Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat
Federal Register, Volume 80 Issue 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)
Proposed Rules
Pages 22827-22866
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2015-09417
Page 22827
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 78
April 23, 2015
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule
Page 22828
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072; Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042; 4500030113; 4500030114
RIN 1018-AY10; RIN 1018-AZ70
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse and Designate Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), withdraw the proposed rule to list the bi-State distinct population segment (DPS) of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in California and Nevada as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as well as the proposed rules under section 4(d) of the Act and to designate critical habitat for the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse. These withdrawals are based on our conclusion that the threats to the DPS as identified in the proposed listing rule no longer are as significant as believed at the time of publication of the proposed rule. We find the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the threats to the DPS and its habitat, given current and future conservation efforts, are reduced below the statutory definition of threatened or endangered. Therefore, we are withdrawing our proposal to list the bi-State DPS of greater sage-
grouse as threatened with critical habitat.
DATES: The October 28, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 64358) to list the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse as a threatened species and the October 28, 2013, proposed rule (78 FR 64328) to designate critical habitat for the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse are withdrawn as of April 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The withdrawal of our proposed rule, comments, and supplementary documents are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Nos. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072 and FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0042. Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this withdrawal, are also available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300; or facsimile 775-861-6301.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish this document. Under the Endangered Species Act, a species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule. We issued a proposed rule to list a distinct population segment (DPS) of greater sage-grouse in California and Nevada (known as the bi-State DPS) in 2013. However, this document withdraws that proposed rule because we now determine that threats identified in the proposed rule have been reduced such that listing is not necessary for this DPS. Accordingly, we also withdraw the proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act and proposed critical habitat designation.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We now determine that threats have been reduced such that listing is not necessary for this DPS.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our consideration of the status of the species is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and information received during the comment periods. Public comments and peer reviewer comments are addressed at the end of this Federal Register document.
Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This Document
We use many acronyms and abbreviations throughout this document. To assist the reader, we provide a list of these here for easy reference:
Act = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
BSAP = Bi-State Action Plan
CDFG = California Department of Fish and Game (see below)
CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly CDFG)
CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
COT = Conservation Objectives Team
CPT = Conservation Planning Tool
DPS = Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of the Greater Sage-
Grouse
EOC = Executive Oversight Committee
FR = Federal Register
GIS = Geographic Information System
GPS = Global Positioning System
LADWP = Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
LAWG = Local Area Working Group
LRMP = Land Resource Management Plan
MDL = Multi-District Litigation
NDOW = Nevada Department of Wildlife
NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service
OHV = Off-highway Vehicle
PECE = Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
PMU = Population Management Unit
RHA = Rangeland Health Assessment
RMP = Resource Management Plan
RSF = Resource Selection Function
Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
TAC = Technical Advisory Committee
USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDI = U.S. Department of the Interior
USFS = U.S. Forest Service
USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
WNv = West Nile Virus
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the bi-State DPS (78 FR 64358; October 28, 2013) of greater sage-grouse for a detailed description of the Federal actions concerning this DPS that occurred prior to publication of the proposed listing rule. We concurrently published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the bi-
State DPS of greater sage-grouse (78 FR 64328; October 28, 2013). We received requests to extend the public comment periods on the rules beyond the December 27, 2013, due date. In order to ensure that the public had an adequate opportunity to review and comment on our proposed rules, we extended the comment periods for an additional 45 days to February 10, 2014 (78 FR 77087; December 20, 2013).
On April 8, 2014, we reopened the comment period on our October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS and the proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR 19314). We also announced
Page 22829
two public hearings: (1) April 29, 2014, in Minden, Nevada; and (2) April 30, 2014, in Bishop, California. These meetings were subsequently cancelled for unrelated reasons. On May 9, 2014, we published a notice announcing the rescheduled hearings to take place on May 28, 2014, and May 29, 2014, respectively (79 FR 26684). The April 8, 2014, notice also announced a 6-month extension of the final determination of whether or not to list the bi-State DPS as a threatened species, which would automatically delay any decision regarding critical habitat for the bi-State DPS. The comment period was reopened (until June 9, 2014), and our determination on the final listing action was delayed based on substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed listing, making it necessary to solicit additional information. Thus, we announced that we would publish a listing determination on or before April 28, 2015.
On June 3, 2014, we announced an extension of the comment period on the proposed critical habitat rule (79 FR 31901), the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the bi-State DPS, and an amended required determinations section of the proposed critical habitat rule (available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042).
On August 5, 2014, we provided an additional comment period on our October 28, 2013, proposed rule to list the bi-State DPS (79 FR 45420) based on new information received regarding population trends and recent State and Federal agency funding and staffing commitments for various conservation efforts associated with the Bi-State Action Plan (BSAP; Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) 2012, entire). The comment period closed on September 4, 2014.
Background
In our 12-month finding on petitions to list three entities of sage-grouse (75 FR 13910; March 23, 2010), we found that the bi-State population of greater sage-grouse in California and Nevada meets our criteria as a DPS of the greater sage-grouse under Service policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). We reaffirmed this finding in the proposed listing rule and do so again here in this document. This determination was based principally on genetic information (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1,307), where the DPS was found to be both markedly separated and significant to the remainder of the greater sage-grouse taxon. The bi-State DPS defines the far southwestern limit of the species' range along the border of eastern California and western Nevada (Stiver et al. 2006, pp. 1-11; 71 FR 76058).
Although the bi-State DPS is a genetically unique and markedly separate population from the rest of the greater sage-grouse's range, the DPS has similar life-history and habitat requirements. In the proposed rule and this document, we use information specific to the bi-
State DPS where available but still apply scientific management principles for greater sage-grouse that are relevant to the bi-State DPS's management needs and strategies, which is a practice followed by the wildlife and land management agencies that have responsibility for management of both the DPS and its habitat.
A detailed discussion of the bi-State DPS's description, taxonomy, habitat (sagebrush ecosystem), seasonal habitat selection, life-history characteristics, home range, life expectancy and survival rates, historical and current range distribution, population estimates and lek (sage-grouse breeding complex) counts, population trends, and land ownership information is available in the Species Report (Service 2015a, entire). A team of Service biologists prepared this status review for the bi-State DPS. The team included biologists from the Service's Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, Pacific Southwest Regional Office, Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, and national Headquarters Office. The Species Report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the bi-State DPS, including the past, present, and future threats to this DPS. The Species Report and other materials relating to this final agency action can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
Based upon our review of the public comments, Federal and State agency comments, peer review comments, issues addressed at the public hearings, and any new relevant information that became available since the publication of the proposal, we reevaluated our proposed listing rule and made changes as appropriate. Other than minor clarifications and incorporation of additional information on the species' biology and populations, this determination differs from the proposal in the following ways:
(1) Based on our analyses of the potential threats to the species, and our consideration of partially completed, ongoing and future conservation efforts (as outlined in the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section of this document), we have determined that the bi-State DPS should not be listed as a threatened species. Specifically, we have determined that conservation efforts (as outlined in the BSAP, Agency commitment letters, and our detailed PECE analysis (all of which are available at http://www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072)), as well as the TAC comprehensive project database) will continue to be implemented because (to date) we have a documented track record of active participation and implementation by the signatory agencies, and commitments to continue implementation into the future. Conservation measures, such as (but not limited to) pinyon-juniper removal, establishment of conservation easements for critical brood-rearing habitat, cheatgrass removal, permanent and seasonal closure of roads near leks, removal and marking of fencing, and restoration of riparian/
meadow habitat have been occurring over the past decade, are currently occurring, and have been prioritized and placed on the agencies' implementation schedules for future implementation. Agencies have committed to remain participants in the BSAP and continue conservation of the DPS and its habitat. Additionally, the BSAP has sufficient methods for determining the type and location of the most beneficial conservation actions to be implemented, including continued development of new population and threats information in the future that will guide conservation efforts. As a result of these actions, this document withdraws the proposed rule as published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358).
(2) The addition of the Ongoing and Future Conservation Efforts section, which includes some information presented in the Available Conservation Measures section of the proposed listing rule and the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) section following the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section, below.
(3) The addition of a discussion under the Small Population Size and Population Structure section that synthesizes information to evaluate resiliency, redundancy, and representation as they relate to the bi-State DPS.
(4) New information was received following publication of the proposed listing rule. Some of the information was in response to our request for
Page 22830
scientific peer review of the proposed listing rule, while other information was a result of new literature now available, or updated regulations. We incorporated all new information into the Species Report (Service 2015a, entire), which is available on the Internet at www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072), as well as within this Federal Register document where appropriate. New information includes (but is not limited to):
A variety of biological or habitat clarifications, such as hen movement distances, nesting success, and invasive plant species influence on sagebrush-habitat dynamics.
A recent trend analysis conducted by Coates et al. (2014, entire) examined six populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Fales, Bodie Hills, Parker Meadows, and Long Valley) over a 10-year period between 2003 and 2012. The results suggest that four of the six populations (i.e., Pine Nut, Desert Creek, Bodie Hills, and Long Valley) are stable. Population growth was variable among the populations, and results for the Pine Nut population are not considered to be reliable due to the small sample size associated with a single active lek (see Species Information above).
Two genetic evaluations, one of which concluded there are between three and four unique genetic clusters within the bi-State area (Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p. 8), and a second that concluded there were five unique genetic clusters (Tebbenkamp 2014, p. 18). Tebbenkamp (2014) did not evaluate the Pine Nut population; thus, six populations may have been identified by Tebbenkamp (2014) had the Pine Nut population data been available.
Species Information
As stated above, the bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse is genetically unique and markedly separate from the rest of the species' range. The species as a whole is long-lived, reliant on sagebrush, highly traditional in areas of seasonal habitat use, and particularly susceptible to habitat fragmentation and alterations in its environment (see the Seasonal Habitat Selection and Life History Characteristics section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 11-15)). Sage-grouse annually exploit numerous habitat types in the sagebrush ecosystem across broad landscapes to successfully complete their life cycle, thus spanning ecological and political boundaries. Populations are slow-
growing due to low reproductive rates (Schroeder et al. 1999 pp. 11, 14; Connelly et al. 2000a, pp. 969-970), and they exhibit natural, cyclical variability in abundance (see Current Range/Distribution and Population Estimates/Annual Lek Counts section of the Species Report (Service 2015a, pp. 17-31)).
For the purposes of this document, we discuss the bi-State DPS populations, threats to those populations, and associated management needs or conservation actions as they relate to population management units (PMUs). Six PMUs were established in 2001 as management tools for defining and monitoring sage-grouse distribution in the bi-State area (Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning Team 2001, p. 31). The PMU boundaries are based on aggregations of leks, known seasonal habitats, and telemetry data, which represent generalized subpopulations or local breeding complexes. The six PMUs include: Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. These six PMUs represent a total of three to six demographically independent populations with a combined total of approximately 43 active leks (see Table 1 below; Service 2015a, pp. 17-31). Leks are considered either active (e.g., two or more strutting males during at least 2 years in a 5-year period), inactive (e.g., surveyed three or more times during one breeding season with no birds detected and no sign (e.g., droppings) observed), historical (e.g., no strutting activity for 20 years and have been checked according to State protocol at least intermittently), or unknown/pending (e.g., sign was observed, and one or no strutting males observed, or a lek that had activity the prior year but was not surveyed or surveyed under unsuitable conditions during the current year and reported one or no strutting males).
Table 1--Bi-State DPS Population Management Units (PMUs), PMU Size, Estimated Suitable Sage-Grouse Habitat,
Estimated Range in Population Size, Number of Active Leks, and Reported Range in Total Males Counted on All Leks
Within Each PMU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Total size suitable Estimated Current Lek count (number
PMU hectares habitat population size number of of males) range
(acres) * hectares range (2004- active leks (2004-2014) ***
(acres) ** 2014) *** ***dagger
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pine Nut..................... 232,440 77,848
