore, the 
assessment stated that the amount of habitat present and its associated 
threats do not directly correlate with population effects for a given 
species, and that new research is needed to evaluate the performance of 
their cheatgrass risk model, including extensive field evaluation 
(Wisdom et al. 2004, p. 9-2 and 4-12). The Rowland et al. (2003) 
habitat assessment was a component of the Wisdom et al. (2003) 
assessment.
    We note also that the assessments conducted by Wisdom et al. (2003) 
and Rowland et al. (2003) were conducted at large landscape scales and 
do not provide information specific to the Mono Basin area. The Rowland 
et al. (2003) assessment provided a summary for lands within BLM's 
Carson City Field Office boundary, but a large portion of the lands 
administered by this Field Office do not occur within the Mono Basin 
area, and consequently it is not appropriate to apply these results 
directly to the Mono Basin area.
    The Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 30) states that noxious weeds and 
cheatgrass are invading sagebrush and meadow sites throughout the Pine 
Nut PMU, and that exotic plant species negatively affect sage-grouse 
habitat quality and quantity. The Bi-State Plan also identifies 
cheatgrass in some sagebrush communities in the Bodie PMU and states 
that there is some risk of habitat type conversion, but it is for 
limited sagebrush habitats in this PMU and there have not been any 
conversions of sagebrush habitat to non-native annual grasslands in the 
Bodie PMU to date (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 93). Although non-native 
plants are present in the White Mountains, Mount Grant, and South Mono 
PMUs, this was not found to be a risk factor in any of these areas (Bi-
State Plan 2004, pp. 118, 140, 177). Non-native plants were not 
considered to be a risk factor in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State 
Plan 2004).
    Neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide substantial 
information to document the extent or magnitude of the present or 
future threat of non-native plant species for sage-grouse habitat in 
the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is not 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted due to the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
sage-grouse habitat or range due to non-native plant species.
Pinyon-Juniper Encroachment
    The November 2005 petition cites the impacts of pinyon-juniper 
(Pinus edulis-Juniperus spp.) encroachment described by Connelly et al. 
(2004) on sagebrush steppe habitat and sage-grouse. The petition 
asserts that pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitat is 
occurring throughout the Mono Basin area and has widespread impacts on 
sage grouse habitat. The petition also cites USFS information that the 
Inyo National Forest noticed encroachment of pinyon pine into sagebrush 
habitat in the Crowley Lake area in 1966 (Inyo National Forest 1966). 
For the Pine Nut PMU, the petitioners cite the Bi-State Plan (2004) in 
stating that many of the ecological sites that support big sagebrush 
have been converted to pinyon-juniper woodlands over the past 100 
years. The petition further cites the Bi-State Plan (2004) for the Pine 
Nut PMU in stating that: Encroachment is impacting potential nesting 
and brood habitat at multiple sites; it may also be affecting 
connectivity between breeding populations; and the effects of 
encroachment may become permanent and irreversible without active 
management. For the Desert Creek-Fales PMU petitioners cite the Bi-
State Plan (2004) in stating that pinyon-juniper encroachment is 
occurring throughout the entire PMU and is adversely affecting both the 
habitat quality and quantity for sage-grouse. For the Bodie PMU they 
assert that Fatooh et al. (undated) questioned whether ``pinyon and 
juniper may be limiting potential winter habitat or constraining 
potential migration routes.'' The petitioners also cite the Bi-State 
Plan (2004) in stating that all or portions of the other PMUs are also 
affected by pinyon-juniper encroachment, and they cite the work of 
Wisdom et al. (2003) in stating that 41 percent of Great Basin 
ecosystems were

[[Page 76071]]

at moderate or high risk of pinyon-juniper invasion.
    We agree that the work by Connelly et al. (2004) describes the 
expansion of pinyon-juniper woodlands as a threat to the sagebrush 
ecosystem, and specifically within the Great Basin region, these 
woodlands have expanded greatly in comparison to their distribution 
over 150 years ago (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-7). Potential causes for 
this increase include a decrease in fire frequencies; climate change; 
past patterns of livestock grazing; and increases in carbon dioxide in 
the atmosphere (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-7). This expansion has 
resulted in the loss of many bunchgrass and sagebrush-bunchgrass 
communities that formerly dominated the Intermountain West (January 12, 
2005, Federal Register, p. 2266). Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 4-1 to 4-7) 
modeled the risk that pinyon-juniper woodlands would displace sagebrush 
habitats in the Great Basin and found that nearly 60 percent of the 
area occupied by sagebrush was at low risk of replacement, 6 percent of 
all sagebrush cover was at moderate risk, and 35 percent of sagebrush 
cover was at high risk of replacement. However, they also reported that 
new research is needed to evaluate the performance of their pinyon-
juniper risk model, including extensive field evaluation, and that the 
amount of habitat and associated threats does not directly correlate 
with populations effects for a given species (Wisdom et al. 2003, p. 4-
6 and 9-2). We note also that the assessments by Connelly et al. (2004) 
and Wisdom et al. (2003) were for large geographic areas covering 
multiple states in the range of the species, and hence they do not 
provide a specific assessment of conditions in the Mono Basin area.
    The quote of Fatooh et al. (undated) in the petition was 
incomplete. Fatooh et al. (undated) actually stated that ``in a heavy 
snow winter we may want to note whether pinyon and juniper may be 
limiting potential winter habitat or constraining potential migration 
routes'' (Fatooh et al., undated). Thus the information in Fatooh et 
al. is inconclusive, as it relates to period of heavy winter snow and 
poses questions, rather than providing evidence, in relation to 
possible effects on potential habitat and potential migration routes.
    The Inyo National Forest reported that some pinyon pine 
encroachment into sagebrush has occurred (Inyo National Forest 1966, p. 
22). However, that statement related to past conditions and was limited 
to the east side of the Crowley Lake area. Also, there is no 
information presented by the Inyo National Forest document on the 
extent or magnitude of pine encroachment in this limited area by 
Crowley Lake.
    The Bi-State Plan reports that within the Pine Nut PMU, pinyon-
juniper encroachment is occurring and many big sagebrush sites have 
been converted to pinyon-juniper woodland (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 20). 
The petition correctly cites other concerns expressed for the Pine Nut 
PMU in the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 20) as well as concerns about 
pinyon-juniper encroachment in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU (Bi-State 
Plan 2004, p. 39), and Bodie, White Mountains, Mount Grant, and South 
Mono PMUs (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 96, 119, 133, 167). The Bi-State 
Plan indicates that pinyon-juniper encroachment is occurring to some 
degree in all of the PMUs in the Mono Basin area with the greatest risk 
occurring in the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and Bodie PMUs (Bi-State 
Plan 2004, pp. 20, 39, 96). However, the Bi-State Plan does not provide 
documentation of the amount of sagebrush habitat lost to encroachment 
in the Mono Basin area, nor does it not demonstrate that pinyon-juniper 
encroachment has caused sage-grouse populations to decline in any of 
the PMUs. Information about the time period over which encroachment has 
been ongoing is lacking, but it has been occurring since at least the 
1960's (Inyo National Forest 1966, p. 22).
    Our evaluation shows that neither the petitions, nor our files, 
provide documentation of the extent or magnitude of the present or 
future threat of pinyon-juniper encroachment to sage-grouse habitat 
within the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is not 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that 
listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted as a result 
of the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of sage-grouse habitat or range due to pinyon-juniper encroachment.
Military Lands
    The November 2005 petition states that 19,804 hectares (ha) (48,936 
acres (ac)) of sage-grouse habitat in the Mono Basin area are managed 
by the Department of Defense as an army depot (a facility used for 
storage, renovation, and disposal of conventional army weapons). The 
petitioners cite Connelly et al. (2004) regarding impacts of military 
training and related activities on sagebrush habitat and sage-grouse 
and conclude that these lands cannot be considered suitable or 
protected habitat since they are open to development and activities 
that negatively impact the species. The December 2001 petition also 
cited military operations as a threat to sage-grouse. However, this 
petition did not provide additional information beyond what was 
provided in the November 2005 petition.
    We agree that the U.S. Army manages 19,804 ha (48,936 ac) of land 
within the Mount Grant PMU as part of its Hawthorne Army Depot (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 127). However, the petitioner's claim that these 
lands cannot be considered suitable or protected habitat because they 
are open to development and activities that negatively impact sage-
grouse is not valid. The Bi-State Plan (2004) describes Hawthorne Army 
Depot lands in the Mount Grant PMU as some of the best sage-grouse 
habitat within this PMU because of the exclusion of livestock and the 
public (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 149). Livestock grazing has not occurred 
on the Hawthorne Army Depot lands in the Mount Grant PMU since the 
1930s and military activities such as testing and training have been 
fairly minor on these lands (Nachlinger 2003, p. 38).
    Connelly et al. (2004, p. 7-43) summarizes impacts of military 
training due to military exercises involving tracked and wheeled 
vehicles, and fires from ordnance impacts from across the range of 
sagebrush ecosystems. However, this assessment was generalized for all 
military lands within the range of the sage-grouse and did not include 
information specific to military lands in the Mono Basin area.
    Hawthorne Army Depot lands within the Mount Grant PMU have been 
documented to provide relatively high quality habitat for sage-grouse 
(Nachlinger 2003, p. 38; Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 149), and we are not 
aware of any other U.S. military lands elsewhere in the Mono Basin 
area. Neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide documentation to 
substantiate claims that military training or development on military 
lands is a present or future threat to the habitat or range of the 
sage-grouse population in the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude 
that there is not substantial scientific or commercial information to 
indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be 
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, 
or curtailment of sage-grouse habitat or range due to military training 
or development of military lands.
Water Development
    The November 2005 petition states that the conversion of natural 
basins to managed watersheds for the purpose of providing water for 
agriculture and

[[Page 76072]]

urban centers negatively affects semiarid ecosystems. The petitioners 
also state that the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 
(LADWP) manages land in the Mono Basin area and diverts, collects, and 
exports water from this area to Los Angeles. They cite the work of 
Elmore et al. (2003) and indicate that the diversion, exportation, and 
inter-basin transfer of water from arid environments results in adverse 
ecological impacts to aquatic, riparian, wetland, mesic, and other 
systems dependent on that water. They also cite Elmore et al. (2003) in 
stating that: groundwater pumping adversely affects semi-arid habitats 
that are dependent on groundwater when droughts occur; that native 
vegetation decreases during drought when groundwater pumping lowers 
water tables; in some areas the decline in native vegetation is 
followed by an increase in non-native weed species after the drought 
ended; and that these effects are amplified when vegetation communities 
are disturbed by other factors such as burning, grazing, and 
agriculture. According to the petitioners, a variety of plant 
communities are present in the Owens River Valley, including sagebrush 
habitat and Mono Basin sage-grouse were historically present in this 
area. The petitioners cite Elmore et al. (2003) and assert that this 
study demonstrated that where LADWP has drilled wells and pumped water, 
the lowered water tables have caused a loss of native vegetative cover 
within 19 percent of the valley landscape. Finally, the petitioners 
assert that the loss of mesic and semi-arid habitats adversely affects 
sage-grouse in the Owens Valley by eliminating habitat and degrading 
and fragmenting the sagebrush habitats that remain.
    We concur that Elmore et al. (2003) demonstrated that groundwater 
pumping from the Owens River Valley by LADWP impacted some native plant 
communities in this area. However, the petitioners failed to note that 
only a small portion of the Owens Valley study area (Elmore et al. 
2003, p. 449) actually overlaps with the Mono Basin area (in the White 
Mountains PMU). They also fail to note that only a small portion of the 
Owens Valley study area (Elmore et al. 2003, p. 449) overlaps with the 
historic range of sage-grouse in Inyo County (Hall 1995, Figure 1) or 
that sage-grouse are no longer present in the area where the Elmore et 
al. (2003) study occurred (Hall 1995, Figure 1). Even if groundwater 
pumping by LADWP was a factor in the reduction of sage-grouse range in 
Inyo County, the extent and magnitude of this impact would have been 
limited, given the small overlap in the historic range of sage-grouse 
and the Elmore et al. (2003) study area. Also, Elmore et al. (2003, p. 
454) did not find any negative response of sagebrush plant communities 
(which sage-grouse require) to groundwater pumping. Furthermore, the 
sagebrush type in the Elmore et al. (2003, p. 447) study only comprised 
a minor portion of their study area (about 4 percent of the area), and 
the nearest sage-grouse leks to the Owens Valley are at high-elevation 
sites in the White Mountains, and groundwater pumping would not 
directly impact these birds. None of the PMU discussions in the Bi-
State Plan identified groundwater pumping by LADWP as a risk to sage-
grouse.
    Neither the petition, nor our files, provide documentation that 
groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley of California is the cause of 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
the habitat or range of the greater sage-grouse in the Mono Basin. 
Therefore, we conclude that there is not substantial scientific or 
commercial information to indicate that listing the Mono Basin area 
sage-grouse may be warranted due to water development.
Feral Horses
    The November 2005 petition claims that feral horses affect sage-
grouse populations at several locations in the Mono Basin area and 
cites the Bi-State Plan (2004) in claiming they are a potentially 
significant risk for the 7-Troughs lek in the Bodie PMU. They also cite 
the discussion of impacts from wild horse and burros in Connelly et al. 
(2004).
    Connelly et al. (2004, pp. 7-36--7-37) stated that habitat occupied 
by horses exhibits lower grass cover, fewer shrubs, and less total 
vegetative cover, and that horse alteration of spring or other mesic 
areas may be a concern with regard to sage-grouse brood rearing 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-37). However, these observations were 
general and not specific to the Mono Basin area. The Bi-State Plan 
(2004, pp. 28, 86, 122, 139, 177) included discussions on wild horses 
for the Pine Nut, Bodie, White Mountains, Mount Grant, and South Mono 
PMUs. For all PMUs except Bodie, the discussions in the Bi-State Plan 
are brief and focused on one or a few locations within each PMU where 
wild horses may be impacting sage-grouse habitat. The most extensive 
discussion is for the Bodie PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 86-87), where 
there is risk of disturbance to the 7-Troughs lek. However, for the 
Bodie PMU, the current extent of breeding and summer sage-grouse 
habitat degradation attributable to wild horses is insignificant due to 
low horse numbers, and the extent of winter habitat degradation due to 
this factor also is insignificant because sagebrush cover is minimally 
affected by horse use (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 86). The BLM captured and 
removed some wild horses from part of the Bodie PMU in 2003 (Bi-State 
Plan 2004, pp. 86-87).
    Neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide substantial 
information to document the extent, magnitude, or immediacy of present 
or future threats posed by feral horses to sage-grouse throughout the 
Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is not substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing of the 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted as a result of the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse 
habitat or range due to feral horses.
Wildfire
    The November 2005 petition states that wildfire is often mentioned 
as a significant threat to sage-grouse. It cites the Connelly et al. 
(2004) review of wildfire impacts on sagebrush steppe habitats and 
sage-grouse. The petitioners also cite Wisdom et al. (2003) and state 
that: Wildfire often leads to cheatgrass invasion of sagebrush 
habitats; that the number and size of wildfires across the Great Basin 
and Nevada have increased in the past 20 years and this trend 
continues; and that reducing the spread of cheatgrass in native 
shrublands through mitigation of human disturbances that facilitate its 
spread is probably the most important consideration in reducing the 
frequency, intensity, and area of undesirable wildfires.
    The December 2001 petition also cited fire as a threat to sage-
grouse. However, this petition did not provide additional information 
beyond what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    We note the Connelly et al. (2004) assessment of fire data across 
the range of the sagebrush ecosystem and their conclusions that the 
number of fires and total area burned had increased for the period from 
1980-2003, and that fires are an increasingly significant disturbance 
throughout much of the sagebrush ecosystem (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-
6). Repeated fires in more arid sagebrush stands have allowed 
cheatgrass to replace native shrubs and herbs with fires occurring at 
more frequent intervals (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-5). Cheatgrass 
recovers more quickly after fire, effectively preventing

[[Page 76073]]

the return of native sagebrush (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 
2265). From a rangewide perspective, altered fire regimes due to 
cheatgrass invasion is a factor in the loss of sage-grouse habitat 
(Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-5). Wisdom et al. (2003, p. 10-1) conducted 
a bioregional assessment of the Great Basin eco-region and similarly 
concluded that the number and size of wildfire across this region have 
increased dramatically in the last 20 years, and that this trend 
continues. They further concluded that reducing the spread of 
cheatgrass in native shrublands, and mitigating human disturbances that 
facilitate its spread are probably the most important considerations in 
reducing the frequency, intensity, and area of wildfires (Wisdom et al. 
2003, p. 10-1). However, both the analysis performed by Connelly et al. 
(2004) and the assessment by Wisdom et al. (2003) were conducted at 
large landscape scales, and neither provides an evaluation of the 
present or potential future effects of wildfire on greater sage-grouse 
habitat in the Mono Basin area.
    For the Mono Basin area, the Bi-State Plan (2004) states that: 
wildfire is a factor that can affect the quality of sagebrush habitat 
for the Desert Creek-Fales and South Mono PMUs; wildfire is a low risk 
for sage-grouse in the White Mountains PMU; and only three recent fires 
have occurred in the Mount Grant PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 53, 124, 
140, 178). The Bi-State Plan indicates that some wildfires occur in the 
Pine Nut PMU nearly every year with the potential to remove sagebrush 
habitats (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 26). Wildfire is a risk to sage-grouse 
habitat in the Pine Nut PMU; however, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 26) 
does not provide information on the extent or magnitude of fire, or how 
it has impacted sage-grouse in this PMU. For the Bodie PMU, the Bi-
State Plan (2004, p. 92) indicates that all sagebrush habitats in the 
PMU are subject to some fire-related risk. However, it also states 
that: Recent wildfire activity in the PMU is limited; no landscape-
scale fires have occurred over the last 40 years and even the largest 
recent burns have been small; no significant impacts to key sage-grouse 
habitats have been documented; and fire is a manageable risk (Bi-State 
Plan 2004, p. 93).
    Rangewide, wildfires have led to the loss of some sage-grouse 
habitat. Within the Mono Basin area, wildfire is a potential threat to 
sage-grouse habitat, but neither the petitioners, nor our files, 
provide any documentation that large landscape fires have occurred in 
this area or that significant amounts of habitat have been lost here 
due to fire. Hence, information on the extent and magnitude of wildfire 
is lacking for the Mono Basin area. Wildfires are a natural part of the 
environment in which the sage-grouse has evolved and persisted. Due to 
the changes in fire regimes described, wildfire remains a potential 
threat to sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. However, neither the 
petitioners, nor our files, provide substantial scientific or 
commercial information that indicates wildfire poses a substantial risk 
of present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
the habitat or range of the greater sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area 
to such an extent as to indicate listing may be warranted.
Summary for Factor A
    Habitat loss and modification for sage-grouse has occurred in the 
Mono Basin area in the past as a result of many of the situations and 
actions described above. However, the question being addressed in 
Factor A is the present or future, not the past. Our evaluation (above) 
shows that the 2001 and 2005 petitions, and information in our files, 
do not present substantial information that indicates listing is 
warranted under Factor A in relation to any of the individual 
activities described in the petitions. Further, neither the petitions 
nor information in our files present substantial information that 
collectively these actions indicate that listing is warranted under 
Factor A.
    In summary, we evaluated the threats cited in both petitions. We 
find that the petitions and other information in our files do not 
present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating 
that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of sage-grouse 
habitat or range.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The November 2005 petition asserts that given the declines in sage-
grouse populations across the West, there are many concerns about the 
possible impacts of continued sport hunting on this species. The 
petition further states that the impacts of hunting may 
disproportionately affect small and isolated populations of sage-
grouse. The petitioners also claim that hunting in the South Mono and 
Bodie PMUs could suppress local populations and jeopardize the Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse rangewide. The petitioners cite the following 
information to support their contention that hunting is a threat to 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse. Connelly et al. (2004) reviewed the 
impacts of hunting on sage-grouse populations. Autenrieth (1981) 
assessed hunting of sage-grouse and stated that harvest rates should be 
more conservative in xeric (dry) areas close to urban centers than in 
more mesic (moist) areas. Connelly et al. (2003) studied sage-grouse 
response to hunting and reported that: Areas open to hunting had lower 
rates of increase than did areas with no hunting; both moderate and 
restricted hunting seasons slowed population recovery; and populations 
in low elevation habitats close to urban centers, and isolated due to 
habitat fragmentation, may be less able to withstand a harvest rate 
that would not affect populations in more extensive, contiguous, 
remote, or mesic areas. The petitioners also cited Gibson (1998), who 
analyzed the effect of hunting sage-grouse on two populations in the 
Mono Basin area and found that for the Long Valley area, which was 
characterized as an isolated population, hunting mortality could 
depress and hold population levels well below the carrying capacity. In 
contrast, for another local population that was contiguous with other 
sage-grouse local populations in Nevada, Gibson (1998) found that 
population level was not related to hunting mortality. The petition 
states that Gibson (2001) later concluded that: The Long Valley 
population of sage-grouse is heavily impacted by hunting; changes in 
population size in this area have been driven by CDFG hunting 
regulations over the past 40 years; and despite reduced permit numbers 
over the past 10 years, this population has not rebounded like it did 
when the season was closed for several years each in the 1960s and 
1980s. The petition cites the Bi-State Plan (2004) to state that for 
the Bodie PMU, direct mortality of sage-grouse from hunting is a 
potentially significant risk, and that during a closure of the hunting 
season in Mono County the population increased but then declined after 
the season was reopened.
    The December 2001 petition also identified hunting as a threat to 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse. The December 2001 petition states that 
roads and the use of off-road vehicles greatly increase the level of 
poaching, and that hunting seasons for other upland game birds expose 
sage-grouse to mortality when the areas open to hunting overlap with 
sage-grouse range, as they may be misidentified and shot. The petition 
also asserts that falconry, bird watching, and scientific study disturb 
or stress

[[Page 76074]]

sage-grouse. However, that petition did not provide any additional 
information beyond that presented in the November 2005 petition that 
was substantial.
    The effect of harvest on greater sage-grouse has been assessed 
across the range of the species (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 9-1 to 9-6). 
Some negative effects have been documented to particular populations of 
sage grouse, but Connelly et al. (2004, p. 9-6) conclude that no 
studies have demonstrated that hunting is a primary cause of reduced 
numbers of greater sage-grouse. The only known assessment of hunting 
effects specific to the Mono Basin area is the analysis by Gibson 
(2001) for the Bodie Hills and Long Valley lek complexes. The 
assessment by Gibson (2001) indicated that populations in the Long 
Valley area were depressed by hunting for the period of years examined, 
but the Bodie Hills populations were not. However, Gibson's analysis 
covered a 45-year period (Gibson 1998), and CDFG has significantly 
changed hunting seasons for sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area over 
this time period, as described below.
    Prior to 1983, there was no limit on hunting permits in the Mono 
Basin area, then the season was closed from 1983 to 1986 (Bi-State Plan 
2004, pp. 73-74). CDFG instituted a permit system in 1987 when the 
season was re-opened, and issued hundreds of permits each year until 
1998 when permit numbers were reduced significantly over what they had 
been during the period of 1987-1997 (Bi-State Plan 2004, pp. 74-75). 
From 1998 to the present, the number of hunting permits issued by CDFG 
has ranged from 10 to 35 per year for the two hunt units (the North 
Mono Hunt Area in the Bodie Hills portion of the Bodie PMU, and the 
South Mono Hunt Area in the Long Valley part of the South Mono PMU) 
open to hunting in the California portion of the Mono Basin area (Bi-
State Plan 2004, p. 173). CDFG has concluded that the removal of 
individual animals from resident game bird populations statewide 
(including sage-grouse) will not significantly reduce those populations 
and will therefore not have a significant environmental impact on 
resident game birds (CDFG 2002, p. 7).
    Hunting (gun) has been closed in the Nevada portion of the Mono 
Basin area since 1999 (Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for Nevada 
and Eastern California 2004, p. 108).
    Regarding possible effects of bird watching at leks or from 
scientific studies of sage-grouse, neither CDFG nor NDOW had any 
specific information about how these activities may affect birds in the 
Mono Basin area. Casazza et al. (2005, p. 10) indicate that in two 
years of study of radio-marked sage-grouse, the deaths of only 3 birds 
was attributed to handling of the birds by researchers. Thus, mortality 
related to scientific studies of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area is 
negligible.
    The petitions provided information regarding the impacts of hunting 
for a limited part of the Mono Basin area. However, as described above 
the extent of hunting of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area is quite 
limited. The petitions did not provide substantial information, nor did 
our files contain information, indicating that the extent or magnitude 
of hunting and other potential overutilization factors are significant 
threats to this sage-grouse population such that the requested listing 
action may be warranted.

C. Disease or Predation

    The November 2005 petition asserts that West Nile virus is a threat 
to Mono Basin area sage-grouse. The petitioners cite Naugle et al. 
(2004) as stating ``If survival in our marked sample is representative 
of broader impacts of West Nile virus, the virus may be an important 
new stressor on sage-grouse populations.'' They further quote Naugle et 
al. (2004) as stating, ``Survival of females has been shown to be 
limiting in sage-grouse populations and declines due to West Nile virus 
occurred in late summer when survival typically is high.'' Additionally 
they cite Naugle et al. (2004) as stating, ``Of immediate concern are 
the potential consequences of West Nile virus for small populations * * 
* of greater sage-grouse in California,'' and ``Stochastic events such 
as disease exacerbate risk of extinction due to the combined effect of 
demographic stochasticity, deterministic stressors, and inbreeding 
depression in small, fragmented populations. Moreover, because small or 
isolated populations generally show reduced genetic variation, they are 
less likely to include individuals resistant to emerging infectious 
disease.'' The petition further cites Oyler-McCance et al. (2005) as 
stating, ``Populations with relatively low levels of genetic diversity 
can suffer from inbreeding effects and can be more susceptible to 
parasitic agents and disease.'' The petitioners cite Casazza et al. 
(2005) in stating that two birds in the Bodie PMU and one in the Desert 
Creek-Fales PMU have been killed by West Nile virus. The petition also 
asserts that West Nile virus could eliminate entire populations in the 
near future because they are small and isolated, which makes them more 
susceptible to disease.
    The December 2001 petition also indicates that disease and 
parasites could cause local declines in sage-grouse populations. The 
petition discusses losses in sage-grouse populations due to 
coccidiosis. It also states that numerous parasites are associated with 
sage-grouse, including tapeworms, protozoans, and ticks. The petitioner 
states that other diseases such as salmonellosis, botulism, 
aspergillosis, avian tuberculosis, and pasturellosis affect sage 
grouse. The petitioner claims that disease outbreaks need not kill or 
even cause physiologic effects in individual birds to reduce population 
viability. The petition cites Boyce (1990) in stating that even mild 
malaria outbreaks can affect reproduction because male sage-grouse 
infected with malaria attend leks significantly less frequently during 
the mating season. Finally, the petition claims that the introduction 
of exotic game birds in an area to provide hunting opportunities 
carries a substantial risk of disease and parasite spread to sage-
grouse.
    The November 2005 petition states that there are many studies that 
correlate predation of sage-grouse to reduced and degraded habitat. The 
petitioners cite a BLM-Bishop Field Office source in stating, ``56% of 
monitored sage grouse leks were lost from predation in the Long Valley 
in 2003, despite a high nest initiation rate.'' The petition also 
indicates that poor habitat quality may have been the causative factor 
with regard to these losses. Petitioners also cite work by Casazza et 
al. (2005, p. 10) in stating, ``recent research documented that 
predators killed 55 of 136 radio-collared sage-grouse in the Mono Basin 
area in 2003 and 2004.'' Also, petitioners quoted the Bi-State Plan as 
stating that ``steep declines in the sage-grouse population for any 
reason. * * * could render the population vulnerable to predation 
impacts'' (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77).
    The December 2001 petition also cited predation as a threat to 
sage-grouse. However, this petition did not provide additional 
information beyond what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    West Nile virus was first diagnosed in greater sage-grouse in 2003 
(January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 2269). Data from four studies 
in the eastern half of the greater sage-grouse range (Alberta, Montana, 
and Wyoming) showed survival in these populations declined 25 percent 
in July and August as a result of the West Nile virus infection (Naugle 
et al. 2004, p. 709). Populations of greater sage-grouse not affected 
by West Nile virus showed no similar decline.

[[Page 76075]]

However, the Naugle et al. (2004) study did not include any sage-grouse 
from the Mono Basin area, and even in the region where the Naugle et 
al. (2004) study was conducted, lek counts in 2004 indicated that 
regional sage-grouse populations did not decline. This suggests that 
the initial effects of West Nile virus were localized (January 12, 
2005, Federal Register, p. 2270) and did not have a substantial effect 
on local populations. As cited by the petitioners, Casazza et al. 
(2005, p. 10) documented the loss of three sage-grouse to West Nile 
virus in the Mono Basin area. However, this is very minor and localized 
mortality and there is no information presented by the petitions, nor 
is there information in our files, that West Nile virus is a major 
factor contributing to mortality of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area.
    Greater sage-grouse host a variety of potentially pathogenic 
organisms. However, there have been few systematic surveys for 
parasites and infectious diseases completed for greater sage-grouse 
(Connelly et al., 2004, p. 10-3). The disease coccidiosis, which is 
caused by the protozoan Eimeria spp., has been documented to cause 
sage-grouse mortalities (Connelly et al., 2004, p. 10-4). However, no 
cases of sage-grouse mortality resulting from coccidiosis have been 
documented since the early 1960s (Connelly et al., 2004, p. 10-4). 
Although tapeworms are known to parasitize sage-grouse, the grouse 
remain in good physical condition (Connelly et al., 2004; p. 10-5).
    Greater sage-grouse host many external parasites, including lice, 
ticks, and dipterans (midges, flies, mosquitoes, and keds) (Connelly et 
al., 2004, pp. 10-6 to 10-7). Some studies have suggested that lice 
infestations can affect sage-grouse mate selection (Boyce 1990, p. 
266), but they have not been shown to significantly affect the status 
of sage-grouse populations (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-6). Connelly et 
al. (2004, p. 10-7) stated that the presence of ticks is not a threat 
to sage-grouse populations.
    A variety of bacterial, fungal, and viral diseases are known to 
infect greater sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 10-7). However, in 
relation to the diseases cited by the 2001 petition, salmonellosis is 
not an important disease of wild birds, botulism is not considered a 
significant threat because the potential for exposure is low, there is 
no evidence to suggest that aspergillosis plays a significant role in 
sage-grouse ecology, and avian tuberculosis has not been documented in 
sage-grouse and thus is not considered a significant threat (Connelly 
et al. 2004, pp. 10-7 to 10-11). Avian malaria has been documented to 
affect male reproductive performance on sage-grouse leks (Boyce 1990, 
p. 265); however, the petitions and the information available in our 
files do not provide evidence that this disease affects sage-grouse 
populations in the Mono Basin area.
    Regarding the introduction of exotic game birds for state hunting 
programs, we acknowledge that it may be possible for diseases carried 
by exotic birds to infect native sage-grouse populations. However, 
neither the December 2001 petition, nor information available to us in 
our files, provides evidence that exotic game bird introductions 
threaten sage-grouse populations in the Mono Basin area.
    Predation is the most commonly identified cause of direct mortality 
for sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 14; Connelly et al. 2000b, 
p. 228). The November 2005 petition states that many studies have 
linked predation of sage-grouse to degraded habitat. This relationship 
is confirmed by the literature (Schroeder and Baydack, p. 28; Connelly 
et al. 2004, pp. 10-2 and 10-3). However, the petitioners' statement 
that ``56 percent of monitored sage-grouse leks were lost from 
predation in Long Valley in 2003'' is inaccurate. This statement is 
based on a table comparing nest initiation rates, nest success, 
renesting success, nest predation rate, and other nesting parameters 
from Long Valley with those for the Bodie Hills (BLM-Bishop Field 
Office, undated). The statement in the November 2005 petition should 
have read, ``56 percent of monitored sage-grouse nests were lost from 
predation in Long Valley in 2003.'' This translates to a nest success 
of 44 percent for monitored nests in Long Valley, which is well within 
the range of nest success from across the range of the species, 14.5 to 
86.1 percent, as summarized for a variety of studies in a variety of 
states and one province by Connelly et al. (2004, p. 3-21).
    Annual mortality of breeding-age sage-grouse varies from 55 to 75 
percent for females and 38 to 60 percent for males (Schroeder and 
Baydack 2001, p. 25); therefore the statement in the November 2005 
petition ``that predators killed 55 of 136 radio-collared sage-grouse 
in the Mono Basin area in 2003 and 2004,'' although accurate (Casazza 
et al. 2005, p. 10), is misleading. Similar to the nest success rate 
for Long Valley, the loss of approximately 40 percent of the radio-
collared sage-grouse to predators is well within the normal range of 
annual mortality for the species.
    The 2005 petition statement that ``steep declines in the sage-
grouse population for any reason * * * could render the population 
vulnerable to predation impacts'' was taken out of context. The 
statement only applies to the Bodie PMU and not the Bi-State area as a 
whole (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77). Additionally, the Bodie PMU 
discussion (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 77) also stated that predation is 
not known to be a significant limiting factor in the Bodie PMU, and few 
studies have identified predation as primary factor limiting sage-
grouse populations elsewhere.
    In summary, neither the petitioners, nor our files, provide 
substantial information to document the extent or magnitude of the 
present or future threat of disease or predation to sage-grouse in the 
Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is not substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing of the 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted due to disease or 
predation.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The November 2005 petition asserts that no plan or agreement has 
been drafted that contains adequate regulatory mechanisms to prevent 
further decline of Mono Basin area sage-grouse and avoid listing the 
species. The petition discusses Candidate Conservation Agreements 
(CCAs) and references a 2001 application by CDFG to the Service to 
acquire funding for developing a CCA for sage-grouse in Mono County, 
and asserts that the Service awarded the funding but the CCA was not 
developed.
    The November 2005 petition discusses the Bi-State Plan (2004) and 
acknowledges it is a component of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 
Plan for the Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern California. 
Petitioners reference the six goals and objectives of the Bi-State Plan 
(2004) and indicate they are an excellent starting point but that the 
Bi-State Plan will not meet them. The petitioners contend that the Bi-
State Plan (2004) only seeks to maintain current populations of sage-
grouse in the Bi-State planning area and that there is no discussion of 
restoring historic sage-grouse numbers or habitat in the area.
    The 2005 petition cites the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation 
Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (March 28, 2003, 68 FR 
15100) and lists the criteria under the policy regarding the certainty 
that a conservation effort will be implemented and the certainty that 
the conservation effort will be effective. According to the 
petitioners,

[[Page 76076]]

the Bi-State Plan (2004) does not contain adequate regulatory 
mechanisms that meet PECE policy criteria to avoid listing the Mono 
Basin area sage-grouse under the ESA. They further contend that the Bi-
State Plan's (2004) management prescriptions are voluntary, dependent 
on the cooperation and participation of interested parties and 
agencies, and may be altered or abandoned at any time. Also, there is 
no penalty for non-compliance with the Plan and no prohibition against 
activity that will harm sage-grouse or their habitat. The petitioners 
contend that the Service cannot rely on voluntary conservation efforts, 
or on the promise of future conservation efforts, by Federal and State 
agencies and private parties to delay listing the Mono Basin area sage-
grouse under the ESA. From their review of the Bi-State Plan (2004), 
the petitioners conclude that often action items were not included to 
address risks, that the action items are voluntary and lack funding to 
complete, that regulatory mechanisms are lacking, and that often the 
actions identified do not conserve sage-grouse.
    The petitioners cite a Service review of the Bi-State Plan (USFWS 
2004) in which we evaluated the conservation measures proposed in the 
Plan pursuant to PECE. In citing that review, petitioners state the 
Service found that 1 of the 30 individual conservation efforts in the 
Bi-State Plan fully meets PECE and the other 29 do not. Petitioners 
conclude that if the Bi-State Plan (2004) does not meet the Service's 
PECE policy (March 28, 2003, 68 FR 15100), then adequate regulatory 
mechanisms are not in place to conserve the sage-grouse in the Mono 
Basin area.
    Finally, the 2005 petition references the BLM-Bishop Field Office 
Resource Management Plan (BLM-Bishop Field Office 1993) and asserts 
that sage-grouse have continued to struggle since the Resource 
Management Plan was adopted in 1993. The petitioners suggest that a 
possible reason for suppressed sage-grouse populations is the small 
management buffers recommended by the Resource Management Plan for 
certain activities within 0.4 to 0.5 km (0.25 to 0.33 mi) of active 
leks.
    The 2001 petition contends that existing regulatory mechanisms are 
virtually non-existent and existing management is inadequate to 
conserve the sage-grouse. This petition contends that Federal laws such 
as NEPA, National Forest Management Act, Federal Lands Policy and 
Management Act, and others do not provide for sage-grouse conservation. 
The petitioner also reviewed management on BLM lands and concluded that 
BLM has seriously mismanaged public lands; that BLM does not adequately 
monitor, plan, or measure sage-grouse populations or habitat needed to 
restore the species; and that the Service cannot rely on BLM to follow 
Federal environmental laws to conserve sage-grouse. This petition also 
provided a review of management on USFS lands and concluded that the 
agency is not giving adequate attention to sage-grouse on National 
Forests or National Grasslands. Management of a National Guard training 
area, Department of Energy lands, and National Park Service lands were 
also included in the petition, which found shortcomings in the 
management of all these federal lands with regard to sage-grouse. The 
petitioner also reviewed management of sage-grouse by the Service and 
asserts that the Service has mismanaged both its ESA duties, including 
listing responsibilities, and the lands in the National Wildlife Refuge 
System. The petition also asserts that management of the Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has failed 
to halt severe declines in sage-grouse populations to date.
    At the State level, the petition assessed management of sage-grouse 
by the States and asserts they have a poor record of conserving the 
species. Regarding State management, the petition cites the general 
lack of conservation plans for sage-grouse and indicates that those 
which have been completed are not regulatory mechanisms in any sense 
and do not assure funding for conservation actions. Finally, the 
petition provided an assessment of management by private parties and 
concluded that, aside from hunting seasons, there are no regulatory 
mechanisms to protect sage-grouse on private lands.
    We concur that the Service did provide funding to CDFG for 
development of a CCA for sage-grouse in Mono County, and to our 
knowledge this CCA has not yet been completed. However, a CCA is not 
essential to providing adequate regulatory mechanisms. Regarding the 
Bi-State Plan (2004), we agree that it is focused on maintaining 
existing breeding population in the Bi-State area (Bi-State Plan 2004, 
p. 186). However, there is no apparent need to return sage-grouse 
populations and habitat in the Mono Basin area to historic levels in 
order to preclude the need for listing the species as threatened or 
endangered. When populations and habitat are at less than historic 
levels, it does not mean a species is threatened or endangered as 
defined by the Act. Thus, the fact that the Bi-State Plan does not 
prescribe restoring historic sage-grouse numbers or range does not mean 
the Plan is inadequate, nor does it mean that existing regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate.
    We agree that the recommended actions in the Bi-State Plan are 
voluntary and depend on the cooperation and participation of interested 
parties and agencies, and that the Bi-State Plan does not include any 
prohibitions against actions that harm sage-grouse or their habitat. 
The Service did review the Bi-State Plan as part of our rangewide 
status review for greater sage-grouse (January 12, 2005, 70 FR 2244). 
In that review, we evaluated formalized conservation efforts that have 
not been implemented or have not demonstrated effectiveness, to 
determine if they met the standard in PECE. In accordance with PECE, a 
conservation effort can contribute to a determination that listing is 
not necessary if it is found to be sufficiently certain to be 
implemented and effective so as to have contributed to the elimination 
or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the species. (March 28, 
2003, Federal Register, p. 15111). The petition correctly states that 
the Service found that 1 of 30 conservation efforts included in the Bi-
State Plan fully met standard in PECE (USFWS 2004, p. 4). This does 
not, however, mean that regulatory mechanisms are inadequate. The fact 
that conservation efforts in the plan are voluntary does not mean that 
further regulatory mechanisms are necessary to conserve the sage-grouse 
in the Mono Basin area, nor does it mean that the actions it recommends 
to conserve sage-grouse will fail to be implemented and effective. 
Further, PECE applies to determining that a conservation effort(s) is 
sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to have 
contributed to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more 
threats to the species identified through the threats analysis (March 
28, 2003, Federal Register, p. 15115); PECE is not applicable when such 
threats are not documented to exist.
    In regard to the BLM-Bishop Resource Management Plan, although the 
petitioners assert that management buffers and seasonal restrictions 
that BLM imposes on land use activities are insufficient to conserve 
sage-grouse, they do not provide information that documents how this 
impacts sage-grouse. We note also that BLM resource management plans 
are guided by direction in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
(FLPMA) and associated regulations, BLM's Special

[[Page 76077]]

Status Species Management Policy, the National BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat 
Conservation Strategy, and Regulations on Grazing Administration 
Exclusive of Alaska (January 12, 2006, FR p. 2272-2274.
    The 2001 petition provides many citations to support the 
petitioners' contention that existing regulatory mechanisms are 
inadequate and threaten Mono Basin area sage-grouse. We cannot validate 
the substantiality of the petitioners' claims concerning the inadequacy 
of regulatory mechanisms because the petitioners did not provide copies 
of these citations and thus we cannot verify the quality and validity 
of the citations, whether the information was cited correctly, or 
whether the information directly relates to the status of sage-grouse 
in the Mono Basin area. We note that most of the information in the 
petition regarding this factor is not specific to the Mono Basin area. 
Specifically, most of the discussion in the 2001 petition regarding BLM 
and USFS lands was not specific to the Mono Basin area. Further, there 
are no National Guard training areas in the Mono Basin area, and the 
only U.S. Department of Defense lands in the area are the Hawthorne 
Army Depot, an area that provides some of the best remaining habitat 
for sage-grouse, as discussed above. There are no National Parks or 
National Wildlife Refuges in any of the PMUs in the Mono Basin area, 
and we are unaware of any private lands in the area that are enrolled 
in the CRP program. Thus, none of the assertions in the 2001 petition 
regarding these lands are relevant. The 2001 petition indicated that 
California and Nevada had not yet completed conservation plans for 
sage-grouse, but this is no longer the case for the Mono Basin area, 
due to completion of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Plan for the 
Bi-State Plan Area of Nevada and Eastern California and its component, 
the Bi-State Plan (2004).
    As discussed under Factor B, above, there are only two areas where 
sage-grouse are hunted in the Mono Basin area and the harvest of birds 
in these areas is closely regulated by CDFG such that it has determined 
that there is no significant environmental impact on this game bird 
(CDFG 2002, p. 7). Also, 89 percent of the lands in the Mono Basin area 
are public lands managed by BLM and USFS under federal laws such as 
FLPMA, the National Forest Management Act, and NEPA, along with other 
related agency policies (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, pp. 2272-
2276). Neither the petitions, nor our files, provide substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms is presently a threat to Mono Basin area 
sage-grouse such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence

Off-Road Vehicle Use
    The November 2005 petition states that off-road vehicles are a 
threat to a number of sage-grouse populations in the Mono Basin area. 
Regarding the Bodie PMU, the petition quotes the Bi-State Plan (2004) 
as stating that ``population impacts of motorized recreation include 
disturbance, displacement, and direct mortality from vehicle 
collisions'' and that recreation in this PMU ``is characterized as a 
past, current, and future risk to multiple birds and multiple sites.'' 
It also cites the South Mono PMU section of the Bi-State Plan (2004) in 
stating that recreational activities are affecting multiple birds on 
multiple sites year round and increased urbanization threatens to 
increase this risk. Petitioners also quote a portion of the Pine Nut 
PMU section of the Bi-State Plan (2004), which states that 
``unrestricted road access throughout the Pine Nut PMU provides the 
potential for increased human presence in critical habitats during 
critical times of the year,'' and ``people particularly affect nesting, 
early brood, and late brood habitat during spring through fall where 
critical habitats are easily accessed by vehicles [and] increased human 
presence disrupts daily activities for individual birds and broods.'' 
The petition also asserts that another threat in the Pine Nut PMU is an 
off-road vehicle race that goes through sage-grouse brood habitat and 
affects birds by direct mortality or by disturbances that break up 
broods and cause chick mortality. Finally, the petitioners cite 
Robertson and Bushman (2001) in asserting that BLM is currently 
considering recommendations to develop new off-road facilities within 
sage-grouse habitat.
    The December 2001 petition also cited off road vehicles as a threat 
to sage-grouse. However, this petition did not provide additional 
information beyond what was provided in the November 2005 petition.
    We are not aware of any published studies concerning recreational 
effects on sage-grouse, although recreation could disturb sage-grouse 
on leks and in nesting areas (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 
2278). Also, we are not aware of any scientific reports that document 
direct mortality of sage-grouse through collision with off-road 
vehicles (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, p. 2278). Off-road 
vehicle use could have indirect impacts to sage-grouse habitat; this 
type of activity generally is known to reduce sagebrush canopy cover 
through repeated trips in an area, increased sediment production, and 
decreased soil infiltration rates (January 12, 2005, Federal Register, 
p. 2278).
    The Bi-State Plan discusses off-road vehicles as a risk factor in 
the Pine Nut PMU and the Mount Grant PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 27 and 
pp. 137-138, respectively). However, for the Bodie and South Mono PMUs, 
the Bi-State Plan (2004, pp. 91-92 and pp. 170-171 respectively) 
discusses off-road vehicles in the context of all types of recreational 
activities (motorized and non-motorized). For the Pine Nut PMU, the Bi-
State Plan (2004, p. 24) indicates concerns about unrestricted road 
access, including increased human presence in critical habitats in 
critical times of the year, disruption of daily activities for 
individual birds and broods, and existing law enforcement limitations. 
The Pine Nut PMU section of the Bi-State Plan also mentions off-road 
vehicle races, which could impact individual and multiple birds by 
direct mortality or disturbance (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 27). However, 
the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 27) does not indicate that this is a major 
risk for the Pine Nut PMU. The off-road vehicle discussion for the 
Mount Grant PMU states that off-road vehicle use is restricted to 
designated routes within this PMU, minimizing any risks to birds in 
this PMU. However, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 137) continues to state 
that some off-road vehicle use is on undesignated routes within the 
Mount Grant PMU, causing damage to meadows that provide potential 
habitat for sage-grouse. For the Bodie PMU, the Bi-State Plan 
considered population impacts of motorized recreation, including 
disturbance, displacement, and direct mortality (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 
91), but the statement that recreation is a past, current, and future 
risk to multiple birds and multiple sites refers to all types of 
recreation, not just off-road vehicles (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 91). The 
Bi-State Plan states that the prospect of increased motorized 
recreational use is a concern, but it does not indicate that this 
factor is a major threat to sage-grouse in the Bodie PMU (Bi-State Plan 
2004, p. 92). In the South Mono PMU, the Bi-State Plan (2004, p. 170) 
states that recreational activities are affecting multiple birds on 
multiple sites year round, but this statement refers to all types of 
recreational

[[Page 76078]]

activities combined, not just off-road vehicle use alone.
    Robertson and Bushman (2001) provide limited recommendations to BLM 
for managing existing recreational uses (motorized and non-motorized) 
in the wildland urban interface zone east of Carson City, Minden, and 
Gardnerville, including improvements at existing staging areas, 
creation of new staging areas, and improving management of existing 
recreational activities at access points to Federal land that are 
already being used. We do not know whether BLM has implemented the 
recommendations in the report. Using Robertson and Bushman (2001), we 
mapped the locations of the recreational areas described in the report. 
While there may be some sagebrush habitat associated with these 
recreational areas, the majority (80 percent) of the known lek areas in 
the Pine Nut PMU are at least 17.6 km (11 mi) east of these areas, and 
the other few remaining leks in this PMU are a minimum of 11.2 km (7 
mi) southeast of these areas. Hence, sage-grouse do not currently use 
sagebrush habitat in the near vicinity of the recreation areas 
discussed in Robertson and Bushman (2001).
    In summary, the Bi-State Plan (2004) discusses the effects of 
recreational activities and off-road vehicles. Most of the discussions 
in the Bi-State Plan relate to only the potential for off-road vehicles 
to disturb, disrupt, or cause mortalities to sage-grouse, with 
relatively few specific examples of impacts to the species in the area, 
and all of these examples involved indirect effects. Neither the 
petitions, nor our files, provided information that documents the 
extent, magnitude, or immediacy of the threat of off-road vehicles to 
sage-grouse, or their habitat, within the Mono Basin area. Therefore, 
we conclude that there is not substantial scientific or commercial 
information to indicate that listing of the Mono Basin area sage-grouse 
may be warranted due to the present or threatened effects to Mono Basin 
area sage-grouse, or their habitat, due to off-road vehicle use.
Human Disturbance
    The November 2005 petition cites the Bi-State Plan (2004) in 
asserting that human disturbance is affecting multiple birds on 
multiple sites in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU.
    Other than citing the Bi-State Plan (2004) with regard to the 
Desert Creek-Fales PMU, the November 2005 petition does not specify the 
types of human disturbances that affect sage-grouse or the extent of 
the impacts. The Desert Creek-Fales PMU part of the Bi-State Plan 
includes human disturbance as a risk factor for sage-grouse, stating 
that some sage-grouse habitats in this PMU are accessible for public 
recreation year round or are adjacent to recently developed housing 
areas, but it does not indicate this is a major threat to sage-grouse 
in this PMU (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 51). Neither the petitions, nor our 
files, present information that documents the extent, magnitude, or 
immediacy of human disturbance as a threat to sage-grouse for the Mono 
Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there is not substantial 
scientific or commercial information to indicate that listing of the 
Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted due to human disturbance.
Insecticides
    The November 2005 petition lists insecticides as a factor affecting 
sage-grouse habitat in the Mono Basin area. The petitioners cite Beck 
and Mitchell (2000) as recommending against application of insecticides 
to sage-grouse summer habitat, a Johnson and Boyce (1990) finding that 
insects are essential to chick development and that they are required 
by chicks of all ages for normal development, and a report by Blus et 
al. (1989) that in southeastern Idaho there was a sage-grouse die-off 
after organophosphorus insecticides were applied to cultivated crops.
    None of the studies cited by the petitioners are specific to the 
Mono Basin area. In the Bi-State Plan the only mention of this as a 
threat factor was for the White Mountains PMU risk assessment, which 
indicates that accidental exposure to pesticides and herbicides can 
kill sage-grouse, but that these compounds are not generally used in 
this area because the human population and agricultural activities are 
limited (Bi-State Plan 2004, p. 112). Neither the petitions, nor our 
files, provide any specific information about how insecticides impact 
sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. Therefore, we conclude that there 
is not substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate 
that listing Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be warranted due to 
insecticide use.
Other Threats
    The December 2001 petition cited other threats to sage-grouse in 
the Mono Basin area, including: Noise, acoustic interference, 
disturbance, oil and gas operations, weather effects, climate change 
and global warming, ozone layer depletion, air pollution, acid 
precipitation, effects of chemical and radiological agents, natural 
factors and environmental variation, habitat recovery time, and genetic 
introgression.
    The December 2001 petition cited numerous sources to support the 
contention that these other threats pose a threat to Mono Basin sage-
grouse. The information cited is generic in nature and was not specific 
to sage-grouse or not specific to the Mono Basin or Mono Basin sage-
grouse. The petitioner did not provide copies of these citations and 
hence we cannot validate the substantiality of the petitioner's claims 
regarding these threats, nor do our files contain information to 
validate any of the other threats cited by the petitioner. We cannot 
verify the quality and validity of the citations, or whether the 
information was correctly cited. These other threats cited by the 
petition are speculative in nature. The 2001 petition does not provide 
information that documents the extent, magnitude, or immediacy of these 
other threats on sage-grouse throughout the Mono Basin area.
    In summary, neither the petition nor our files contain substantial 
scientific or commercial information that indicating other natural or 
man-made factors threaten the sage-grouse population in the Mono Basin 
area such that the petitioned action may be warranted.

Finding

    We reviewed the petitions and supporting information provided by 
the petitioners and evaluated that information to determine whether the 
sources cited in the petitions support the claims made in the 
petitions. Based on this review and evaluation, we find the petitions 
do not present substantial scientific or commercial information that 
listing the Mono Basin area sage-grouse as threatened or endangered may 
be warranted at this time. We note that in making this finding we did 
not use any of the new information received from the States or USGS-BRD 
subsequent to our receipt of the 2005 petition; if we had used that new 
information, we would have reached the same conclusion. We encourage 
interested parties to continue gathering data that will assist with the 
conservation and monitoring of sage-grouse in the Mono Basin area. 
Information regarding the Mono Basin area sage-grouse may be submitted 
to the Field Supervisor, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES 
section), at any time.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

[[Page 76079]]

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Kevin Kritz, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

Authority

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

    Dated: December 7, 2006.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-21135 Filed 12-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P