Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the Proposed Rules To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse With Section 4(d) Rule and To Designate Critical Habitat

Citation85 FR 18054
Record Number2020-06384
Published date31 March 2020
CourtFish And Wildlife Service
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 18054-18099]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2020-06384]
                [[Page 18053]]
                Vol. 85
                Tuesday,
                No. 62
                March 31, 2020
                Part IIIDepartment of the Interior-----------------------------------------------------------------------Fish and Wildlife Service-----------------------------------------------------------------------50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the
                Proposed Rules To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of
                Greater Sage-Grouse With Section 4(d) Rule and To Designate Critical
                Habitat; Proposed Rule
                Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 62 / Tuesday, March 31, 2020 /
                Proposed Rules
                [[Page 18054]]
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                Fish and Wildlife Service
                50 CFR Part 17
                [Docket Nos. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 and FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107; FF09E21000
                FXES11110900000 201]
                RINs 1018-BD87 and 1018-BD88
                Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of the
                Proposed Rules To List the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of
                Greater Sage-Grouse With Section 4(d) Rule and To 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). We concurrently withdraw the proposed rule under section
                4(d) of the Act and the proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
                the DPS. 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 2013 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 to the point that the DPS does
                not meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or of a
                ``threatened species.''
                DATES: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is withdrawing proposed rules
                published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64328 and 64358) as of March 31,
                2020.
                ADDRESSES: Relevant documents are available on the internet at either
                Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 or Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107 on
                http://www.regulations.gov. Relevant documents used in the preparation
                of this withdrawal are also available for public inspection, by
                appointment, during normal business hours at the Reno Fish and Wildlife
                Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Ann Carranza, Deputy Field
                Supervisor, Reno Fish and Wildlife Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard,
                Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 775-861-6300. Persons who use a
                telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
                Service at 800-877-8339.
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                Executive Summary
                 Why we need to publish this document. Under the Act, a species may
                warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened
                throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 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
                the proposed critical habitat designation.
                 The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
                species is an endangered or threatened species because of 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 have determined that threats have been reduced
                such that listing is not necessary for the Bi-State DPS of greater
                sage-grouse.
                 Peer review. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review
                published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
                our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of
                peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert
                opinions of five appropriate specialists regarding the species report.
                We received responses from three specialists, which informed this
                finding. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing
                determinations, critical habitat designations, and 4(d) rules are based
                on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer
                reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats to the
                greater sage-grouse.
                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:
                ac = acres
                Act or ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
                1531 et seq.)
                BLM = Bureau of Land Management
                BSAP = Bi-State Action Plan
                BSLPG = Bi-State Local Planning Group
                BSLSP = Bi-State Lek Surveillance Program
                CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly
                California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG))
                CFR = Code of Federal Regulations
                COT = Conservation Objectives Team
                CPT = conservation planning tool
                CRI = credible intervals
                DPS = distinct population segment
                EOC = Executive Oversight Committee
                FR = Federal Register
                ha = hectares
                HTNF = Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
                IPM = integrated population model
                LADWP = Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
                LRMP = land resource management plan
                NDOW = Nevada Department of Wildlife
                NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
                NFMA = National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)
                NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service
                OHV = off-highway vehicle
                PECE = Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making
                Listing Decisions
                PEIS = Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
                PMU = population management unit
                RHA = rangeland health assessment
                RMP = resource management plan
                Service = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                TAC = Technical Advisory Committee
                USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture
                USFS = U.S. Forest Service
                USGS = U.S. Geological Survey
                WAFWA = Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
                WNv = West Nile virus
                Previous Federal Actions
                 The Bi-State DPS of the greater sage-grouse has a long and complex
                rulemaking history. Here, we will discuss only the major Federal
                actions related to the species. For a detailed description of previous
                Federal actions, please refer to the previous withdrawal of the
                proposed listing rule, published on April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22828), and
                the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
                Decisions (PECE) analysis we prepared as a supporting document for this
                determination (Service 2019, pp. 1-6).
                 On October 28, 2013, we published a proposed rule to list the Bi-
                State DPS as a threatened species with a 4(d) rule (78 FR 64358). On
                that same day, we published a proposed rule to designate critical
                habitat for the Bi-State DPS (78 FR 64328).
                 On April 23, 2015, we withdrew the proposed listing rule, the
                proposed 4(d) rule, and the proposed critical habitat rule (80 FR
                22828). This withdrawal
                [[Page 18055]]
                was based on our conclusion that the threats to the DPS as identified
                in the proposed listing rule were no longer as significant as believed
                at the time of publication of the proposed rule. We found that the best
                scientific and commercial data available indicated that the threats to
                the DPS and its habitat, given current and future conservation efforts
                as analyzed under PECE, were reduced to the point that the DPS did not
                meet the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or of a
                ``threatened species.''
                 On March 9, 2016, Desert Survivors, the Center for Biological
                Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watershed Project filed
                suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
                California. The suit challenged the withdrawal of the proposal to list
                the Bi-State DPS. On May 5, 2018, the court issued a decision. The
                April 23, 2015, withdrawal was vacated and remanded to the Service for
                further consideration. The court's action reinstated the prior proposed
                rules to list and to designate critical habitat for the Bi-State DPS,
                thereby returning the process to the proposed rule stage, and the
                status of the Bi-State DPS effectively reverted to that of a species
                proposed for listing for the purposes of consultation under section 7
                of the Act. The court's action also reinstated the proposed 4(d) rule
                and the proposed critical habitat designation for the Bi-State DPS.
                 On April 12, 2019, we published in the Federal Register (84 FR
                14909) a document that announced that the proposed rules were
                reinstated and the public comment periods were reopened for 60 days and
                that we would publish a final listing determination on or before
                October 1, 2019.
                 On October 1, 2019, we announced a 6-month extension of the final
                listing determination to April 1, 2020 (84 FR 52058). We took that
                action based on substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency and
                accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed listing, which
                made it necessary to solicit additional information. That document
                reopened the public comment period on the proposed listing and critical
                habitat rules for an additional 30 days.
                Supporting Documents
                 We prepared a species report for the Bi-State DPS (Service 2020,
                entire). The species report represents a compilation of the best
                scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the
                species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors
                (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. The Service sent
                the species report to five independent peer reviewers and received
                three responses. The Service also sent the species report to all
                pertinent Federal, Tribal, and State partners, including scientists
                with expertise in sage-grouse and sage-brush habitat in the Bi-State
                area. We received reviews from six partners (Humboldt-Toiyabe National
                Forest (HTNB), Inyo National Forest, two Bureau of Land Management
                (BLM) offices: Bishop and Carson City, the California Department of
                Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Nevada Department of Wildlife
                (NDOW)). These comments have been incorporated into the species report
                and informed this document.
                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 and including new relevant information
                that has become available since the prior withdrawal decision, we
                reevaluated our proposed listing rule and made changes as appropriate
                in this withdrawal. 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) A different status determination. Based on our analyses of the
                potential threats to the species, and our consideration of partially
                completed, ongoing and future conservation efforts (as outlined below
                in Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
                Decisions), 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 Bi-State Action Plan (BSAP),
                Agency commitment letters, and our detailed PECE analysis (all of which
                are available at either Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 or Docket No.
                FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107 on http://www.regulations.gov as well as the
                Technical Advisory Committee (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 (Bromus tectorum) 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 to 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
                rules as published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64328; 78 FR 64358).
                 We have also updated our Significant Portion of the Range analysis
                based on a recent court finding regarding the policy.
                 (2) Addition of PECE analysis. This document includes the Policy
                for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions
                section, which includes some information presented in the Available
                Conservation Measures section of the proposed listing rule.
                 (3) Population impacts. This document includes a discussion of the
                impacts of small population size and population isolation on the Bi-
                State DPS.
                 (4) New information. Following publication of the proposed listing
                rule, we received new information pertinent to this rulemaking action.
                Some of the information was in response to our request for 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 2020,
                entire), which is available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov under either Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 or
                Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107, as well as within this 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.
                 Updated trend and population analyses. Multiple new papers
                examining the population dynamics and trends of the Bi-State DPS
                (Coates et al. 2014, entire; Coates et al. 2018, entire; Mathews et al.
                2018, entire; Coates et al.
                [[Page 18056]]
                2020, entire). These studies are incorporated into the Species Report
                and discussed throughout this document.
                 Two genetic evaluations, one of which concluded there are
                three or 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.
                 New information on the effectiveness of pinyon-juniper
                removal has become available in recent years (Prochazka et al. 2017,
                entire; Severson et al. 2017, entire; Sandford et al. 2017, entire;
                Coates et al. 2017b, entire; Olsen 2019, entire). These studies are
                incorporated into the Species Report and discussed throughout this
                document.
                 (5) New ESA factor D analysis. In the 2013 proposed listing rule,
                we analyzed the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms in a
                separate section. Here, we evaluate the effects of existing regulatory
                mechanisms within each threat analysis, rather than evaluating
                regulatory mechanisms in a separate section, so that it is clear how
                the existing regulatory mechanisms relate to the stressor being
                analyzed.
                 (6) Significant portion of the range (SPR) analysis. Since 2013, we
                have a new policy regarding the Service's interpretation of the phrase
                ``significant portion of the range'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). We
                also have new guidance regarding application of that policy (Service
                2017, entire), which was published subsequent to the 2015 withdrawal of
                the proposed rule. Additionally, certain parts of the policy have been
                invalidated by court orders. We have completed our SPR analysis for the
                Bi-State DPS in accordance with the 2014 policy and the 2017 guidance
                as further refined by applicable court decisions.
                Background
                 In our 12-month findings 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 to qualify as a DPS of the greater sage-grouse under Service
                policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). We reaffirmed this finding in
                the October 28, 2013, proposed listing rule (78 FR 64358) and do so
                again in this document. This determination is based principally on
                genetic information (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al.
                2005, p. 1307), 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, December 19, 2006).
                 Although the Bi-State DPS is a genetically unique and markedly
                separate population, the DPS has similar life-history and habitat
                requirements to the greater sage-grouse throughout the rest of its
                range. In the October 28, 2013, proposed listing rule (78 FR 64358),
                the species report, 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. This practice is 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 2020,
                entire). 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 either
                Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 or Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107.
                Habitat and Life History
                 Sage-grouse depend on a variety of shrub and shrub-steppe
                vegetation communities throughout their life cycle (Schroeder et al.
                2004, p. 364). Sagebrush is the most widespread vegetation in the
                intermountain lowlands of the western United States and is considered
                one of the most imperiled ecosystems in North America (West and Young
                2000, p. 259; Knick et al. 2003, p. 612; Miller et al. 2011, p. 147).
                Most species of sagebrush are killed by fire; historical fire-return
                intervals are estimated to be as long as 350 years (West 1983, p. 341;
                Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 17; West and Young 2000, p. 259; Baker
                2011, pp. 191-192). Natural sagebrush recolonization in burned areas
                depends on the presence of adjacent live plants for a seed source or on
                the seed bank, if present, and requires from decades to over a century
                for full recovery (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 17; Baker 2011, pp.
                194-195).
                 Sage-grouse require large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush
                with healthy, native understories, in part to accommodate their
                seasonal shifts in habitat selection within the sagebrush ecosystem
                (Service 2020, p. 11). Sage-grouse exhibit strong site fidelity
                (loyalty to a particular area) to migration corridors and seasonal
                habitats, including breeding, nesting, brood-rearing, and wintering
                areas; they exhibit this fidelity even when a particular area may no
                longer be of value, limiting the species' adaptability to habitat
                changes (Service 2020, p. 11). However, recent research has suggested
                that this high degree of site fidelity may be more flexible than has
                traditionally been considered, at least with respect to certain
                restoration actions (e.g., tree removal; Sandford et al. 2017, p. 64;
                Severson et al. 2017, p. 55).
                 During the spring breeding season, male sage-grouse gather to
                perform courtship displays at leks or traditional strutting grounds.
                Areas of bare soil, short-grass steppe, windswept ridges, exposed
                knolls, or other relatively open sites typically serve as leks
                (Patterson 1952, p. 83; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 3-7 and references
                therein). The proximity, configuration, and abundance of nesting
                habitat are key factors influencing lek location (Connelly et al. 1981,
                pp. 153-154; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970). Leks can be formed
                opportunistically at any appropriate site within or adjacent to nesting
                habitat (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 970); therefore, lek habitat
                availability is not considered a limiting factor for sage-grouse
                (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 4). Leks range in size from less than 0.04
                ha (0.1 ac) to over 36 ha (90 ac) (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-3) and
                can host from a few to hundreds of males (Johnsgard 2002, p. 112).
                 The distances sage-grouse move between seasonal habitats are highly
                variable across the occupied range (Connelly et al. 1988, pp. 119-121).
                Migration can occur between distinct winter, breeding, and summer areas
                or the seasonal-use areas may be variously integrated (e.g., winter and
                breeding areas may be the same and brood-rearing sites are disjunct).
                Information available regarding seasonal migrations and migratory
                corridors for sage-grouse in the Bi-State area is variable. Some local
                breeding complexes (a general
                [[Page 18057]]
                aggregation of birds associated with a particular lek or collection of
                leks in relatively close proximity to one another) remain fairly
                resident throughout the year while others demonstrate a more itinerant
                nature (Casazza et al. 2009, p. 8).
                 Still, all sage-grouse gradually move from sagebrush uplands to
                more mesic areas (moist areas such as upland meadows) during the late
                brood-rearing/summer period (3 weeks post-hatch) in response to summer
                desiccation of herbaceous vegetation (Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 971;
                Atamian et al. 2010, p. 1538; Connelly et al. 2011b, pp. 76-77 and
                references therein; Pratt et al. 2017, p. 635). Brood-rearing foraging
                habitats with increased perennial forb cover and plant species
                richness, greater meadow to sagebrush edge (ratio of perimeter to
                area), and a greater distance from woodlands provide for an increased
                probability of successful recruitment (Casazza et al. 2011, pp. 162-
                163). Sage-grouse will use free water, although they do not require it
                since they obtain water from their food. However, natural water bodies
                and reservoirs provide mesic areas often rich in succulent forb and
                insect food sources, thereby attracting sage-grouse hens with broods
                (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 4-12).
                 Non-migratory sage-grouse populations have been described as those
                with seasonal movements of less than 10 km (6.2 mi; Connelly et al.
                2000a, pp. 968-969), while birds in migratory populations may travel
                well over 100 km (62 mi) (Tack et al. 2012, p. 65). Despite the
                documentation of extensive seasonal movements in this species,
                dispersal (permanent rather than seasonal movement) abilities of sage-
                grouse to other areas are assumed to be low (Fedy et al. 2012, p. 1066;
                Tack et al. 2012, p. 65; Davis et al. 2014, p. 716). Sage-grouse
                dispersal is overall poorly understood and appears sporadic, if not
                rare (Service 2020, p. 12).
                Range and Population Estimates
                 The Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse historically occurred
                throughout most of Mono, eastern Alpine, and northern Inyo Counties,
                California (Hall et al. 2008, p. 97), and portions of Carson City,
                Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, Mineral, and perhaps Storey County in Nevada
                (Gullion and Christensen 1957, pp. 131-132; Espinosa 2019, pers.
                comm.). The current range of the DPS in California is presumed to be
                reduced from the historical range (Leach and Hensley 1954, p. 386; Hall
                1995, p. 54; Schroeder et al. 2004, pp. 368-369), but the extent of
                range loss is not well understood.
                 Current management of the Bi-State DPS employs Population
                Management Units (PMUs) for Nevada and California as tools for defining
                and monitoring sage-grouse distribution. The PMU boundaries represent
                generalized populations or local breeding complexes and were delineated
                based on aggregations of leks, known seasonal habitats, and telemetry
                data. Six PMUs were designated for the Bi-State DPS (from north to
                south): Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, Bodie, Mount Grant, South Mono,
                and White Mountains (Figure 1; Table 1). These six PMUs represent a
                combined total of approximately 50 active leks (see Table 1 below;
                Service 2020, pp. 21-33). 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).
                BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
                [[Page 18058]]
                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MR20.012
                BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
                [[Page 18059]]
                 Table 1--Bi-State DPS PMUs, PMU Size, Estimated Suitable Sage-Grouse Habitat, Average Number of Leks, Average
                 Number of Active Leks, and Range of Maximum Males on Leks Within Each PMU (2003-2018)
                 [Number pairs in parentheses are lower and upper limits of the 95 percent credible interval. Area values for
                 ``Total Size'' and ``Estimated Suitable Habitat'' may not sum due to rounding]
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Estimated
                 Total size in suitable Average number Range in
                 PMU hectares habitat in Average number of active leks maximum male
                 (acres) (*) hectares of leks (***) (***[dagger]) counts (****)
                 (acres) (**)
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pine Nut..................... 232,440 77,848 7.3 (2.0, 9.0). 1.8 (0.3, 4.7). 0-67
                 (574,372) (192,367)
                Desert Creek-Fales 229,858 105,281 12.8 (8.3, 6.8 (5.0, 9.7). 61-220
                 [dagger][dagger]. (567,992) (260,155) 15.0).
                Mount Grant [dagger][dagger]. 282,907 45,786 9.6 (5.0, 11.0) 4.4 (1.3, 7.0). 12-220
                 (699,079) (113,139)
                Bodie[dagger][dagger]........ 141,490 105,698 17.3 (12.3, 13.1 (9.7, 137-512
                 (349,630) (261,187) 20.0). 16.7).
                South Mono................... 234,508 138,123 15.6 (12.3, 19) 13.3 (11.0, 172-418
                 (579,482) (341,311) 16.7).
                White Mountains.............. 709,768 53,452 2 + (not 2 + (not Not available
                 (1,753,875) (132,083) available). available).
                Total (all PMUs combined).... 1,830,972 526,188 64.6 (41.9, 41.4 (29.3, 427-1,409
                 (4,524,430) (1,300,238) 76.0). 56.8).
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                * BSLPG (2004, pp. 11, 32, 63, 102, 127, 153).
                ** Bi-State TAC (2012, unpublished data); BLM (2014, unpublished data).
                *** Derived from Mathews et al. 2018, Table 6 and Figure 17.
                **** Derived from NDOW and CDFW lek databases. Low and high counts occurred in 2008 and 2012, respectively.
                 However, there was variation in annual peak male counts across PMUs; therefore, column does not sum to total.
                [dagger] Active--two or more strutting males during at least 2 years in a 5-year period.
                [dagger][dagger] Part of the North Mono population segment in some early population analyses.
                 Sage-grouse populations in the Bi-State area appear to be isolated
                to varying degrees from one another (Casazza et al. 2009, entire;
                Oyler-McCance and Casazza 2011, p. 10; Tebbenkamp 2012, p. 66; Oyler-
                McCance et al. 2014, p. 8; Tebbenkamp 2014, p. 18). Birds in the White
                Mountains PMU as well as those in the South Mono PMU are largely
                isolated from sage-grouse populations in the remainder of the Bi-State
                DPS (Casazza et al. 2009, pp. 34, 41; Oyler-McCance and Casazza 2011,
                p. 10; Tebbenkamp 2012, p. 66). Traditionally, the Pine Nut PMU was
                presumed isolated; however, recent data show birds are capable of
                moving south into the Sweetwater Mountains in the Desert Creek-Fales
                PMU and even further south into the Bodie PMU (USGS 2014b, entire). It
                is not apparent that birds leaving the Pine Nuts are returning. While
                adults are unlikely to switch breeding populations, it is likely that
                genetic material is transferred among these northern populations
                through the natural movements of young of the year birds, as long as
                there are established populations available in which to emigrate.
                However, fine-scale genetic differentiation among sage-grouse
                populations is at a relatively small geographic scope (approximately 10
                km (6 mi)), suggesting dispersal among populations is highly restricted
                (Jahner et al. 2016, pp. 8-9).
                 Two independent genetic evaluations have concluded there are three
                or four (Oyler-McCance et al. (2014, p. 8) or five (Tebbenkamp 2014, p.
                18) unique genetic clusters in the Bi-State area. The latter study did
                not evaluate the Pine Nut population (Pine Nut PMU), which has been
                found to be unique (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 8). Based on this
                information, we presume that there are likely three to six populations
                or groups of birds in the Bi-State area that largely operate
                demographically independent of one another.
                 Four separate statistical approaches to assessing the population
                trend of the Bi-State DPS have been conducted, with two of these
                approaches being repeated following additional years of data
                collection. The four approaches are: (1) Connelly et al. 2004; (2)
                WAFWA 2008, (3) Garton et al. (2011 and 2015); and (4) U.S. Geological
                Survey (USGS) 2014, 2018, and 2019 (Coates et al. 2014, Coates et al.
                2018, Mathews et al. 2018; Coates et al. 2020). In 2004, WAFWA
                conducted a partial population trend analysis for the Bi-State area
                (Connelly et al. 2004, chapter 6). The WAFWA recognizes four
                populations of sage-grouse in the Bi-State area, which represent the
                same overall extent delineated by the six PMUs described in the 2012
                BSAP and this document. Two of the WAFWA populations (North Mono Lake
                and South Mono Lake) had sufficient data for trend analysis (Connelly
                et al. 2004, pp. 6-60 to 6-62). The North Mono Lake population
                encompasses the Bodie, Mount Grant, and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs, while
                the South Mono Lake population encompasses the South Mono PMU. The
                North Mono Lake population displayed a significant negative trend from
                1965 to 2003, and the South Mono Lake population displayed a positive
                numerical trend, albeit not statistically significant, over this same
                period (Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 6-69 to 6-70). In 2008, WAFWA (2008,
                Appendix D) conducted a trend analysis on the same two populations
                identified above using a different statistical method for the periods
                from 1965 to 2007, 1965 to 1985, and 1986 to 2007. The trend for the
                North Mono Lake population, as measured by maximum male attendance at
                leks, was negative from 1965 to 2007 and 1965 to 1985, but variable
                from 1986 to 2007; results suggest an increasing trend beginning in
                about 2000. Results for the South Mono Lake population suggested a
                negative trend from 1965 to 2007, a stable trend from 1965 to 1985, and
                a variable trend from 1986 to 2007; these results also suggest a
                positive trend beginning around 2000.
                 In 2011, Garton et al. (2011, pp. 324-330) used a new approach to
                conduct a third trend analysis on the same populations used in the two
                previous WAFWA analyses. In this study, the average number of males per
                lek in the
                [[Page 18060]]
                North Mono Lake population declined by 35 percent and the average
                number of males per active lek declined by 41 percent from the 1965-
                1969 to 2000-2007 assessment periods (Garton et al. 2011, p. 324).
                Based on a reconstructed minimum population estimate for males from
                1965 to 2007, the overall population showed irregular fluctuations
                between peaks in 1970 and 1987 of 520 to 670 males, with lows above 100
                and no consistent long-term trend over the 40-year period. In the South
                Mono Lake population, the average number of males per lek increased by
                218 percent from the 1965-1969 to 1985-1989 assessment periods but
                declined by 49 percent from the 1985-1989 to 2000-2007 assessment
                periods (Garton et al. 2011, p. 325). Based on reconstructed minimum
                male counts, the population showed no obvious trend through time with
                between 200 and 600 males attending leks. The average annual rate of
                change for both populations suggested that population growth has been,
                at times, both positive and negative over the past 40 years (Garton et
                al. 2011, pp. 324-330).
                 In 2015, the researcher updated this analysis by accumulating and
                analyzing several years of additional of data (Garton et al. 2015,
                entire). The updated estimates of population performance largely
                remained unchanged, while the outlook for persistence improved. For the
                North Mono Lake population, the estimated minimum number of males
                increased by 25 percent in 2013 as compared to 2007, while the
                probability of declining below a (researcher-defined) quasi-extinction
                threshold decreased (Garton et al. 2015, pp. 13-14). For the South Mono
                Lake population, the estimated minimum number of males decreased by six
                percent in 2013 as compared to 2007, although the probability of
                declining below the quasi-extinction threshold remained generally
                unchanged. For both populations, the predicted population size in 30
                and 100 years increased in 2013 as compared to 2007 (Garton et al.
                2011, pp. 376-377; Garton et al. 2015, p. 45). This approach suggests
                both of these populations will remain relatively small, as they have
                historically. Modeled weighted probabilities of either population
                declining below an effective population sizes of 50 individuals in 30
                and 100 years are generally low (approximately 8 percent in 30 years
                and 22 percent in 100 years for both populations; Garton et al. 2015,
                p. 14).
                 In 2014, the USGS completed an analysis of population trends in the
                Bi-State area spanning the years 2003 to 2012 (Coates et al. 2014,
                entire). This analysis, termed an Integrated Population Model (IPM),
                integrates a variety of data such as lek counts and vital rates to
                inform an estimate of lambda (population growth) within the DPS. This
                analysis evaluated several populations in the Bi-State area including
                the Pine Nuts (Pine Nut PMU), Fales (California portion of the Desert
                Creek-Fales PMU), Desert Creek (Nevada Portion of the Desert Creek-
                Fales PMU), Bodie Hills (Bodie PMU), Parker Meadows (South Mono PMU),
                and Long Valley (South Mono PMU). It did not evaluate the populations
                in the Mount Grant or White Mountains PMUs due to data limitations.
                Results at that time suggested a stable trend in population growth
                across the entire Bi-State area between 2003 and 2012 (i.e., both
                increasing and decreasing at an equal rate; Coates et al. 2014, p. 19).
                However, the trend in population growth was variable among populations
                (Coates et al. 2014, pp. 14-15).
                 Since the 2013 proposed rule and the 2015 withdrawal of the
                proposed listing rule, this analysis has been updated, once using a 13-
                year dataset spanning the years 2003 through 2015, again using 15 years
                of data spanning the years 2003 through 2017, and most recently using
                an approach that segmented the trends into three time intervals (Coates
                et al. 2018, entire; Mathews et al. 2018, entire; Coates et al. 2020,
                p. 8). The later approach was adopted to account for population cycling
                in sage-grouse; that is, regular periods of growth and decline
                naturally experienced by sage-grouse rangewide (Garton et al. 2011, p.
                338). Indeed, it became apparent after analyzing the 13-year and 15-
                year datasets that the resulting estimates of population growth rates
                were being biased low due to an overrepresentation of down cycle years.
                To alleviate this bias, the latest trend analysis analyzes three time
                intervals that span one, two, and three cycles, with the start and stop
                points occurring in the troughs of a cycle. The three time intervals
                are 1995-2018, 2001-2018, and 2008-2018. Not all populations had
                sufficient historical data to evaluate all three time periods and thus
                analysis was constrained to one or two time periods depending on the
                population. The most recent analysis includes results from the Mount
                Grant and White Mountains PMUs, which were previously excluded due to
                insufficient data.
                 The results of the most recent iteration of the IPM suggests a
                general pattern of population cycling within an otherwise stable
                population across the Bi-State DPS with additional evidence that
                oscillations were influenced by drought conditions in recent years
                (Coates et al. 2018, pp. 250, 252; Coates et al. 2020, p. 27).
                Furthermore, variation among individual PMU trends was apparent. The
                credible intervals (CRIs) reported in this study represent the range of
                interannual variation in lambda; that is, while annual median
                population growth for the Bi-State DPS as a whole in the period 1995-
                2019 is 1.018 (or approximately a 2 percent annual increase), the CRI
                reported (0.737-1.418) represents the variation in estimated lambda as
                it cycles from low to high over the study period, rather than the error
                in the median estimate for any given year.
                 As discussed above, this analysis estimated that, across the Bi-
                State as a whole, estimated median population growth was 1.018 (CRI =
                0.737-1.418) from 1995 through 2018, 0.989 (CRI = 0.677-1.343) from
                2001 through 2018, and 0.988 (CRI = 0.704-1.304) from 2008 through 2018
                (Coates et al. 2020, Table 3). More specifically, over the past decade
                only the Bodie Hills and Parker Meadows population demonstrated an
                average annual positive growth (lambda = 1.061 and lambda = 1.048,
                respectively). The remaining populations including Mount Grant (lambda
                = 0.989), Fales, (lambda = 0.965), Pine Nut (lambda = 0.835), Desert
                Creek (lambda = 0.938), Long Valley (lambda = 0.96), and the White
                Mountains (lambda = 0.85; Coates et al. 2020, Table 3) averaged slight
                negative growth, although in each case the 95 percent CRI overlapped 1.
                Additional analysis suggests that over the past 5 years performance of
                some individual leks in Long Valley, Fales, Bodie Hills, Mount Grant,
                and to a lesser extent Sagehen (a population in the South Mono PMU)
                have been trending (negatively) in a pattern that deviates from the Bi-
                State at large (Coates et al. 2020, Table 3). This analysis suggests
                that alternative factors (such as anthropogenic disturbance) and not
                climate or weather may be acting to influence these specific sites.
                 In general, these four approaches (with some being run more than
                once) suggest that the trend in population growth within the Bi-State
                has fluctuated over the past 40 years (both increased and decreased),
                but over the entire timeframe has remained relatively stable. It
                appears that some populations (Pine Nut, Mount Grant, Bodie and Desert
                Creek) display greater variation in population growth (both positive
                and negative) and that trends among populations are variable (WAFWA
                2008, Appendix D; Garton et al. 2011, p. 324, Coates et al. 2020, p.
                34). Differences in
                [[Page 18061]]
                population trends across the same time periods in the newest study
                (compared to previous studies) may be due to the fact that the previous
                studies did not correct for the effects of population cycling (Coates
                et al. 2020, p. 30).
                 Two studies forecasted the probability that some populations would
                become extirpated. Garton et al. (2015, p. 41) used their reconstructed
                male counts to forecast future probabilities of population persistence
                assuming that past conditions persist into the future (a potentially
                unrealistic assumption). They conclude that the probabilities of
                declining below a quasi-extinction threshold (as defined by less than
                50 breeding adults per population) were approximately 8 and 22 percent
                over the next 30 and 100 years, respectively, for both the North Mono
                Lake and South Mono Lake populations. Furthermore, Garton et al. (2015,
                p. 41) indicate that long-term persistence (as defined by more than 500
                breeding adults per population, a standard number for persistence
                studies) for both core populations has an estimated 100 percent
                probability of dropping below this 500-adult threshold in the next 30
                years. However, the researchers acknowledge the cyclic nature of sage-
                grouse populations and note that these populations have already been
                both above and below this mark in previous years, which is part of that
                natural cycling. Furthermore, model projections suggest that, both over
                the near term (30 years) and the long term, the North Mono Lake and
                South Mono Lake populations have a relative high probability of
                maintaining between 50 and 500 breeding adults. Thus, in these two core
                populations immediate genetic concerns (e.g., inbreeding depression)
                are not apparent, but concern over maintaining long-term genetic and
                demographic viability remains.
                 Coates et al. (2020, p. 41; Table 1) estimated 10-year extirpation
                probability based on the number of runs of the IPM where populations
                went to zero. Probabilities of extirpation ranged greatly for
                individual PMUs and populations within the PMUs, with highest
                extirpation probabilities in the Pine Nuts PMU (69.7 percent), the
                White Mountains PMU (75.1 percent), and the Sagehen and Parker Meadows
                populations of the South Mono PMU (74.8 and 64.3 percent, respectively)
                (Coates et al. 2020, Table 1). The Bi-State DPS as a whole has a 1.1
                percent extirpation probability in the next 10 years, and the Desert-
                Creek Fales PMU (9.0 percent), the Bodie Hills PMU (2.4 percent), and
                the South Mono PMU as a whole (3.8 percent), as well as its largest
                population (Long Valley; 7.9 percent) all have low probabilities of
                extirpation (Coates et al. 2020, Table 1). Some of these extirpation
                probabilities are lower than those calculated by Garton et al. (2015),
                likely because of differences in methods. The two studies also used
                different data sets, with Garton et al. (2015) using reconstructed male
                counts, and Coates et al. (2020) using multiple data sources for the
                IPM, including demographic and lek count data.
                 Thus, even though some populations in this most recent model have
                high probabilities of extirpation over the next ten years, the DPS as a
                whole is likely to persist over this time period. These extinction
                probabilities are created from continuing and forecasting past trends
                into the future, and thus likely do not reflect the effects of
                conservation measures started or completed in recent years.
                 Finally, the most recent population study included a PMU
                distribution analysis to examine short-term changes in population
                distribution across the Bi-State DPS. This analysis concluded that some
                parts of the Bi-State DPS are contracting, with the greatest
                contractions in acres of occupied habitat occurring in the Pine Nut,
                Fales, Sagehen, and White Mountains populations (Coates et al. 2020, p.
                51-54). However, distributional area in the Bodie Hills is increasing
                (Coates et al. 2020, p. 54). As a whole, the Bi-State DPS showed some
                evidence of range contraction between 2008 and 2018, though the 95
                percent CRI overlapped zero ((-0.07 [-0.19, 0.07]) (Coates et al. 2020,
                p. 51).
                 Following are brief accounts of each PMU.
                 (1) The Pine Nut PMU has the fewest sage-grouse (Median = 33; CRI =
                0-73 individuals in 2018; Coates et al. 2020, p. 33) and the least
                number of active leks of the Bi-State PMUs. The population in the Pine
                Nut PMU has some level of connectivity with the Desert Creek-Fales PMU
                and potentially also with the Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs. The most
                significant impacts in this PMU are wildfire, invasive species,
                woodland encroachment, urbanization, and infrastructure.
                 Historically, a single lek in the northern portion of the Pine Nut
                Mountains (known as Mill Canyon Dry Lake) was the only known
                consistently active lek in this PMU. From 2000 through 2013, the
                average male attendance at the Mill Canyon Dry Lake lek was
                approximately 14 males (Bi-State TAC 2012, p. 17). Since 2013, activity
                on this lek has essentially ceased. An additional lek in the southern
                extent of the Pine Nut mountain range has periodically been reported
                but at this point is not considered active. Aerial surveys over the
                past few years typically detect birds in this area but actual strutting
                activity is uncertain. It is unclear if this southern lek has been
                abandoned, or if the original documentation just captured a rare event
                or simply misclassified random bird sightings for actual strutting
                activity. Over the past several years, two newly discovered lek sites
                in the Buckskin Range appear to be the only reliably active strutting
                grounds in this PMU (NDOW 2018, unpublished data). Both lek sites are
                small with two to five males apiece. The most recent results from the
                IPM suggests population growth in this PMU has declined on average six
                percent annually over the past decade (2008-2018; Median [lambda] =
                0.835; CRI = 0.234-1.94; Coates et al. 2020, p. 41).
                 Ongoing conservation efforts in this PMU include an acquisition of
                land containing high priority targets identified in the 2012 BSAP,
                which will help limit the effects of urban and exurban development.
                This 5,870 ha (14,500 ac) acquisition by the Carson City BLM has been
                approved and is anticipated to finalize in the spring of 2020. Other
                completed, ongoing, or planned conservation actions in the Pine Nut PMU
                include pinyon-juniper removal, horse gathers, removal of nonnative
                invasive plants, fuel reduction treatments, road closure, and fence
                removal (Bi-State TAC 2019, entire).
                 (2) The Desert Creek-Fales PMU straddles the Nevada-California
                border and contains two populations, one in each State. This PMU
                includes two breeding complexes: Desert Creek (Nevada) and Fales
                (California). The populations in the Desert Creek-Fales PMU have some
                level of connectivity with the Pine Nut PMU and potentially also with
                the Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs. The most significant impacts in this
                PMU are wildfire, invasive species (specifically conifer encroachment),
                infrastructure, and urbanization.
                 The NDOW uses data from six active leks to evaluate the trend and
                to tally maximum male attendance in the Desert Creek breeding complex.
                The long-term average male attendance is approximately 17.7 males per
                lek (Bi-State TAC 2017, p. 8). This average is influenced by one of
                these leks becoming inactive, with no males counted within the last 8
                years. This lek might have moved locations, but this possibility
                remains unconfirmed. In 2012, a previously undocumented lek was
                discovered to the east of Nevada State Route 338 near Dalzell Canyon;
                24
                [[Page 18062]]
                males were documented strutting on this lek. Over the last 7 years,
                this lek has remained active but counts have been small (http://www.regulations.gov.
                 In this determination, we used the three conservation biology
                principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to assess the
                viability of the Bi-State DPS (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310).
                Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand
                environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
                warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to
                withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution
                events), and representation supports the ability of the species to
                adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example,
                climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a
                species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to
                sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental
                conditions. Using these principles, we will consider the DPS' overall
                response to threats and the DPS' viability as a whole.
                Summary of Biological Status and Threats
                 In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
                species and its resources, the influence of those conditions on the
                species' overall viability, and the risks to that viability. Following
                are summary evaluations of 11 threats analyzed in the Species Report
                for the Bi-State DPS: Urbanization and habitat conversion (Factor A);
                infrastructure (Factor A); mining (Factor A); grazing and rangeland
                management (Factor A); nonnative invasive plants and native woodland
                succession (Factor A); wildfires and altered fire regime (Factor A);
                climate change, including drought (Factor A); recreation (Factor E);
                disease (Factor C); predation (Factor C); and small population size and
                population isolation (Factor E). We also evaluate the inadequacy of
                existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) on the magnitude of threats.
                Please see the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 39-136) for a more
                detailed discussion of each threat.
                 In the Species Report, we also considered four additional threats:
                Renewable energy (Factor A), commercial and recreational hunting
                (Factor B); scientific and educational uses (Factor B); and
                contaminants (including pesticides) (Factor E). We concluded that
                though these threats are currently having some impact on individual
                sage-grouse and their habitat, their overall effect now and into the
                future is expected to be minimal. Therefore, we will not present
                summary analyses of those threats in this document but will consider
                them in our overall conclusions of impacts to the species. For full
                descriptions of all these threats and how they impact the species,
                please see the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 63-124).
                 For the purposes of this assessment, we consider the foreseeable
                future to be the amount of time on which we can reasonably determine a
                likely threat's anticipated trajectory and the anticipated response of
                the species to those threats. For some threats impacting the Bi-State
                DPS, we consider the time for which we can reliably project threats and
                the anticipated response to be 30 years. This time period represents
                our best professional judgment of the foreseeable future conditions
                related to climate change, native woodland succession, nonnative
                invasive plants, and wildfire cycles, as well as the Bi-State DPS
                population cycles, probability of population persistence analyzed and
                described by Garton et al. (2015, entire), and regeneration time of
                sagebrush habitat. For other threats and the anticipated species
                response, we can reliably project impacts and the species response for
                less than 30 years, such as infrastructure, urbanization and habitat
                conversion, grazing and rangeland management, recreation, disease, and
                predation.
                Urbanization and Habitat Conversion
                 Urbanization and habitat conversion (Factor A) have both direct and
                indirect effects on sagebrush habitat. In this section, we will discuss
                direct impacts to sagebrush habitat and to sage grouse populations.
                Indirect effects (such as those associated with infrastructure,
                increases in invasive plant species, and increases in domestic animals
                and wildlife predator species) will be addressed in later sections.
                 Traditional land use in the Bi-State area was primarily farming and
                ranching operations. These operations can have both beneficial and
                detrimental effects on sage-grouse conservation. Continuing farming and
                ranching operations have limited development of exurban subdivisions in
                the Bi-State area, but they have also affected the extent of remaining
                sagebrush through conversion to alternate vegetation types (such as
                pasture grass) (Service 2020, p. 35). The extent of impacts from the
                conversion of habitat depends on the amount of sagebrush lost, the type
                of seasonal habitat affected, and the arrangement of habitat lost
                (large blocks or small patches) (Knick et al. 2011, pp. 208-211).
                 While conversion of sagebrush vegetation communities to
                agricultural land continues to occur in the Bi-State area, the rate of
                this conversion remains difficult to quantify. Some reports state that
                conversion has lessened and that some of these lands are instead being
                sold and converted to low-density residential housing developments (Bi-
                State TAC 2012, pp. 18, 24, 41). Several studies have demonstrated that
                these increases in human population density could have strong effects
                on sage-grouse occupancy beyond the areas directly converted to human
                development. Sage-grouse extirpation was more likely in areas having a
                human population density of at least four people per 1 km\2\ (10 people
                per 1 mi\2\) (Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 991-992). Increase in human
                populations from this moderate level did not infer a greater likelihood
                of extirpation, likely because much of the additional growth occurred
                in areas no longer suitable for sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008, pp.
                991-992). Additionally, human density is 26 times greater in extirpated
                sage-grouse areas than in the currently occupied range (Wisdom et al.
                2011, p. 463). In modeling several measures of human population on
                greater sage-grouse persistence, including current population density,
                historical population density, and human population growth, the best
                predictor of sage-grouse extirpation was human population density in
                1950 (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 985). This finding suggests that human
                development has had long-term impacts on habitat suitability and sage-
                grouse persistence (Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 991-992). Thus, even
                small increases in human population density can have a strong effect on
                sage-grouse populations.
                 Another indicator of human development pressure on sage-grouse can
                be inferred from existing sagebrush availability. To persist in an
                area, sage-grouse require a minimum of 25 percent sagebrush; a high
                probability of persistence required 65 percent sagebrush or more
                (Aldridge et al. 2008, p. 990; and Chambers et al. 2014, p. 12). When
                data were analyzed in 2014 across the Bi-State, no leks contained less
                than 25 percent sagebrush cover in the immediate area. However, 30 out
                of the 55 leks (55 percent) contained between 25 and 65 percent
                sagebrush cover, suggesting an intermediate probability of persistence
                (Chambers et al. 2014, p. 12). The remaining 25 leks (45 percent)
                [[Page 18066]]
                contained greater than 65 percent sagebrush cover surrounding a lek
                site.
                 Historical and recent alterations, as well as ongoing conversion of
                sagebrush vegetation to support ranching operations and urban/exurban
                expansion, poses the greatest risk to persistence of sage-grouse in the
                Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, and South Mono PMUs and to a lesser
                degree in the Bodie, and White Mountains PMUs (BSLPG 2004, pp. 24-169;
                Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 18-46). Approximately 11 percent of suitable
                sage-grouse habitat in the Bi-State area occurs on private lands. In
                each PMU, sage-grouse home ranges include private lands that are
                critical to fulfilling annual habitat needs (Casazza 2009, p. 9),
                including a significant proportion of mesic areas (e.g., upland
                meadows) within the range of the Bi-State DPS needed by sage-grouse
                during the late brood-rearing period. Sage-grouse are known to display
                strong site fidelity to traditional seasonal habitats, and loss or
                degradation of specific sites (especially brood-rearing habitat) can
                have negative population impacts.
                 The majority of local agency land in the South Mono PMU is owned by
                the City of Los Angeles and managed by the Los Angeles Department of
                Water and Power (LADWP). Many of these parcels are irrigated pasture,
                which provide important brood-rearing habitat to upwards 40 percent of
                the entire Bi-State DPS population. The LADWP is considering altering
                the extent to which these lands are irrigated. If realized, this
                potential additive stressor has the potential to negatively affect
                brood-rearing success (an influential demographic vital rate), given
                that the Long Valley population has demonstrated slightly negative
                population growth on average over the past 10 years. To address this
                concern, in 2019 LADWP provided a letter to the Service that reaffirms
                its prior commitment to allocate a sufficient amount of water to
                maintain sage-grouse habitat in Long Valley. Determining the amount of
                water needed to achieve this commitment will be informed by a
                collaborative, science-based approach (LADWP 2019, in litt.). The goal
                of LADWP's natural resource management is to employ Best Management
                Practices for land and water uses that maintain water supplies to the
                City of Los Angeles while protecting water quality, habitat,
                biodiversity, as well as species recognized under the ESA throughout
                the related watersheds. In 2014 (August 18, 2014), LADWP and their
                governing Board of Water and Power Commission approved a Conservation
                Strategy for the Bi-State DPS on their lands in Mono County,
                California. A component of this Strategy included commitments to
                maintain sage-grouse lekking, nesting, and brood rearing habitat.
                Consistent with this Strategy, LADWP has consistently managed the
                activities on their lands such as habitat restoration, livestock
                grazing, recreation, control of noxious and invasive weeds, fire
                suppression, infrastructure, and management of water in a manner that
                is compatible with the conservation of the Bi-State DPS. These past
                efforts and ongoing commitments will continue to provide benefits to
                conservation of the species. The remainder of private lands in the
                South Mono PMU is rangeland, although potential for commercial,
                residential, or recreational development exists.
                 Ongoing efforts to develop fee acquisition of properties or enroll
                them into conservation easements may help ameliorate current and
                anticipated effects of urbanization and habitat conversion. We estimate
                that approximately 10,415 ha (25,737 ac) of private land, which may
                provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse in the Bi-State DPS, are
                currently enrolled in various easement programs. The easements are
                targeted primarily at development and water rights and vary in length
                from 30 years to in perpetuity; thus, they can ameliorate the threat of
                development but do not necessarily ensure that habitat remains
                suitable. The majority of these easement lands are located in the Bodie
                PMU, with the remainder of easements occurring in the Desert Creek-
                Fales, South Mono, Pine Nut, and White Mountains PMUs. Of the
                approximately 60,326 ha (149,071 ac) of private land that may provide
                suitable habitat for sage-grouse within the Bi-State area,
                approximately 17 percent is under easements. An additional approximate
                9,045 ha (22,352 ac) of previously private land within the Bi-State DPS
                has been acquired by State and Federal agencies over the past decade.
                In total, approximately 19,460 ha (48,089 ac) of land, either through
                conservation easements or acquisitions, has been substantially
                protected from urbanization challenges. These acres represent
                approximately 31 percent of total private lands containing suitable
                sage-grouse habitat across the Bi-State area. In addition,
                approximately 7,280 ha (18,000 ac) of lands identified as important by
                the 2012 BSAP have funding obligated and are working through the
                easement development process, with many of these efforts anticipated to
                be completed in a few years. An effort to acquire approximately 5,867
                ha (14,500 ac) of additional lands in the Pine Nut PMU by the Carson
                City BLM has been approved but will likely not finalize until sometime
                in 2020. Combining the realized and reasonably anticipated efforts,
                approximately 57 percent of high-priority private lands in the Bi-State
                area will be protected.
                 Currently, 89 percent of the Bi-State DPS is Federal lands. On
                Federal lands, existing regulatory mechanisms protect sagebrush habitat
                from development. Approximately 54 percent of all lands within the
                sage-grouse Bi-State area is BLM-administered land; this includes
                approximately 1 million ha (2.5 million ac). The Federal Land Policy
                and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) is the primary
                Federal law governing most land uses on BLM lands, and directs
                development and implementation of resource management plans (RMPs) that
                direct management at a local level. The sage-grouse is designated as a
                sensitive species on BLM lands in the Bi-State area (Sell 2010, pers.
                comm.). The BLM's objectives for sensitive species is two-fold: (1) To
                conserve and recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystem on which they
                depend so that ESA protections are no longer needed, and (2) to
                initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate
                threats to species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing
                of these species under the ESA (BLM 2008, p. 3).
                 The USFS manages approximately 35 percent of the land in the Bi-
                State area or approximately 600,000 ha (1.5 million ac). Management of
                activities on national forest system lands is guided principally by the
                National Forest Management Act (NFMA). The NFMA specifies that the USFS
                must have a land resource management plan (LRMP) (16 U.S.C. 1600) to
                guide and set standards for natural resource management activities on
                each National Forest or National Grassland. The greater sage-grouse is
                designated as a USFS Sensitive Species in the Intermountain (R4) and
                Pacific Southwest (R5) Regions, which includes the Humboldt-Toiyabe
                National Forest (Bridgeport and Carson Ranger Districts) and the Inyo
                National Forest in the Bi-State area. Designated sensitive species
                require special consideration during land use planning and activity
                implementation to ensure the viability of the species on USFS lands and
                to preclude any population declines that could lead to a Federal
                listing (USFS 2008, p. 21). In addition, sensitive species designations
                require analysis for any activity that could have an adverse impact to
                the species, including analysis
                [[Page 18067]]
                of the significance of any adverse impacts on the species, its habitat,
                and overall population viability (USFS 2008, p. 21). The specific
                protection that sensitive species status confers to sage-grouse on USFS
                lands is largely dependent on LRMPs and site-specific project analysis
                and implementation.
                 These regulatory mechanisms prevent urban development on Federal
                lands. Through NFMA, LRMPs, Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
                RMPs, and the On-Shore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act (1987;
                implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 228, subpart E), land-managing
                agencies have the authority to manage, prevent, restrict, or attach
                protective measures to mineral extraction, wind development, and other
                energy permits on Federal lands. Thus, some habitat loss due to these
                developments may still occur on Federal land. Despite this, regulatory
                mechanisms in place are overall reducing the magnitude of threats
                associated with urbanization and habitat conversion.
                 Historical and recent conversion of sagebrush habitat on private
                lands for agriculture, housing, and associated infrastructure within
                the Bi-State area has likely negatively affected sage-grouse
                distribution and population extent in the Bi-State DPS, thus
                potentially influencing current and future recovery opportunities in
                the Bi-State area. These alterations to habitat have been most
                pronounced in the Pine Nut and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs and to a lesser
                extent in the Bodie, South Mono, and White Mountains PMUs. Although
                only a subset of the 11 percent of suitable sage-grouse habitat that
                occurs on private lands could potentially be developed, conservation
                actions on adjacent public lands could be compromised due to the
                significant percentage of late brood-rearing habitat that occurs on the
                private lands. Furthermore, the influence of land development and
                habitat conversion on the population dynamics of sage-grouse is greater
                than a simple measure of spatial extent because of the indirect effects
                from the associated increases in human activity. These threats are not
                universal across the Bi-State area, but localized areas of impacts have
                been realized and additional future impacts are anticipated. Currently,
                approximately 31 percent of total private lands containing suitable
                sage-grouse habitat across the Bi-State area are enrolled under an
                easement program or have been acquired by Federal and State agencies,
                and this number will increase to 57 percent when combining additional
                efforts that are ongoing and reasonably likely to occur.
                 Urbanization was not considered a significant threat at the time of
                the 2013 proposed listing rule. Currently, the effects of urbanization
                are having a minimal impact on the resiliency of populations within the
                Bi-State DPS. Absent any protections or conservation measures, the
                magnitude of impacts could increase into the foreseeable future as
                unprotected private lands become further fragmented. However, due to
                protections associated with regulatory mechanisms, and in particular
                because of efforts to acquire important private lands associated with
                the BSAP, we conclude that the magnitude of effects associated with
                this threat and its potential impacts on population resiliency should
                not increase to a detrimental level.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes measures to counter
                effects such as urbanization and habitat loss. Because we have
                determined that the partially completed and future conservation
                measures/efforts will be implemented and effective (see Policy for
                Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions,
                above), we believe that urbanization and human disturbance is not a
                significant impact on the species within the foreseeable future.
                Infrastructure
                 We characterize infrastructure as features that assist or are
                required for human development or an associated action. We focus on
                five infrastructure features that are apparent in the Bi-State area and
                that have been implicated in impacting sage-grouse: Three linear
                features (roads, power lines, and fences) and two site-specific
                features (landfills and communication towers).
                 Infrastructure can have direct impacts on sage-grouse, such as
                mortality through collision with power lines or fences, or direct
                impacts on sagebrush, such as habitat fragmentation or habitat loss.
                Fragmentation of sagebrush habitat has been cited as a primary cause of
                the decline of sage-grouse populations because the species requires
                large expanses of contiguous sagebrush (Service 2020, p. 45).
                Estimating the impact of habitat fragmentation caused by infrastructure
                on sage-grouse is complicated by the nonrandom placement of these
                features and by time lags in species response to habitat changes
                (Garton et al. 2011, p. 371), particularly since these relatively long-
                lived birds continue to return to altered breeding areas (leks, nesting
                areas, and early brood-rearing areas).
                 Roads are a linear feature on the landscape that can contribute to
                habitat loss and avoidance of areas close to roads, create barriers to
                migration corridors or seasonal habitats, and increase human
                disturbance in remote areas (Service 2020, p. 46). Additionally, roads
                can provide corridors for predators to move into previously unoccupied
                areas. For some mammalian and avian species (such as common ravens
                (Corvus corax)), dispersal along roads and other linear features like
                power lines has greatly increased their distribution (Forman and
                Alexander 1998, p. 212; Knight and Kawashima 1993, p. 268; Forman 2000,
                p. 33; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 12-3). Road networks also contribute to
                the spread of nonnative invasive plants via introduced road fill,
                vehicle transport, and road maintenance activities (Forman and
                Alexander 1998, p. 210; Forman 2000, p. 32; Gelbard and Belnap 2003, p.
                426; Knick et al. 2003, p. 619; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-25). Direct
                mortality of sage-grouse from vehicle collisions does occur (Patterson
                1952, p. 81; Wiechman and Reese 2008, p. 3), but mortalities are
                typically not monitored or recorded. Additionally, roads can have
                impacts on sage-grouse behavior. For example, roads within 7.5 km (4.7
                mi) of leks negatively influence male lek attendance (Service 2020, pp.
                46-47). The mechanism by which road presence reduces male lek
                attendance is not entirely clear, but chronic noise may contribute to
                these decreases. Male sage-grouse rely on acoustical signals to attract
                females to leks (Gibson and Bradbury 1985, p. 82; Gratson 1993, p.
                692). Therefore, if noise interferes with mating displays, and thereby
                female attendance, younger males will not be drawn to the lek and
                eventually leks could become inactive (Amstrup and Phillips 1977, p.
                26; Braun 1986, pp. 229-230).
                 In general, locations associated with mineral development (Mount
                Grant PMU), recreational activity (Bodie and South Mono PMUs), and
                major travel corridors (Desert Creek-Fales PMU) have the most
                significant daily road traffic. Our analysis of the best available data
                in the Bi-State area documents that 54 out of 55 known active or
                pending leks are within 3 km (1.8 mi) or less of an existing minor road
                (such as dirt two-track roads). Furthermore, of the 55 known active or
                pending leks, 64 percent (n=35) are within 5 km (3.1 mi) of paved
                secondary highways (Service 2013c, unpublished data).
                 An extensive network of roads and trails currently occurs
                throughout the range of the Bi-State DPS. In the Bi-State area, all
                Federal lands have restrictions limiting off-road vehicular travel. In
                addition, road closures and
                [[Page 18068]]
                rehabilitation of redundant roads by USFS and BLM are occurring to
                benefit Bi-State DPS conservation (Service 2020, p. 49).
                 We anticipate limited additional road and trail development will
                occur within suitable and potentially suitable habitat in the Bi-State
                area based on recent land use plan amendments, USFS and BLM travel
                management plans, and our current understanding of travel management
                direction. However, because an extensive road and trail network already
                occurs throughout the Bi-State area and because roads are known to
                result in both direct and indirect impacts to sage-grouse, we
                anticipate some impacts to birds and leks in the future, although we
                are uncertain to what degree these potential impacts will affect
                populations in the Bi-State area.
                 Power lines can directly affect sage-grouse by posing collision and
                electrocution hazards (Braun 1998, pp. 145-146; Connelly et al. 2000a,
                p. 974). They can have indirect effects by decreasing lek recruitment,
                increasing predator presence, facilitating the invasion of nonnative
                invasive annual plants by creating soil conditions favorable to their
                spread, potentially acting as a barrier to movement, and ultimately
                negatively affecting population performance (Service 2020, pp. 50-52).
                Due to the potential spread of invasive species and facilitation of
                predator occurrence as a result of power line construction, the
                indirect influence power lines can have on vegetation community
                dynamics and species occurrence often extends out further than the
                physical footprint (Knick et al. 2011, p. 219). Recent research has
                demonstrated that power lines are influencing sage-grouse behavior,
                demographic vital rates, and population growth rates due to associated
                impacts from raven abundance and predation (Gibson et al. 2018, p. 17).
                 Power lines occur in all Bi-State PMUs, but the extent of exposure
                varies by location. Based on available data (generally restricted to
                transmission lines), we estimate approximately 210 km (130 mi) of
                existing power lines are present across suitable habitat in the Bi-
                State. Overall, approximately 21 percent of 55 active and pending leks
                in the Bi-State area are within 2 km (1.2 mi) or less of existing
                transmission lines and approximately 38 percent of active and pending
                leks are within 5 km (3.1 mi) or less of existing transmission lines
                (Service 2013c, unpublished data). This suggests a potential loss, due
                to sage-grouse avoidance, of approximately 25,200 ha (62,270 ac) of
                otherwise suitable habitat (Gillan et al. 2013, p. 307). These
                transmission lines have the potential to further negatively influence
                over 250,000 ha (617,700 ac) or approximately 47 percent of suitable
                habitat, assuming their presence leads to the increased presence of
                ravens and other predators (Gibson et al. 2018, p. 17). Given that the
                predator community population size likely fluctuates through time, the
                scale of this potential impact will likely vary. Therefore, we are
                uncertain to what degree these potential impacts will affect
                populations in the Bi-State area. Of ongoing concern, however, is the
                potential time lag in effects from construction of power lines, as
                ravens and other predators may not utilize those lines until several
                years after their construction.
                 We anticipate that while existing power lines will persist on the
                landscape in the future, new power lines will be limited to smaller
                distribution lines associated with expansion of urbanization on a
                portion of the private lands within and around the Bi-State area. Bi-
                State habitat is currently managed as a right-of-way avoidance area by
                Federal land managers, such that larger lines (>120 kilovolts) and
                associated facilities will not be authorized (outside of existing
                corridors; BLM 2016, p. 15; HTNF 2016, p. 13). In the Bodie PMU, one
                decommissioned power line has been removed (Bi-State TAC 2018).
                 Fences are used to delineate property boundaries and for livestock
                management (Braun 1998, p. 145; Connelly et al. 2000a, p. 974). The
                effects of fencing on sage-grouse include direct mortality through
                collisions, creation of predator perch sites, and habitat fragmentation
                (Service 2020, p. 55). Fences present a risk to sage-grouse in all Bi-
                State PMUs (BSLPG 2004, pp. 54, 80, 120, 124, 169) due to known fence
                collisions and their potential to degrade habitat quality.
                 Not all fences present the same direct mortality collision risk to
                sage-grouse. Collision risk factors include fencing design, landscape
                topography, and spatial relationship with seasonal habitats
                (Christiansen 2009, p. 2). Management methods can decrease the impact
                of fences on sage-grouse. Visual markers have been employed in some of
                the high-risk areas to make fences more readily seen by birds; this
                method does appear to substantially reduce mortality due to collisions.
                Markers have been installed on a total of approximately 101 km (63 mi)
                of fence across the Bi-State DPS since 2012. Recent land use plan
                amendments encourage evaluation of existing fences with respect to
                sage-grouse conservation and discourage new installations that may
                negatively affect sage-grouse and its habitat (BLM 2016, pp. 12, 15;
                HTNF 2016, p. 14).
                 Data on the total extent (length and distribution) of existing
                fences and new fence construction projects are not available for the
                Bi-State area. However, based on data contained within the Greater
                Sage-grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment
                (USFS and BLM 2014, p. 99), there is likely on the order of 650 km (400
                mi) of existing fences across the entire DPS. While we expect fencing
                to continue and possibly expand in the future within every PMU in the
                Bi-State area, efforts associated with conservation and regulatory
                mechanisms are currently ongoing (and expected to continue into the
                future) to ameliorate some of their impacts (Bi-State TAC 2012, p. 5;
                BLM 2016, pp. 12, 15; HTNF 2016, p. 14). While direct mortality through
                collision may be minimized by these approaches, indirect impacts caused
                by predation and other forms of habitat degradation may remain. The
                overall severity of these impacts to the Bi-State DPS throughout its
                range is not known, but based on the best available data the impacts
                are widespread but minor.
                 Millions of birds are killed annually in the United States through
                collisions with communication towers (including cellular towers) and
                their associated structures (e.g., guy wires, lights) (Shire et al.
                2000, p. 5; Manville 2002, p. 10), although most documented mortalities
                are of migratory songbirds. In a comparison of sage-grouse locations in
                extirpated areas of their range (as determined by museum species and
                historical observations) and currently occupied habitats, proximity to
                cellular towers had a strong correlation with likelihood of
                extirpation, and the distance to cellular towers was nearly twice as
                far from grouse locations in currently occupied habitats than
                extirpated areas (Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 463). However, there was no
                information as to whether the towers were a factor in the extirpation
                of those areas, or if their presence was linked to other threats in
                those areas (Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 467).
                 Within the range of the Bi-State DPS, approximately eight
                communication towers have been constructed in the past decade (Federal
                Communications Commission (FCC) 2018, unpublished data); each PMU has
                at least one such facility located within occupied sage-grouse habitat.
                These eight sites are likely an underrepresentation of the actual
                number of tower sites within the Bi-State area, as tower facilities
                shorter than 61 m (199 ft.) above ground level are not required to
                register with the FCC
                [[Page 18069]]
                (FCC 2018, unpublished data). We are unable to determine if any sage-
                grouse mortalities have occurred as a result of collisions with
                registered or unregistered communication towers or their supporting
                structures, as most towers are not monitored, and those that are
                monitored lie outside the range of the species (Kerlinger 2000, p. 2;
                Shire et al. 2000 p. 19).
                 Based on regulatory mechanisms associated with existing land use
                plans as well as existing land designations (wilderness and wilderness
                study areas), which significantly restrict new communication site
                development, we do not expect many new facilities on federally managed
                land in the Bi-State area (BLM 1993, p. 18; BLM 2016, p. 13; HTNF 2016,
                pp. 42-43). However, we anticipate that existing communication towers
                will remain in place and potentially new communication towers will be
                added at existing tower sites. Typically, rights-of-way grants afforded
                these facilities are for 30 years, and would likely be renewed
                indefinitely. It is also probable that new communication towers will be
                developed on non-federally managed lands along existing Federal
                Highways and State Routes. Thus, future communication tower placements
                will most likely affect the Desert Creek-Fales and South Mono PMUs,
                potentially affecting sage-grouse habitat in those locations.
                 Municipal solid waste landfills and associated roads contribute to
                increases in synanthropic predators (predator species adapted to
                conditions created or modified by people) (Knight et al. 1993, p. 470;
                Restani et al. 2001, p. 403; Webb et al. 2004, p. 523). One landfill
                exists in the Bi-State area. The Benton Crossing Landfill in Mono
                County is located north of Crowley Lake in Long Valley on a site leased
                from the LADWP. Common ravens and California gulls (Larus californicus)
                heavily use the landfill (Coates 2008, pers. comm.; USGS 2017, p. 17).
                Sage-grouse nest success in Long Valley (South Mono PMU) was lower than
                in other PMUs within the Bi-State area (Kolada et al. 2009b, p. 1344),
                which may be attributable to increased avian predators subsidized by
                landfill operations (Casazza 2008, pers. comm.; USGS 2017, p. 74;
                Coates et al.. 2018, p. 256). At this time, the future closing of the
                landfill appears probable, as LADWP has stated that they do not intend
                to renew the lease and Mono County has been funding planning studies
                for relocation, but any action on relocation is unlikely before the
                lease expires in 2023.
                 In the Bi-State area, linear infrastructure impacts each PMU both
                directly and indirectly to varying degrees. Existing roads, power
                lines, and fences may degrade sage-grouse habitat and contribute to
                direct mortality through collisions. In addition, roads, power lines,
                and fences influence sage-grouse use of otherwise suitable habitats
                adjacent to current active areas, increase predators, and increase
                invasive plants. The impact caused by these indirect effects extends
                beyond the immediate timeframe associated with the infrastructure
                installation. Across the entire range of the greater sage-grouse, the
                mean distance to highways and transmission lines for extirpated
                populations was approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) or less (Wisdom et al.
                2011, p. 463). In the Bi-State area, 64 percent of active or pending
                leks are within 5 km (3.1 mi) of highways, and approximately 38 percent
                are within this distance to existing transmission lines (Service 2013c,
                unpublished data). The similarity apparent between these Bi-State DPS
                lek locations and extirpated greater sage-grouse populations suggests
                that persistence may be influenced by their juxtaposition with these
                anthropogenic features.
                 The geographic extent, density, type, and frequency of linear
                infrastructure disturbance in the Bi-State area have changed over time.
                While new development of some of these features (highways) will likely
                not occur, other infrastructure features have the potential of
                increasing (secondary roads, power lines, fencing, and communication
                towers). Furthermore, while development of new highways is unlikely,
                road improvements are possible and traffic volume will likely increase,
                and in certain areas these actions may be more important than road
                development itself.
                 We concluded in the 2013 proposed listing rule that infrastructure
                impacts (particularly fencing, power lines, and roads) were a
                significant factor for proposing to list the DPS as a threatened
                species, and today, we affirm that impacts from infrastructure occur in
                various forms throughout the Bi-State DPS's range and are an ongoing
                threat impacting population resiliency across its range and degrading
                habitat both currently and into the future. This conclusion is based on
                a variety of range-wide impacts that are currently occurring and
                expected to continue or increase in the future that result in habitat
                fragmentation; limitations for sage-grouse recovery actions due to an
                extensive road network, power lines, and fencing; and a variety of
                direct and indirect impacts such as direct loss of individuals from
                collisions or structures that promote increased potential for
                predation. Collectively, these threats may result in perturbations that
                influence both demographic vital rates of sage-grouse (e.g.,
                reproductive success and adult sage-grouse survival) and habitat
                suitability in the Bi-State area.
                 Importantly, conservation efforts that address infrastructure
                impacts have continued to be implemented since publication of the
                proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to): Removing power
                lines; implementing both permanent and seasonal road closures; removing
                racetrack fencing; and the likely relocation of the landfill in Long
                Valley. With continued implementation of conservation actions
                associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire), infrastructure-
                related impacts are significantly reduced.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes measures to counter
                negative effects from infrastructure. Because we have determined that
                the partially completed and future conservation efforts will be
                implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
                Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, below), we believe that effects
                associated with infrastructure may no longer be considered a
                significant impact into the future.
                Mining
                 Surface and subsurface mining for mineral resources (gold, silver,
                aggregate, and others) can result in direct loss of sagebrush habitat.
                Construction of mining infrastructure can result in additional direct
                loss of habitat from establishment of structures, staging areas, roads,
                railroad tracks, and power lines. Sage-grouse and their nests could be
                directly affected by crushing or vehicle collision. Sage-grouse also
                can be impacted indirectly from an increase in human presence, land use
                practices, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced air quality, degradation
                of water quality and quantity, and changes in vegetation and topography
                (Moore and Mills 1977, entire). However, whereas theoretical effects
                are relatively clear and logical, information relating sage-grouse
                response to mineral developments is not extensive.
                 Mineral development is classified as leasable (fluid) minerals (in
                the Bi-State area, this is limited to geothermal resource), saleable
                minerals (sand and gravel pits), and locatable minerals (precious
                metals). Through existing regulatory mechanisms, Federal managers have
                discretion to condition or deny proponents of leasable or saleable
                mineral projects, and existing
                [[Page 18070]]
                land use management plans have provisions that significantly restrict
                the likelihood of these developments (BLM 1993, p. 18; BLM 2016, pp.
                12-13; HTNF 2016, pp. 19-21). Locatable minerals are administered under
                the General Mining Act of 1872. Federal land managers have very limited
                ability to prevent or preclude these activities from occurring.
                 Mineral extraction has a long history throughout the Bi-State area.
                Mining continues today to a limited extent in all PMUs and is expected
                to continue into the future. Although mining occurs year-round in the
                Bi-State DPS, direct loss of key seasonal habitats or population
                disturbances during critical seasonal periods are of greatest impact.
                Currently, the PMUs with the greatest exposure are Bodie, Mount Grant,
                Pine Nut, and to a lesser degree South Mono (BSLPG 2004, pp. 89, 137,
                178). There are currently several active Plans of Operations that
                overlap Bi-State sage-grouse habitat and thousands of active mining
                claims on Federal, State, and private lands. There is potential for
                additional mineral developments to occur in the Bi-State area in the
                future. While all PMUs have the potential for mineral development,
                based on current land designations and past activity, it appears the
                Pine Nut and Mount Grant PMUs are most likely to experience new
                activity (Service 2020, pp. 61-63). Currently operational mines are not
                within the core population areas of the Bi-State DPS, although existing
                inactive mining sites, exploration actions, and potential future
                developments could impact important lek complexes and population
                connectivity.
                 In general, potential exists for mining operations to expand both
                currently and into the future, but the scope of impacts from existing
                mining expansion is not considered extensive. We concluded in the 2013
                proposed listing rule and reaffirm here that, by itself, mining is not
                currently considered a significant impact to the Bi-State population,
                though mining exploration continues, and mining activity could occur at
                any time in the future.
                 Conservation efforts that address the impacts from mining have
                continued to be implemented since publication of the proposed listing
                rule, such as reducing human-related disturbances (e.g., road noise/
                traffic). The BSAP includes conservation actions targeting development
                and human disturbances that will reduce the minor or potential impacts
                from mining (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire). Because we have determined
                that the partially completed and future conservation efforts will be
                implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
                Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, below), we believe impacts
                associated with mining in the Bi-State population area are not a
                reasonably anticipated concern into the future.
                Grazing and Rangeland Management
                 Livestock grazing continues to be the most widespread land use
                across the sagebrush biome (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-29; Knick et al.
                2003, p. 616; Knick et al. 2011, p. 219), including within the Bi-State
                area. Links between grazing practices and population levels of sage-
                grouse are still not well defined (Braun 1987, p. 137; Connelly and
                Braun 1997, p. 231). Depending on timing and intensity, grazing can
                have both positive and negative impacts to greater sage-grouse
                populations. Sage-grouse populations responded favorably to higher
                grazing levels after peak vegetative productivity, but declined when
                grazed earlier (Monroe et al. 2017, p. 1102). Livestock grazing can
                reduce the available food sources needed during breeding and brood-
                rearing periods (Braun 1987, p. 137; Dobkin 1995, p. 18; Connelly and
                Braun 1997, p. 231; Beck and Mitchell 2000, pp. 998-1000). But while
                some studies have reported grass height as important for sage-grouse
                nesting habitat, others have reported weak or no effects, and other
                studies concluded no influential effects of grass-related variables on
                nesting success (Service 2020, pp. 65-66). In the Bi-State area,
                studies have suggested that grazing, or more importantly maintenance of
                residual grass cover, may not influence nest success in the Bi-State
                area as much as in other regions (Kolada et al. 2009b, pp. 1343-1344;
                Coates et al. 2017a, p. 55). This may be because the most prevalent
                nest predator in the Bi-State area, the common raven, is potentially
                less influenced by grass cover than mammalian predators (Coates et al.
                2008, entire). Studies suggest that a threshold may exist whereby
                grazing can occur without detriment to sage-grouse resources. We note,
                however, the specifics of this threshold remain uncertain (Service
                2020, p. 66).
                 Potential negative effects of livestock grazing on the sagebrush
                ecosystem include reduced water infiltration rates, reduced cover of
                herbaceous plants and litter, compacted soils, and increased soil
                erosion (Braun 1998, p. 147; Dobkin et al. 1998, p. 213). These impacts
                change the proportions of shrubs, grasses, and forbs in affected areas,
                and increase the propensity for invasion by nonnative invasive plant
                species (Service 2020, p. 67). Additionally, as far back as the mid-
                1900s, livestock grazing has been implicated in facilitating the spread
                of cheatgrass (Leopold 1949, p. 165; Billings 1951, p. 112). Livestock
                grazing reduces invasion resistance by imposing a competitive
                disadvantage on native herbaceous understory species and altering soil
                properties (Reisner et al. 2013, p. 10). While livestock grazing has
                been used strategically in sage-grouse habitat to control some invasive
                weeds (Merritt et al. 2001, p. 4; Olsen and Wallander 2001, p. 30;
                Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-49) and woody plant encroachment (Riggs and
                Urness 1989, p. 358), there is limited evidence that controlling
                established cheatgrass through grazing is feasible. Rest from grazing
                may, in fact, be a more effective strategy of building resistance to
                invasion into a site (Reisner et al. 2013, p. 10). Collectively, these
                studies suggest managed livestock grazing at moderate intensities in
                the Bi-State area may be benign or even beneficial to some seasonal
                sage-grouse habitats, but when grazing intensity exceeds this moderate
                use level, livestock grazing can have negative effects on sage-grouse
                habitat and individuals (Boyd et al. 2014, p. 60).
                 Historically, extensive rangeland management has been conducted by
                Federal agencies and private landowners to reduce shrub cover and
                improve forage conditions for livestock in the sagebrush-steppe
                ecosystem (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-28; Knick et al. 2011, p. 220;
                Pyke 2011, p. 534). Today, ongoing removal or control of sagebrush in
                the Bi-State area is limited. The BLM and USFS have stated that, with
                rare exceptions, they no longer convert sagebrush to other habitat
                types, and that future treatments shall maintain, improve, or restore
                Bi-State sage-grouse habitat (BLM 2016, p. 11; HTNF 2016, p. 16).
                Federal land managers currently focus on improving the diversity of the
                native plant community, reducing conifer encroachment, or reducing the
                risk of large wildfires. On private lands in the Bi-State area, our
                understanding of sagebrush treatments is limited. Known instances of
                the elimination of sagebrush by chemical and mechanical means are
                apparent, but their extent remains to be quantified. The ability to
                restore or rehabilitate overgrazed areas depends on the condition of
                the area relative to its site potential (Knick et al. 2011, p. 232).
                Active restoration is required where the native understory is reduced
                (Pyke 2011, p. 539). If an area has soil loss or invasive species,
                returning the native plant community may be impossible (Daubenmire
                1970,
                [[Page 18071]]
                p. 82; Knick et al. 2011, p. 232; Pyke 2011, p. 539).
                 Infrastructure related to livestock management such as water
                developments (e.g., springs, tanks, guzzlers) and fences in shrub-
                steppe habitats are common on public lands (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-
                35). Development of springs and other water sources can artificially
                concentrate domestic livestock and wild ungulates in mesic areas,
                thereby exacerbating grazing and trampling impacts to sage-grouse
                nesting and brood-rearing areas (Braun 1998, p. 147; Knick et al. 2011,
                p. 230). Diverting water sources can result in the loss of riparian or
                wet meadow habitat that sage-grouse depend upon as sources of forbs and
                insects. However, water developments can also be beneficial to
                sagebrush vegetation communities, as this practice can help distribute
                livestock to water troughs and away from riparian areas, minimizing
                concentrated impacts of livestock grazing.
                 In the Bi-State area, there are 149 grazing allotments identified
                across all PMUs. Of these, 122 are considered active allotments,
                encompassing approximately 73 percent of suitable sage-grouse habitat.
                Most grazed lands are managed by the BLM and USFS, although much of the
                meadow habitats are located on private lands (BSLPG 2004, entire).
                Several rangeland health assessments (RHAs) or their equivalent have
                been completed on 120 allotments (104 that are active) and have not
                been conducted on the remaining 29 allotments (18 that are active).
                While there are public allotments or portions of allotments exhibiting
                adverse impacts from current or historical livestock grazing (e.g.,
                vegetation condition or composition is generally less than desired),
                our understanding is the majority of allotments in the Bi-State area
                are in good condition (Axtell 2008, pers. comm.; Murphy 2008, pers.
                comm.; Nelson 2008, pers. comm. BLM 2014b, in litt.; Bi-State TAC 2017,
                pp. 31-33), and livestock grazing is generally thought to have a
                limited impact on sage-grouse habitat (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire).
                Livestock grazing will continue into the indefinite future within the
                Bi-State area at its current or slightly decreased level, and thus
                remain a discretionary action where Federal agencies have the ability
                to alter use when renewing grazing permits. Also, it appears that
                Federal land managers are moving in a direction that affords greater
                discretion to sage-grouse habitat needs when evaluating livestock
                management and the majority of allotments have or will have pending
                renewals and associated terms and conditions that consider sage-grouse
                habitat, including the establishment or placement of infrastructure
                (Nelson 2008, pers. comm.; BLM 2016, pp. 11-12; HTNF 2016, pp. 16-18).
                 In addition to domestic livestock, feral horses can negatively
                impact meadows and brood-rearing habitats used by sage-grouse, and
                these impacts can be more severe given horses cannot be managed on a
                seasonal basis (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-37; Crawford et al. 2004, p.
                11). Horse presence may negatively affect sagebrush vegetation
                communities and habitat suitability for sage-grouse by decreasing grass
                cover, fragmenting shrub canopies, altering soil characteristics,
                decreasing plant diversity, and increasing the abundance of invasive
                cheatgrass. In areas utilized by both horses and cattle, it is unknown
                whether grazing impacts are synergistic or additive (Beever and
                Aldridge 2011, p. 286). The most substantial impacts from feral horses
                in the Bi-State area occur in the Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and White
                Mountains PMUs (Axtell 2008, pers. comm.; Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 19,
                37, 41), although they are also known to occur within the Bodie and
                South Mono PMUs. We are unaware of the specific severity and scope of
                impacts caused by feral horses on the Bi-State DPS and sage-grouse
                habitat, although localized areas of concern in all PMUs are apparent.
                Most important are probable impacts to mesic areas within the Pine Nut,
                Mount Grant, and White Mountains PMUs. Management of herd size by
                Federal agencies is an ongoing challenge as horse management is
                expensive and often controversial. Based on this understanding, we
                anticipate future impacts caused by wild horses to increase, especially
                as horse herds are growing by 20 percent annually. However, despite
                this increase, the threat will have a minor impact on sagebrush
                habitat.
                 Existing regulatory mechanisms such as BLM land management plans
                and USFS LRMPs further reduce the magnitude of threats associated with
                grazing and rangeland management. For example, the Central California
                Standards and Guidelines of the Bishop RMP provide additional direction
                for the management of permitted livestock grazing on public lands
                administered by the Bishop Field Office. Standards are set for soil,
                species, riparian, and water quality, and metrics by which the
                achievement of these standards could be measured were established. This
                enables BLM to manage livestock grazing to ensure that species such as
                sage-grouse are ``healthy and in numbers that appear to ensure stable
                to increasing populations; habitat areas are large enough to support
                viable populations or are connected adequately with other similar
                habitat areas.'' Additionally, the Carson City District Land Use Plan
                Amendment for the Nevada and California Greater Sage-grouse Bi-State
                Distinct Population Segment addresses conservation of the Bi-State area
                by providing specific direction to management of the DPS and its
                habitat, including grazing management and wild horse and burro
                management (BLM 2016, entire). Numerous land use allocations restrict
                or substantially limit new habitat and bird disturbances and identify
                Best Management Practices to further minimize allowable actions. For
                more details on plans that address the impacts of grazing and rangeland
                management, see the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms of the Species
                Report (Service 2020, pp. 124-136).
                 Analyzing the overall impacts of grazing is difficult, as there is
                little direct evidence linking grazing effects and sage-grouse
                population responses. Analyses for grazing impacts at landscape scales
                important to sage-grouse are confounded by the fact that almost all
                sage-grouse habitat has at one time been grazed and thus no ungrazed
                control areas exist for comparisons (Knick et al. 2011, p. 232).
                Overall, impacts from historic grazing and current rangeland management
                occur within localized areas throughout the Bi-State DPS's range,
                though it is more pronounced in some PMUs than others. Domestic
                livestock and feral horses have the potential to negatively affect
                sage-grouse habitats by decreasing grass cover, fragmenting shrub
                canopies, altering soil characteristics, decreasing plant diversity,
                and increasing the abundance of invasive plant species, although their
                impacts and management potential can differ. Grazing and domestic
                livestock management has the potential to result in sage-grouse habitat
                degradation, though there is some conflicting information on whether
                some of the impacts of grazing are positive or negative. The Pine Nut
                and Mount Grant PMUs may be most sensitive to impacts from grazing as
                both PMUs are generally lower in elevation and receive less
                precipitation, making their sagebrush habitat less resistant to
                withstanding changes. Across the remainder of the PMUs, localized areas
                of meadow degradation are apparent, and these conditions may influence
                sage-grouse populations, as meadows are essential for recruitment of
                young.
                 Overall, impacts from past grazing and rangeland management occur
                within localized areas in all PMUs,
                [[Page 18072]]
                although impacts are more pronounced in some PMUs than others. We
                concluded in the 2013 proposed listing rule that grazing and rangeland
                management was a factor (albeit not significant) for proposing to list
                the DPS as a threatened species as a result of ongoing habitat
                degradation impacts that may affect sage-grouse habitat in the Bi-State
                area, resulting in an overall reduction in aspects of habitat quality
                (e.g., fragmentation, lack of understory plants, increased presence of
                nonnative plant species), especially in the Pine Nut and Mount Grant
                PMUs. While we recognize that livestock and feral horses may negatively
                impact sage-grouse habitat, we affirm that it does not appear that this
                is a significant concern in the Bi-State area today.
                 Importantly, conservation efforts that address the impacts from
                grazing and rangeland management have continued to be implemented since
                publication of the proposed listing rule, including (but not limited
                to): (1) Completing drafts and beginning to implement the new BLM and
                USFS Land Use Plan amendments (U.S. Department of the Interior and USDA
                2015, entire), which are a considerable improvement for conservation of
                the Bi-State DPS and its habitat; repairing watering facilities,
                irrigation structures, and fencing around natural riparian areas to
                control grazing activity; increasing monitoring and management of horse
                and burrow herds; and restoring meadow/riparian habitat in critical
                brood-rearing habitat areas. With continued implementation of
                conservation actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012,
                entire), impacts from grazing and rangeland management are
                significantly reduced.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes measures to counter
                effects such as livestock and wild horse grazing. Because we have
                determined that the partially completed and future conservation efforts
                will be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
                Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, below), we believe
                impacts associated with grazing and rangeland management are not a
                concern now or in the foreseeable future.
                Nonnative Invasive Plants and Native Woodland Succession
                 Shifting vegetation communities within the Bi-State area are
                altering sagebrush habitat that supports sage-grouse. Nonnative
                invasive plants such as cheatgrass alter sagebrush community structure,
                composition, productivity, nutrient cycling, and hydrology (Vitousek
                1990, p. 7). Nonnative plants may also cause declines in native plant
                populations through mechanisms such as competitive exclusion and niche
                displacement (Mooney and Cleland 2001, p. 5446). They can create long-
                term changes in ecosystem processes, such as altering fire cycles and
                other disturbance regimes; these changes can persist even after an
                invasive plant is removed (Zouhar et al. 2008, p. 33).
                 Nonnative plants degrade existing sage-grouse habitat, replacing
                vegetation essential to sage-grouse for food and cover (Connelly et al.
                2000a, pp. 971-972; Miller et al. 2011, pp. 160-164). The presence of
                cheatgrass influences lek persistence, nest site selection, and
                ultimately population performance (Blomberg et al. 2012, p. 7; Knick et
                al. 2013, p. 1544; Lockyer et al. 2015, p. 791; Coates et al. 2016b, p.
                12747). Nonnative plants affect sage-grouse habitat and population
                demographics both in the short term (e.g., nest site selection, loss of
                forbs and associated insects) and in the long term (e.g., population
                growth, sagebrush displacement and habitat fragmentation).
                 A variety of nonnative invasive plants are present within the Bi-
                State area, although cheatgrass is of greatest concern. Local managers
                and scientists consider cheatgrass to be a low-level threat across four
                PMUs (White Mountains, South Mono, Bodie, and Desert Creek-Fales), a
                moderate threat in the Mount Grant PMU, and a high threat in the Pine
                Nut PMU (Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 19, 26, 32, 37, 41, 49). Areas of
                greatest concern are in the Pine Nut PMU where cheatgrass abundance is
                greatest and where there are restoration challenges following several
                recent wildfires. Averaged across the entire Bi-State, percent cover of
                cheatgrass is generally low (Peterson 2003, entire), and conversion to
                an annual grass dominated community is currently limited to only a few
                locations. Anecdotal reports suggest this assessment remains generally
                true, though it is apparent that the abundance and distribution of
                cheatgrass has increased over the past decade.
                 Efforts are ongoing to restore or rehabilitate sage-grouse habitat
                affected by nonnative plant species, but the techniques for
                accomplishing these efforts remain mostly unproven, experimental, and
                often logistically difficult (Pyke 2011, pp. 543-544). Regardless,
                restoration efforts such as localized weed treatments have been applied
                within all the Bi-State PMUs.
                 Based on our understanding and past experience with nonnative
                invasive species in the Great Basin Region, we anticipate that impacts
                from nonnative species will continue or increase into the future.
                According to a mapping of sagebrush habitats across the range of
                greater sage-grouse that categorized these habitats based on their
                resistance and resilience to disturbance, both resistance and
                resilience are low in the warm and dry sagebrush habitats contained
                within the Nevada portion of the Bi-State (Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and
                Desert Creek portion of the Desert Creek-Fales PMUs) and most of the
                South Mono PMU (Chambers et al. 2014, pp. 16-17). That is, these areas
                have lower productivity and higher susceptibility to cheatgrass or
                other invasive annual grass incursion and will therefore face greater
                restoration challenges should fire occur. In the wetter and cooler
                sagebrush habitats found in the White Mountains, Bodie, Fales portion
                of the Desert Creek--Fales PMUs, and high-elevation sites of the Mount
                Grant PMU, resilience and resistance were ranked as moderately high to
                high, implying these locations have greater productivity and are
                generally less suitable to invasive annual grass establishment
                (Chambers et al. 2014, p. 43).
                 In addition to nonnative plant invasions within sagebrush habitat,
                some native tree species are increasing in sagebrush habitat and
                impacting the suitability of the habitat for the various life processes
                of the sage-grouse. Pinyon-juniper woodlands are a native vegetation
                community that can encroach upon, infill, and eventually replace
                sagebrush habitat. The cause of this conversion from shrubland to
                woodland is debatable but may be due to a suite of causes acting in
                concert with active wildfire suppression including: Domestic livestock
                grazing (reduced competition from native grasses and forbs and
                facilitation of tree regeneration by increased shrub cover and enhanced
                seed dispersal), climatic fluctuations favorable to tree regeneration,
                enhanced tree growth due to increased water use efficiency associated
                with carbon dioxide fertilization, and recovery from past disturbance
                (natural and anthropogenic) (Miller et al. 2008, p. 10; Baker 2011, p.
                200; Miller et al. 2011, pp. 167-169; Bukowski and Baker 2013, p. 560).
                Each of these factors have likely influenced the current pattern of
                vegetation in the Bi-State area today and have led to an estimated 40
                percent decline in sagebrush extent due to woodland succession and
                isolation of sage-grouse populations across the DPS.
                 Land managers in the Bi-State area consider pinyon-juniper
                encroachment a substantial threat to sage-grouse because it impacts
                habitat quality, quantity, and connectivity, and
                [[Page 18073]]
                increases the risk of avian predation to sage-grouse populations (BSLPG
                2004, pp. 20, 39, 96; Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 18-47). Previously
                occupied sage-grouse locations throughout the Bi-State area are thought
                to have been abandoned due to woodland succession (Bi-State TAC 2012,
                pp. 18-47). The extent of the conversion to pinyon-juniper woodland
                varies by PMU, with the South Mono PMU being the least impacted
                (approximately 13 percent loss) and the Pine Nut PMU being the most
                influenced (approximately 50 percent loss). The remainder of the PMUs
                (White Mountains, Mount Grant, Desert Creek-Fales, and Bodie) are each
                estimated to have experienced approximately a 40 percent loss of
                historical sagebrush vegetation to woodland succession. In total, over
                the past 150 years, an estimated 390,000 ha (963,000 ac) of sagebrush
                habitat has converted to woodland vegetation, resulting in a loss of
                availability of total sagebrush habitat in the Bi-State area (which is
                not synonymous with suitable sage-grouse habitat as presented in Table
                1) from slightly over 1,000,000 ha (2,580,000 ac) in 1850 to
                approximately 650,000 ha (1,600,000 ac) today across the Bi-State DPS
                (USGS 2012, unpublished data).
                 In order to counter the impact of pinyon-juniper encroachment,
                treatments to thin or remove woodland species are ongoing. Recent
                research supports previous assertions that these treatments would
                expand sage-grouse habitat and ultimately be used successfully by birds
                (Sandford et al. 2017, p. 63; Severson et al. 2017, p. 53; Olsen 2019,
                pp. 21-22). Sage-grouse response to woodland encroachment has been
                negative to the incursion but in some instances responsive to treatment
                actions. Sage-grouse encountering pinyon-juniper communities coupled
                with the rate of movement through these communities negatively affected
                bird survival (Prochazka et al. 2017, p. 46); however, sage-grouse
                readily nested in conifer treatment sites after trees had been removed
                (Severson et al. 2017, p. 53). Woodland treatments increased suitable
                available breeding habitat and enhanced nest and brood success
                (Sandford et al. 2017, p. 63). Sage-grouse avoided pinyon-juniper
                communities across varying degrees of community dominance; this
                avoidance increased survival (Coates et al. 2017b, pp. 31-33). Removal
                of pinyon-juniper trees encroaching into sagebrush vegetation
                communities can increase sage-grouse population growth through
                improving juvenile, yearling, and adult survival as well as improving
                nest survival (Olsen 2019, pp. 21-22). This research found population
                growth was 11.2 percent higher in treatment than in control sites
                within 5 years of conifer removal. Therefore, woodland encroachment
                into occupied sage-grouse habitat reduces, and likely eventually
                eliminates, sage-grouse occupancy. However, treatment action to remove
                trees increases sagebrush habitat, and these habitats are used
                successfully by sage-grouse.
                 Prior to the development of the BSAP in 2012, approximately 18
                woodland thinning or removal projects had been undertaken, removing
                approximately 5,454 ha (13,479 ac) of woodland (Bi-State TAC 2012, p.
                5). Since this time, an additional 81 projects have been initiated,
                treating approximately 18,798 ha (46,450 ac). While it is premature to
                detect a population-level response of sage-grouse to these treatments
                in the Bi-State region, increases in occupied habitat and increases in
                nest and brood success as well as survival parameters are anticipated
                based on recent research finding a positive overall outcome for
                population performance and connectivity (Coates et al. 2017b, pp. 31-
                33; Sandford et al. 2017, p. 63; Severson et al. 2017, p. 53; Olsen
                2019, pp. 21-22). Furthermore, preliminary analysis of marked birds in
                the Bi-State area demonstrates grouse use of these treatments and
                offers support for these research findings (Mathews et al. 2018, pp.
                33-34). Implementation and planning of additional woodland treatment
                projects are also under way over the next several years covering tens
                of thousands of acres.
                 Using the best available data, we estimate that the current acres
                of conifer removal treatments is within the range of estimated acres of
                woodland expansion and, further, that these treatments will continue
                based on ongoing commitments provided by land managers to implement the
                BSAP.
                 Overall, we consider woodland succession to pose a substantial
                threat to the Bi-State DPS. However, we consider impacts from woodland
                succession to be reduced by conservation measures with a high degree of
                implementation and effectiveness, recognizing that restoring historical
                connectivity and preventing further loss of suitable habitat requires
                continued focused active management.
                 Both nonnative invasive plants and native woodland succession are
                impacting the sage-grouse and its habitat in the Bi-State area. In
                general, nonnative plants are not abundant throughout the Bi-State
                area, with the exception of cheatgrass that occurs in all PMUs and is
                most extensive and of greatest concern in the Pine Nut PMU. Cheatgrass
                is a nonnative annual species that will likely continue to expand
                throughout the Bi-State region in the future and increase the adverse
                impact that currently exists to sagebrush habitats and sage-grouse
                through outcompeting beneficial understory plant species and altering
                the fire ecology of the area. Land managers have had limited success
                preventing cheatgrass invasion in the West, and elevational barriers to
                occurrence are becoming less restrictive. The best available data
                suggest that future conditions that could promote expansion of
                cheatgrass will be most influenced by precipitation and winter
                temperatures (Bradley 2009, p. 200). Cheatgrass is a serious challenge
                to the sagebrush shrub community, and its spread will be detrimental to
                sage-grouse in the Bi-State area. In addition, the encroachment of
                native woodlands (particularly pinyon-juniper) into sagebrush habitats
                continues to occur throughout the Bi-State area. Currently, however,
                treatment actions are on par with the expansion rate.
                 Overall, invasive nonnative and native plants occur throughout the
                entire Bi-State DPS's range. We concluded in the proposed listing rule
                that their spread was a significant factor for proposing to list the
                DPS as a threatened species based on the extensive amount of pinyon-
                juniper encroachment and cheatgrass invasion that is occurring
                throughout the DPS's range, and the interacting impact these invasions
                have on habitat quality (e.g., reduces foraging habitat, increases
                likelihood of wildfire) and habitat fragmentation. Today, we affirm
                that nonnative and native invasive species occur throughout the Bi-
                State DPS's range and are significant threats to the species both
                currently and in the future. We expect this threat will increase across
                the range into the future unless it is actively managed.
                 Several regulatory mechanisms identified in existing federal land
                use plans address the impact of nonnative invasive plants and native
                woodland succession, the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes
                measures to counter the effects of these threats. In the past few
                years, we have gained increased certainty about the effectiveness of
                removal efforts for pinyon-juniper woodland. Because we have determined
                that the partially completed and future conservation efforts will be
                implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
                Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, below), the threat of native
                woodland succession is being reduced, though it is still impacting
                [[Page 18074]]
                sagebrush habitat throughout the DPS. Conservation measures are less
                effective at controlling and ameliorating the effects of nonnative
                invasive plants, and thus they will continue to affect sagebrush
                habitat into the foreseeable future.
                Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime
                 Wildfire is the principal disturbance mechanism affecting sagebrush
                communities. The nature of historical fire patterns, particularly in
                big sagebrush, is not well understood; however, it was historically
                infrequent (Miller and Eddleman 2000, p. 16; Zouhar et al. 2008, p.
                154; Baker 2011, pp. 189, 196). Most sagebrush species have not
                developed evolutionary adaptations such as re-sprouting and heat-
                stimulated seed germination found in other shrub-dominated systems,
                such as chaparral, that are exposed to relatively frequent fire events.
                Natural fire regimes and landscapes were shaped by a few infrequent
                large fire events; historical fire rotation was 50-200 years in
                mountain big sagebrush communities and 200-350 years in Wyoming big
                sagebrush communities (Baker 2011, p. 196; Bukowski and Baker 2013, pp.
                556-558). In general, fire extensively reduces sagebrush within burned
                areas, and big sagebrush varieties, the most widespread species of
                sagebrush, can take decades to reestablish and even longer to return to
                pre-burn conditions (Service 2020, p. 79). While no specific studies
                have been conducted within the Bi-State area to inform our knowledge of
                fire rotation, we expect the pattern in Wyoming big sagebrush and
                mountain big sagebrush communities in the Bi-state area to be similar
                to those described above for the remainder of the species' range.
                 Both increases and decreases in the natural fire regime can have
                detrimental effects on sagebrush. When intervals between wildfire
                events become unnaturally long, woodlands can encroach into sagebrush
                communities as the prolonged interval between fires allows seedlings to
                establish and trees to mature (Miller et al. 2011, p. 167). Currently,
                active wildfire suppression continues to occur throughout the Bi-State
                DPS.
                 Conversely, the invasion and establishment of nonnative invasive
                annual grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye (Taeniatherum
                caput-medusae) can increase wildfire frequency within sagebrush
                ecosystems and negatively influence the likelihood of recovery (Zouhar
                et al. 2008, p. 41; Miller et al. 2011, p. 167; Balch et al. 2013, p.
                178). Cheatgrass shortens historical fire patterns by providing an
                abundant and easily ignitable fuel source that facilitates fire spread
                and recovers within 1-2 years of a wildfire event, leading to a
                recurring wildfire cycle that prevents sagebrush reestablishment (Young
                and Evans 1978, p. 285; Eiswerth et al. 2009, p. 1324; Balch et al.
                2013, pp. 180-181). It is difficult and usually ineffective to restore
                sagebrush after annual grasses become established due to the positive
                feedback with fire, invasive species seed bank establishment, and
                alterations to soil and hydrologic processes (Paysen et al. 2000, p.
                154; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 7-44-7-50; Pyke 2011, p. 539).
                 Fire can have direct impacts on sage-grouse and their habitat. If
                fire does not completely remove sagebrush, it can reduce suitable
                nesting habitat, herbaceous understory vegetation used for forage and
                cover by sage-grouse hens and chicks, and potentially insects used for
                feeding by chicks. Additionally, isolation and fragmentation of
                populations due to habitat losses from wildfire presents a higher
                probability of extirpation in disjunct areas (Knick and Hanser 2011, p.
                395; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 469). This is a concern within the Bi-State
                area, specifically throughout the Pine Nut and portions of the South
                Mono and Desert Creek-Fales PMUs where burned habitat may be
                influencing already small and disjunct populations. As areas become
                fragmented and isolated through disturbances such as wildfire,
                persistence may be hampered by the limited ability of individuals to
                disperse into areas that are otherwise not self-sustaining. Thus, while
                direct loss of habitat due to wildfire has been shown to be a
                significant factor associated with population persistence for sage-
                grouse (Beck et al. 2012, p. 452), the indirect effect posed by loss of
                connectivity among populations may greatly expand the influence of this
                threat beyond the physical fire perimeter (Knick and Hanser 2011, pp.
                401-404).
                 Sagebrush recovery rates following wildfire are highly variable,
                and precise estimates are often hampered by limited data from older
                burns. Factors contributing to the rate of shrub recovery include the
                amount of and distance from unburned habitat, abundance and viability
                of seed in soil seed bank (sagebrush seeds are typically viable for one
                to three seasons depending on species), rate of seed dispersal, and
                pre- and post-fire weather, which influences seedling germination and
                establishment (Young and Evans 1989, p. 204; Maier et al. 2001, p. 701;
                Ziegenhagen and Miller 2009, p. 201). Full recovery to pre-burn
                conditions in mountain sagebrush communities ranges between 25 and 100
                years, and in Wyoming big sagebrush communities potentially ranges
                between 50 and 120 years (Baker 2011, pp. 194-195). By 25 years post-
                fire, Wyoming big sagebrush typically has less than 5 percent pre-fire
                canopy cover (Baker 2011, p. 195).
                 Wildfire is considered a relatively high risk across all the PMUs
                in the Bi-State area due to its ability to affect large landscapes in a
                short period of time (Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 19-49). Furthermore, the
                future potential of this risk is exacerbated by the presence of people,
                invasive species, and climate change. While numerous wildfires have
                occurred in the Pine Nut, and South Mono PMUs (fewer in the other PMUs)
                over the past 18 years, to date there have been relatively few large-
                scale events (Service 2020, Table 3). In general, current data also do
                not indicate an increase of wildfires in the PMUs over time with the
                exception of the Pine Nut PMU where fire occurrence is more frequent
                (Service 2018, unpublished data). Furthermore, cheatgrass has a more
                substantial presence in the Pine Nut PMU, which appears to mirror (much
                more than the rest of the Bi-State area) the damaging fire and invasive
                species cycle impacting sagebrush habitat across much of the Great
                Basin.
                 The loss of habitat due to wildfire across the West is anticipated
                to increase due to the intensifying synergistic interactions among
                fire, people, invasive species, and climate change (Miller et al. 2011,
                p. 184). The past- and present-day fire regimes across the sage-
                grouse's range have changed with a demonstrated increase of wildfires
                in the more arid Wyoming big sagebrush communities and a decrease of
                wildfire across many mountain sagebrush communities (Miller et al.
                2011, pp. 167-169). Both altered fire regime scenarios have caused
                significant losses to sage-grouse habitat through facilitating conifer
                expansion at high-elevation interfaces and nonnative invasive weed
                encroachment at lower elevations (Miller et al. 2011, pp. 167-169). In
                the face of climate change, both scenarios are anticipated to worsen
                (Baker 2011, p. 200; Miller et al. 2011, p. 179), including in the Bi-
                State area. Predicted changes in temperature, precipitation, and carbon
                dioxide are all anticipated to influence vegetation dynamics and alter
                fire patterns, resulting in increasing loss and conversion of sagebrush
                habitats (Neilson et al. 2005, p. 157). Furthermore, climate scientists
                suggest that, in addition to the predicted change in climate toward a
                warmer and generally drier Great Basin, variability
                [[Page 18075]]
                of annual and decadal wet-dry cycles will likely increase and act in
                concert with fire, disease, and invasive species to further stress the
                sagebrush ecosystem (Neilson et al. 2005, p. 152, Ault et al. 2014, p.
                7538). The anticipated increase in suitable conditions for wildland
                fire will likely further interact with people and infrastructure.
                Human-caused fires have increased and are correlated with road presence
                across the sage-grouse range (Miller et al. 2011, p. 171).
                 Based on the best available information, approximately 117 wildfire
                events have affected approximately 83,859 ha (207,220 ac) of sagebrush
                habitat across the Bi-State area since 2000, but conversion of
                sagebrush habitat to a nonnative invasive vegetation community has been
                largely restricted (Pine Nut PMU withstanding). It appears that a lack
                of historical fire has facilitated the establishment of woodland
                vegetation communities and loss of sagebrush habitat. Both the ``too
                little'' and ``too much'' fire scenarios present challenges for the Bi-
                State DPS. The former influences the current degree of connectivity
                among sage-grouse populations in the Bi-State DPS and the extent of
                available sagebrush habitat, likely affecting sage-grouse population
                size and persistence. The latter, under current conditions, now has the
                potential to quickly alter substantial percentages of remaining
                sagebrush habitat. Restoration of sagebrush communities is challenging,
                requires many years, and may be ineffective in the presence of
                nonnative invasive grass species. Research in the Great Basin found
                that sage-grouse habitat features are unlikely to occur in many burned
                areas even 20 years post-restoration (Arkle et al. 2014, p. 15).
                 Several regulatory mechanisms target the potential impact of
                wildfires and altered fire regime. Within the Bi-State area,
                participants in the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) have treated areas
                to reduce the threat of wildfire by using broadcast burns and
                mechanical treatment (e.g., fuel breaks and conifer removal projects).
                To lower the risk of wildfire, approximately 1,806 ha (4,462 ac) of
                fuels reduction treatments have been conducted to remove conifers (Bi-
                State TAC 2018, unpublished data). Additionally, the reseeding of 7,699
                ha (19,025 ac) from past fires has been completed. The efficacy of
                these treatments to achieve desired results is generally unknown.
                 Overall, the threat of wildfire and the existing altered fire
                regime occurs throughout the Bi-State DPS's range. We concluded in the
                proposed listing rule that significant impacts would be expected to
                continue or increase in the future based on a continued fire frequency
                pattern that exacerbates pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush
                habitat in some locations, but also an increased fire frequency in
                other locations that promotes the spread of cheatgrass and other
                invasive species that in turn can hamper recovery of sagebrush habitat.
                Within the Bi-State DPS, the continued reduced fire frequency
                exacerbates pinyon-juniper encroachment into sagebrush habitat in some
                locations. However, an increased fire frequency in other locations
                promotes the spread of cheatgrass and other invasive species that in
                turn can hamper recovery of sagebrush habitats in other locations.
                While it is not currently possible to predict the extent or location of
                future fire events in the Bi-State area, we anticipate fire frequency
                to increase in the future due to the increasing presence of cheatgrass,
                human footprint, and the projected effects of climate change.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes measures to counter
                effects such as wildfire ignition risks and catastrophic fire. Fuels
                reduction projects and rehabilitation efforts post-wildfire have been
                and will continue to be implemented into the future to address the
                potential impacts from wildfire, including (but not limited to):
                Conducting conifer (pinyon-juniper) removal and conducting weed
                treatments for invasive, nonnative plants such as cheatgrass. Because
                we have determined that the partially completed and future conservation
                efforts will be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
                Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, below), we conclude
                that impacts due to the threat of wildfires and altered fire regime
                have been reduced since the time of the 2013 proposed listing rule. We
                expect that, into the future, continued implementation of the BSAP will
                further reduce the impacts of wildfire and altered fire regime.
                Climate
                 In considering future climate projections for the Bi-State area, we
                analyzed multi-model ensembles that made use of multiple greenhouse gas
                emission scenarios. In general, downscaled climate change model
                predictions in the Bi-State area tend to agree on an increasing
                temperature regime (Cayan et al. 2008, pp. S38-S40; He et al. 2018, p.
                11; Gonzalez et al. 2018, Chapter 25) and stable to increasing local
                precipitation, with a shift in timing of local precipitation events
                (Diffenbaugh et al. 2005, p. 15776; Cayan et al. 2008, p. S28; He et
                al. 2018, p. 14: Reich et al. 2018, p. 21). The environment will be
                relatively drier due to elevated temperature, increased rates of
                evapotranspiration, more precipitation falling as rain instead of snow,
                and more frequent and prolonged drought (Neilson et al. 2005, p. 150;
                He et al. 2018, pp. 9, 11, 16). The precipitation variables are an
                important predictor of sagebrush occurrence as well as to greater sage-
                grouse occurrence, as timing and quantity of precipitation greatly
                influences plant community composition and extent--specifically forb
                production, which in turn affects nest and chick survival and
                ultimately population performance (Blomberg et al. 2012, p. 7; Coates
                et al. 2018, p. 252). Impacts associated with climate change may
                increase the magnitude of threats impacting the Bi-State DPS, as its
                effects interact with other stressors such as disease, invasive
                species, prey availability, moisture, vegetation community dynamics,
                disturbance regimes, habitat degradation, and habitat loss (Service
                2020, p. 89).
                 Downscaled climate change projections in the Great Basin and
                Eastern Sierra also predict acceleration in fire frequency, with fires
                potentially becoming larger and more severe, and fire seasons becoming
                longer (Service 2020, pp. 87-88). Furthermore, drought frequency and
                persistence are anticipated to increase (Ault et al. 2014, p. 7545;
                Reich et al. 2018, p. 31; Gonzalez et al. 2018, entire). In the Bi-
                State area, drought is a natural part of the sagebrush ecosystem. Sage-
                grouse population performance in the Bi-State region responds to
                alterations in annual precipitation (Coates et al. 2018, p. 252; Coates
                et al. 2020, p. 27). While there is variation among subpopulations, on
                average findings suggest a 50 percent increase in precipitation
                corresponds to a 15.5 percent increase in population growth the
                following year. Moreover, these results indicate that precipitation
                needs to be approximately 20 percent greater than average for
                population recovery following drought, consistent with results from the
                Great Basin in the absence of wildfire (Coates et al. 2016b, p. 12747;
                Coates et al. 2018, p. 255).
                 Sage-grouse are affected by drought through the loss of vegetative
                habitat components, reduced insect production (Connelly and Braun 1997,
                p. 9), and potentially exacerbation of West Nile virus (WNv) and
                predation exposure (Gibson et al. 2017, p. 177; Prochazka et al. 2017,
                p. 47; Coates et al. 2018, p. 255). Drought reduces vegetation cover
                (Milton et al. 1994, p. 75; Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-18), potentially
                resulting in
                [[Page 18076]]
                increased soil erosion and subsequent reduced soil depths, decreased
                water infiltration, and reduced water storage capacity. These habitat
                component losses can result in declining sage-grouse populations due to
                increased nest predation and early brood mortality associated with
                decreased nest and brood cover and food availability (Braun 1998, p.
                149; Moynahan et al. 2007, p. 1781). Furthermore, there are known
                occasions where the reduced condition of brood-rearing habitat due to
                weather has resulted in little to no recruitment within certain PMUs
                (Bodie, Pine Nut) (Gardner 2009, pers. comm.; Coates 2012, pers.
                comm.).
                 Within the Bi-State area, several projects have been undertaken to
                improve meadows and riparian areas for sage-grouse that could help
                increase population resiliency in response to increasing frequency of
                drought. These projects include grazing exclosures, changes to grazing
                management plans, prescribed fires, invasive plant control, mechanical
                treatments, and conservation easements intended to improve the
                resiliency of meadow habitats on privately owned lands (Bi-State TAC
                2018, unpublished data).
                 Climate change is not known to currently impact the Bi-State DPS to
                such a degree that the viability of the species is at stake, although
                climate change has been shown to influence the impact of drought and
                the annual water cycle and these in turn have been shown to influence
                grouse population performance in the Bi-State area (Coates et al. 2018,
                p. 251; Reich et al. 2018, pp. 31, 33). However, while it is reasonable
                to assume the Bi-State area will experience vegetation changes into the
                future (as presented above), we do not know the degree to which these
                changes will ultimately have impacts on the Bi-State DPS. An analysis
                conducted by NatureServe, which incorporates much of the information
                presented above, suggests a substantial contraction of both sagebrush
                and sage-grouse range in the Bi-State area by 2060 (Comer et al. 2013,
                pp. 142, 145).
                 Occurrence of cheatgrass has generally been restricted to
                elevations below approximately 1,700 m (5,500 ft.) above mean sea level
                (Bradley 2010, p. 202). More recently, this barrier appears less
                certain in the Bi-State area as cheatgrass occurs at elevations
                previously thought to be relatively unfavorable based on the grass's
                ecology. This situation suggests that few locations in the Bi-State
                area are immune to cheatgrass invasion. Climate change may strongly
                influence the spread of this species as the available climate data
                suggests changes in timing of precipitation and increasing winter
                temperatures favorable to this species (Bradley 2009, p. 200).
                Predictions on the timing, type, and amount of precipitation contain
                the greatest uncertainty. In the Bi-State area, model scenarios that
                result in the greatest expansion of cheatgrass suggest much of the area
                remains suitable to cheatgrass presence with some additional high-
                elevation sites in the Bodie Hills, White Mountains, and Long Valley
                becoming more suitable than they are today (Bradley 2009, p. 204). On
                the opposite end of the spectrum, model scenarios that result in the
                greatest contraction in cheatgrass range suggest low-elevation sites
                such as Desert Creek-Fales and Mount Grant PMUs become less suitable
                for this invasive species but high-elevation sites (Bodie and White
                Mountains PMUs), where habitat conditions are generally marginal today,
                become more suitable in the future.
                 Based on this information we assume that climate change (acting
                both alone and in concert with impacts such as wildfire and nonnative
                invasive species) could be pervasive throughout the range of the Bi-
                State DPS, potentially degrading habitat to such a degree that all
                populations would be negatively affected with some low-elevation sites
                or populations currently exposed to greater cheatgrass abundance (Pine
                Nut, Desert Creek-Fales, South Mono and portions of the Mount Grant
                PMUs). Therefore, given the scope and potential severity of climate
                change when interacting with other threats in the future, the overall
                impact of climate change to the Bi-State DPS at this time is considered
                moderate to high.
                 We concluded in the proposed listing rule that climate change will
                potentially act in combination with other impacts to the Bi-State DPS,
                further diminishing habitat and increasing population isolation, making
                the DPS more susceptible to demographic and genetic challenges or
                disease. Although no regulatory mechanisms are available that can
                ameliorate the effect of changing climate or increasing drought,
                ongoing implementation of various conservation measures in the BSAP
                increases the resilience of the habitat to the effects of threats
                exacerbated by climate change and drought, such as wildfire and
                invasive plants (e.g., through removal of pinyon-juniper woodland). We
                expect that, into the future, continued implementation of the BSAP will
                further reduce the impacts of these threats associated with climate
                change.
                Recreation
                 Recreational activities such as fishing, hiking, horseback riding,
                and camping, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (including snowmobiles), and
                mountain biking occur throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse,
                including throughout the Bi-State DPS area. These activities can
                degrade wildlife resources, water, and land by distributing refuse,
                disturbing and displacing wildlife, increasing animal mortality, and
                decreasing diversity of plant communities (Boyle and Samson 1985, pp.
                110-112).
                 The effects of OHV use on sage-grouse have not been directly
                studied (Knick et al. 2011, p. 219). However, sage-grouse avoidance of
                activities associated with development suggests they are disturbed by
                persistent human presence (Holloran 2005, pp. 43, 53, 58; Doherty et
                al. 2008, p. 194). Sage-grouse response to disturbance may be
                influenced by the type of activity, recreationist behavior,
                predictability of activity, frequency and magnitude, activity timing,
                and activity location (Knight and Cole 1995, p. 71). Disruption of
                sage-grouse during vulnerable periods at leks, or during nesting or
                early brood-rearing, could affect reproduction and survival (Baydack
                and Hein 1987, pp. 537-538).
                 Indirect effects to sage-grouse from recreational activities may
                include impacts to vegetation and soils and facilitation of the spread
                of invasive species. One study found long-term (2-year) reductions in
                sagebrush shrub canopy cover as the result of repeated OHV trips (Payne
                et al. 1983, p. 329). Increased sediment production and decreased soil
                infiltration rates were observed after disturbance by motorcycles and
                four-wheel drive trucks on two desert soils in southern Nevada; noise
                from these activities can also cause additional disturbance (Eckert et
                al. 1979, p. 395; Knick et al. 2011, p. 219; Blickley et al. 2012, p.
                467). Unpaved roads fragment sagebrush landscapes and subsidize
                predators adapted to humans; they also provide disturbed surfaces that
                facilitate the spread of invasive plant species (Knick et al. 2011, p.
                219).
                 Potential disturbance caused by non-motorized forms of recreation
                (fishing, camping, hiking, big game hunting, dog training) are most
                prevalent in the South Mono and Bodie PMUs. These PMUs are also exposed
                to tourism-associated activity centered on Mono Lake and the towns of
                Mammoth Lakes and Bodie. The exact amount of recreational activity or
                user days occurring in the area is not known; however, the number of
                people in the area appears to increase
                [[Page 18077]]
                annually (Nelson 2008, pers. comm.; Taylor 2018, pers. comm.).
                 A 2012 assessment reported recreation and human disturbance to be
                low-level threats in the Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs but relatively high
                threats in the Pine Nut and South Mono PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 19,
                32, 37, 49). To address these apparent challenges, across the Bi-State,
                vehicular travel is limited to designated roads and trails and
                development of new roads is largely restricted. In addition, organized
                OHV events are prohibited during specific dates and in specific
                habitats (breeding and winter) limiting the exposure of birds (BLM
                2016, pp. 13-14; HTNF 2016, p. 43).
                 Currently, there are few quantifiable data available to assess the
                degree of the impacts of recreation. The level of recreational activity
                associated with a specific road, for instance, is not known even though
                anecdotal information suggests that the level of activity (OHV numbers)
                is generally increasing. All the PMUs are relatively close to urban
                centers; thus, we anticipate recreational activity will continue and
                likely increase. However, all public lands in the Bi-State restrict OHV
                use to designated roads and trails and existing land use plans afford
                management oversite of this activity, thereby lessening the likelihood
                of broad scale habitat degradation.
                 Overall, recreation occurs throughout the Bi-State DPS's range,
                although we do not have data that would indicate impacts to sage-grouse
                or their habitat are significant. We concluded in the proposed listing
                rule and reaffirm here that, by itself, recreation is not considered a
                significant impact at this time. However, if left unchecked, some forms
                of recreation could become a concern based on anticipated increases of
                recreational use within the Bi-State area in the future. Conservation
                efforts that address recreational impacts have continued to be
                implemented since publication of the proposed listing rule, including
                (but not limited to): Reducing human-related disturbances in high-use
                recreation areas (e.g., installing sage-grouse educational signs),
                conducting seasonal closures of lek viewing areas, and implementing
                both permanent and seasonal road closures. With continued
                implementation of conservation actions associated with the BSAP (Bi-
                State TAC 2012, entire), impacts from recreation are significantly
                reduced.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes measures to counter
                effects such as human disturbance to the Bi-State DPS, including
                recreation-related impacts. Because we have determined that the
                partially completed and future conservation efforts will be implemented
                and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When
                Making Listing Decisions, below), we believe impacts associated with
                recreation are not a concern into the future.
                Disease
                 Sage-grouse are hosts for a variety of parasites and diseases
                (Thorne et al. 1982, p. 338; Connelly et al. 2004, pp. 10-4-10-7;
                Christiansen and Tate, 2011, p. 114). The disease of greatest concern
                to the Bi-State DPS is WNv, which can cause serious impacts to grouse
                species, potentially influencing population dynamics (Petersen 2004, p.
                46). WNv has spread across North America since 1999 (Marra et al. 2004,
                p. 394). It is thought to have caused millions of wild bird deaths
                since its introduction, but most WNv mortality goes unnoticed or
                unreported (Ward et al. 2006, p. 101; Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 128).
                Sage-grouse are considered to have high susceptibility to WNv and high
                levels of mortality (Clark et al. 2006, p. 19; McLean 2006, p. 54).
                 Sage-grouse deaths resulting from WNv have been detected in 10
                States--including in the Bi-State area--and in 1 Canadian Province
                (Walker and Naugle 2011, pp. 133, 135). Since 2002, mortalities have
                been documented annually. Mortality from WNv has been shown to cause
                population declines in populations throughout the West (Service 2020,
                pp. 106-107). Scientists have expressed concern regarding the potential
                for exacerbating WNv persistence and spread due to the proliferation of
                surface water features (Friend et al. 2001, p. 298; Zou et al. 2006, p.
                1040; Walker et al. 2007b, p. 695; Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 140). WNv
                persists on the landscape after it first occurs as an epizootic,
                suggesting this virus will remain a long-term issue in affected areas
                (McLean 2006, p. 50).
                 The long-term response of different sage-grouse populations to WNv
                infections is expected to vary markedly depending on factors that
                influence exposure and susceptibility, such as temperature, land uses,
                and sage-grouse population size (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 140).
                Small, isolated, or genetically limited populations are at higher risk
                as an infection may reduce population size below a threshold where
                recovery is no longer possible, as observed in an extirpated population
                in Wyoming (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 140). Larger populations may be
                able to absorb impacts resulting from WNv as long as the quality and
                extent of available habitat supports positive population growth (Walker
                and Naugle 2011, p. 140). However, impacts from this disease may act in
                combination with other stressors resulting in reduction of population
                size, bird distribution, or persistence (Walker et al. 2007a, p. 2652).
                Small populations, such as the populations within the Bi-State area,
                may be at high risk of extirpation simply due to their low population
                numbers and the additive mortality WNv causes (Christiansen and Tate,
                2011, pp. 125-126).
                 The documented loss of four sage-grouse to WNv in the Bodie (n=3)
                and Desert Creek-Fales (n=1) PMUs (Casazza et al. 2009, p. 45) has
                heightened our concerns about the potential impact of this disease in
                the Bi-State area. At that time, these disease-caused mortalities
                represented only 4 percent of the total sage-grouse mortalities
                observed in the Bi-State area, but additional mortality attributed to
                predation could have been due in part to disease-weakened individuals.
                Mortality caused by disease acts in a density-independent or additive
                manner. The fact that it can act independently of habitat and suppress
                a population below carrying capacity makes it a concern. Existing and
                developing models suggest that the occurrence of WNv is likely to
                increase throughout the range of the species, and, based on projected
                increases in temperature caused by changes in climate, occurrence in
                the Bi-State may also increase (Paz 2015, p. 3).
                 Based on our current knowledge of the virus, the relatively high
                elevations and cold temperatures common in much of the Bi-State area
                likely reduce the chance of a DPS-wide outbreak. However, warmer, lower
                elevation sites such as portions of the Mount Grant and Desert Creek-
                Fales PMUs may be more suitable for outbreaks. The impact on individual
                populations from WNv outbreaks may influence the dynamics of the Bi-
                State DPS as a whole through the loss of population resiliency and the
                associated challenges of recolonizing extirpated sites through natural
                emigration.
                 Climate change may also influence the spread of disease.
                Temperature and precipitation both directly influence potential for WNv
                transmission (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 131). In sage-grouse, WNv
                outbreaks appear to be most severe in years with higher summer
                temperatures (Walker and Naugle 2011, p. 131) and under drought
                conditions (Epstein and Defilippo 2001, p. 105). Therefore, current
                climate change projections for higher summer temperatures, more
                frequent or severe drought, or both make more severe WNv outbreaks
                likely in low-elevation sage-grouse habitats where WNv is already
                [[Page 18078]]
                endemic, and also make WNv outbreaks possible in higher elevation sage-
                grouse habitats that have been WNv-free due to relatively cold
                conditions.
                 The development or maintenance of anthropogenic water sources in
                the Bi-State area, some of which likely provide suitable conditions for
                breeding mosquitoes, potentially increases the likely prevalence of the
                virus above that which could be sustained naturally by existing water
                bodies such as streams and meadows. To partially ameliorate this
                concern, Federal land managers require livestock water troughs to be
                emptied when not in use (BLM 2016, p. 11; HTNF 2016, p. 17).
                 We concluded in the proposed listing rule, and reaffirm here, that
                by itself, WNv is not considered a significant impact at this time
                because it is currently limited by ambient temperatures that do not
                allow consistent vector and virus maturation. However, WNv could be a
                concern for the future if predicted temperature increases associated
                with climate change result in this threat becoming more consistently
                prevalent. No current regulatory mechanisms address the impacts of WNv.
                However, with continued implementation of conservation actions (WNv
                surveillance and mosquito abatement measures) associated with the BSAP
                (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire), the minor or potential impacts from WNv
                are reduced to the point that we find disease is not currently
                impacting the resiliency of the Bi-State DPS, nor do we expect it to
                impact the DPS in the foreseeable future.
                Predation
                 Predation of sage-grouse is the most commonly identified cause of
                direct mortality during all life stages (Schroeder et al. 1999, p. 9;
                Connelly et al. 2000b, p. 228; Casazza et al. 2009, p. 45; Connelly et
                al. 2011a, p. 65). Major predators of adult sage-grouse include several
                species of diurnal raptors (especially the golden eagle (Aquila
                chrysaetos)), coyotes (Canis latrans), red foxes (Vulpes vulpes), and
                bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Hartzler 1974, pp. 532-536; Schroeder et al.
                1999, pp. 10-11; Schroeder and Baydack 2001, p. 25; Rowland and Wisdom
                2002, p. 14; Hagen 2011, p. 97). Juvenile sage-grouse also are killed
                by many raptors as well as common ravens, badgers, red foxes, coyotes
                and weasels (Mustela spp.) (Braun 1995, entire; Schroeder et al. 1999,
                p. 10). Nest predators include badgers, weasels, coyotes, common
                ravens, American crows, and magpies (Pica spp.); sage-grouse eggs have
                also been consumed by elk (Cervus canadensis) (Holloran and Anderson
                2003, p. 309) and domestic cows (Bovus spp.) (Coates et al. 2008, pp.
                425-426; Dinkins et al. 2013, p. 305). However, sage-grouse have co-
                evolved with a variety of predators, and their cryptic plumage and
                behavioral adaptations have allowed them to persist (Schroeder et al.
                1999, p. 10; Coates 2007, p. 69; Coates and Delehanty 2008, p. 635;
                Hagen 2011, p. 96). Although many predators consume sage-grouse, none
                specialize on the species (Hagen 2011, p. 97). Generalist predators may
                still have a significant effect on ground-nesting birds, because unlike
                specialist predators, generalist predator numbers are independent of
                prey density (Coates 2007, p. 4).
                 Predation is typically the principal cause of nest loss, which is a
                key determinant in sage-grouse population dynamics (Schroeder et al.
                1999, p. 15; Taylor et al. 2012, p. 342). Sage-grouse nest depredation
                can be total (all eggs destroyed) or partial (one or more eggs
                destroyed). However, hens abandon nests in either case (Coates 2007, p.
                26). Nest success across the California portion of the Bi-State area is
                within the normal range, with some locations even higher than
                previously documented (Kolada 2009a, p. 1344; Mathews et al. 2018, p.
                54). However, the lowest estimates occur in Long Valley (South Mono
                PMU; 21 percent; Kolada 2009a, p. 1344), which is of concern as this is
                a core population for the species in the Bi-State area and is also the
                population most likely exposed to the greatest amount of nest predators
                (Kolada et al. 2009b, p. 1344; Mathews et al. 2018, p. 53). The
                negative impact from reduced nesting success in this location is
                presumably being offset by other demographic statistics such as chick
                or adult survival (Service 2020, p. 116).
                 A number of factors have been reported to influence the density and
                diversity of predators, including agricultural development, landscape
                fragmentation, livestock presence, habitat alterations, and human
                populations, among others (Service 2020, p. 113). These factors have
                the potential to increase predation pressure on all life stages of
                sage-grouse by forcing birds to nest in less suitable or marginal
                habitats with no cover to shield them, and by increasing travel time
                through habitats where they are vulnerable to predation. Where sage-
                grouse habitat has been altered, the influx of predators can decrease
                annual recruitment into a population (Service 2020, p. 113).
                 Raven abundance has increased as much as 1,500 percent in some
                areas of western North America since the 1960s (Coates and Delhanty
                2010, p. 244). Human-made structures in the environment increase the
                magnitude of raven predation, particularly in low-canopy cover areas,
                by providing ravens with perches and nesting substrate (Braun 1998, pp.
                145-146; Coates 2007, p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2). Reduction in patch size
                and diversity of sagebrush habitat, as well as the construction of
                fences, power lines, landfills, and other infrastructure (as discussed
                in Infrastructure) also are likely to encourage the presence of the
                common raven (Coates et al. 2008, p. 426; Bui 2009, p. 4; Howe et al.
                2014, p. 41). High sage-grouse nest densities in small patches of
                quality habitat (which result from habitat fragmentation or disturbance
                associated with the presence of edges, fencerows, or trails) may
                increase predation rates by making foraging easier for predators
                (Holloran 2005, p. C37).
                 The presence of ravens is negatively associated with grouse nest
                and brood fate (Bui 2009, p. 27; Gibson et al. 2018, pp. 14-15). Raven
                abundance was strongly associated with sage-grouse nest failure in
                northeastern Nevada, with resultant negative effects on sage-grouse
                reproduction; an increase of 1 raven per 10-km (6-mi) survey transect
                was associated with a 7.4 percent increase in nest failure (Coates and
                Delehanty 2010, p. 243). In the Virginia Mountains (just north of the
                Bi-State DPS), ravens were the most common nest predator, accounting
                for almost 47 percent of nest depredations (Lockyer et al. 2013, p.
                246).
                 Threats associated with livestock grazing and predation may
                interact. In general, all recorded encounters between livestock and
                grouse nests resulted in hens flushing from nests (Coates et al. 2008,
                p. 462), which could expose the eggs to predation. There is strong
                evidence that visual predators like ravens use hen movements to locate
                sage-grouse nests (Coates 2007, p. 33); this is a concern for the Bi-
                State DPS given that ravens are the primary predators of sage-grouse in
                the Bi-State area. Livestock may also trample nests and sagebrush
                bushes and seedlings, thereby impacting future sage-grouse food and
                cover (Connelly et al. 2004, p. 7-31). Additionally, the odds of common
                raven occurrence, a pervasive sage-grouse nest predator, increased by
                approximately 46 percent in areas where livestock were present (Coates
                et al. 2016a, p. 10). The presence of infrastructure might also
                increase the magnitude of predation; increased raven presence may be
                attributable to the presence of water developments and associated
                perching structures
                [[Page 18079]]
                (windmills and fences) (Coates et al. 2016a, p. 10).
                 Predator removal efforts have sometimes shown short-term gains that
                may benefit seasonal survival rates, but there is limited support of
                these efforts influencing sustainable population growth (Cote and
                Sutherland 1997, p. 402; Hagen 2011, p. 9; Leu and Hanser 2011, p. 27;
                Dinkins et al. 2016, pp. 54-55; Peebles et al. 2017, p. 475). For
                example, raven removal has been shown to have a positive effect on nest
                success (Dinkins et al. 2016, p. 54); however, ultimate results on
                population growth rates are negligible or not as well understood.
                Removal of ravens from an area in northeastern Nevada caused only
                short-term reductions in raven populations (less than 1 year) as
                apparently transient birds from neighboring sites repopulated the
                removal area (Coates 2007, p. 151). Raven removal in one Wyoming study
                resulted in a 50 percent reduction in raven densities during 2008-2014,
                while non-removal sites saw a 42 percent increase in raven densities
                (Peebles et al. 2017, p. 476). The authors reported increases in lek
                counts following a 1-year lag during raven removal; however, other
                factors were also associated with increased lek counts in this study
                that included minimum temperatures and precipitation during the brood-
                rearing period.
                 As specified in the BSAP and associated project spreadsheet (Bi-
                State TAC 2012, entire), the participants have worked to reduce threats
                to sage-grouse in the Bi-State DPS from predators. Removal of
                infrastructure (e.g., landfills, tall structures) may be a crucial step
                to reducing the presence of sage-grouse predators (Bui 2009, pp. 36-37;
                Leu and Hanser 2011, pp. 270-271). In the Bodie PMU, perching and
                nesting sites have been eliminated by infrastructure removal (e.g.,
                windmill, transmission line). In the Desert Creek/Fales PMU, 3 km (1.85
                mi) of fence in the Sweetwater Summit area was fitted with perch
                deterrents. Additionally, nearly 24,281 ha (60,000 ac) of conifer-
                encroached sagebrush have been treated in the Bodie, Desert Creek/
                Fales, Pine Nut, Mount Grant, and South Mono PMUs to remove conifers
                and reduce perch sites for predators.
                 Overall, predation is currently known to occur throughout the Bi-
                State DPS's range. It is facilitated by habitat fragmentation and
                composition, infrastructure (fences, power lines, and roads) and other
                human activities that may be altering natural population dynamics in
                specific areas throughout the Bi-State DPS's range. The impacts of
                predation on sage-grouse can increase where habitat quality has been
                compromised by anthropogenic activities and ultimately influence
                population performance (Coates 2007, pp. 154, 155; Bui 2009, p. 16;
                Hagen 2011, p. 100). Landscape fragmentation, habitat degradation, and
                human populations have likely increased predator populations through
                increasing the ease of securing prey, and through human structures like
                landfills adding food sources. Other human structures can provide nest
                or den substrates for predator species. Certain sage-grouse populations
                are exhibiting deviations in vital rates below those anticipated, and
                the deviation may be related to predation. The populations with this
                issue are the Long Valley population (South Mono PMU), which is one of
                the two largest (core) populations in the Bi-State DPS, as well to the
                Desert Creek population (Desert Creek-Fales PMU) and the Pine Nut PMU.
                If assuming potential predation is connected to the deviations, the
                Bodie and White Mountains PMUs are likely least affected by predation.
                 At natural levels and in unaltered habitat, it is unlikely that
                predation would be a significant impact to the DPS, given that the
                sage-grouse have coevolved with a number of predators, and no predators
                specialize on sage-grouse. However, we recognize that, in concert with
                altered habitat, it may become an increasing concern in the future. As
                more habitats face development (including roads, power lines, and other
                anthropogenic features such as landfills, airports, and urbanization),
                we expect the risk of increased predation to spread, possibly with
                negative effects on the sage-grouse population trends. We concluded in
                the proposed listing rule, and reaffirm here, that, by itself,
                predation is not considered a significant impact at this time. There
                are no regulatory mechanisms addressing predation directly, but
                regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts that indirectly
                influence predation have continued to be implemented since publication
                of the proposed listing rule, including (but not limited to): Removing
                and limiting structures that attract predators (e.g., fencing, power
                lines), and conducting initial procedures to remove the landfill in
                Long Valley. With continued implementation of conservation actions
                associated with the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire), impacts from
                predation are significantly reduced.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) includes measures to counter
                effects such as predation risks to the Bi-State DPS. Because we have
                determined that the partially completed and future conservation efforts
                will be implemented and effective (see Policy for Evaluation of
                Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions, below), we believe
                that predation is not a concern into the future.
                Small Population Size and Population Isolation
                 The Bi-State DPS is relatively small and both geographically and
                genetically isolated from the remainder of the greater sage-grouse
                distribution. All isolated populations of sage-grouse are more
                vulnerable to genetic, demographic, or stochastic events. However,
                available data indicate genetic diversity in the Bi-State area is
                currently high (Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 18). Thus, we
                currently have no indication that genetic factors such as inbreeding
                depression, hybridization, or loss of genetic diversity are acting on
                the Bi-State DPS. However, populations in the Bi-State area have unique
                detectable qualities that allow differentiation from one another
                (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, entire; Tebbenkamp 2014, entire). Also, the
                Parker Meadows area (a single isolated lek system located in the South
                Mono PMU) is experiencing a disproportionately high degree of nest
                failures due to nonviable eggs (Gardner 2009, pers. comm.), suggesting
                a possible manifestation of genetic challenges; this small breeding
                complex has the lowest reported genetic diversity in the Bi-State area
                (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 1304). We do not know if this is caused
                by inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity, or other factors,
                but to address this, a translocation project was developed in
                conjunction with the USGS and implemented in 2017. There has been some
                initial success in survival of transferred broods (Mathews et al. 2018,
                p. 37).
                 The Bi-State DPS comprises approximately 50 active leks
                representing several relatively discrete populations. Fitness and
                population size across a variety of taxa are strongly correlated, and
                smaller populations are more challenged by environmental and
                demographic stochasticity (Keller and Waller 2002, pp. 239-240; Reed
                2005, p. 566). These small, isolated populations may face future
                genetic challenges. When coupled with mortality stressors related to
                human activity and significant fluctuations in annual population size,
                long-term persistence of small populations (in general) can be
                challenging (Traill et al. 2010, entire). The Pine Nut PMU has the
                smallest number of sage-grouse of all Bi-State area PMUs (usually less
                than 100
                [[Page 18080]]
                individuals as observed from data collected between 2003 and 2017,
                representing approximately 5 percent of the DPS). However, each
                population in the Bi-State DPS is relatively small, as is the entire
                DPS on average (estimated at approximately 3,280 individuals).
                 One way to address population health and viability is through
                analysis of effective population size. Effective population size is
                defined as the size of the idealized population of breeding adults that
                would experience the same rate of loss of heterozygosity, change in the
                average inbreeding coefficient, or change in variance in allele
                frequency through genetic drift as the actual population (Frankham et
                al. 2002, pp. 312-317). As effective population size decreases, the
                rate of loss of genetic diversity increases. The consequences of this
                loss of genetic diversity, reduced fitness through inbreeding
                depression and reduced adaptive (evolutionary) potential, are thought
                to elevate extinction risk (Frankham 2005, p. 135). Studies suggest
                effective population size should exceed 50 to 100 individuals to avoid
                short-term extinction risk caused by inbreeding depression, and
                mathematical models suggest that effective population size should
                exceed 500 individuals to retain evolutionary potential and avoid long-
                term extinction risk (Franklin 1980, entire; Soule 1980, entire). Some
                estimates of effective population size have been as high as 5,000
                individuals, but these estimates are thought to be highly species
                specific and influenced by many extrinsic factors (Lande 1995, p. 789).
                 Sage-grouse have one of the most polygamous mating systems observed
                among birds (Deibert 1995, p. 92). Asymmetrical mate selection (where
                only a few of the available members of one sex are selected as mates)
                should result in reduced effective population sizes (Deibert 1995, p.
                92), meaning the actual amount of genetic material contributed to the
                next generation is smaller than predicted by the number of individuals
                present in the population. Furthermore, variation in female
                reproductive success, fluctuating population size, unequal sex ratios,
                the fact that not all males breed each year, and other sage-grouse
                characteristics all reduce effective population size (Frankham 1995, p.
                796; Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30; Stiver et al. 2008, p. 473; Bush
                2009, p. 108). Each of these influencing factors on effective
                population size occurs in the Bi-State DPS and suggests population
                sizes in sage-grouse must be greater than in non-lekking bird species
                to maintain long-term genetic diversity.
                 The effective population size of a wildlife population is often
                much less than its actual size. We are unaware of specific data or
                literature that definitively identifies the number of sage-grouse
                needed to maintain an effective population size of birds that would
                also result in a viable population. However, some literature exists to
                help us understand the complexities of answering this question for the
                Bi-State DPS or any other region within the range of the greater sage-
                grouse. One study concluded that up to 5,000 individual sage-grouse may
                be necessary to maintain an effective population size of 500 birds
                (Aldridge and Brigham 2003, p. 30). Their estimate was based on
                individual male breeding success, variation in reproductive success of
                males that do breed, and the death rate of juvenile birds. Similarly, a
                meta-analysis based on a wide array of species determined that a
                minimum viable population size (actual population size) necessary for
                long-term persistence should be on the order of 5,000 adult individuals
                (Traill et al. 2010, p. 32), though others have argued a minimum viable
                population would be from 2 to 10 times this figure (Franklin and
                Frankham 1998, p. 70; Lynch and Lande 1998, p. 72). However, another
                analysis countered that there is no single minimum population size
                number for all taxa, and that extinction risk depends on a complex
                interaction between life-history strategies, environmental context, and
                threat (Flather et al. 2011, entire).
                 Based on data from 2018, the median abundance estimate of the Bi-
                State DPS spring breeding population is approximately 3,305 individuals
                (95 percent CRI = 2,247-4,683; Coates et al. 2020, p. 26). This
                estimate (as well as PMU specific estimates) was derived using the
                integrated population model outputs of male abundance based on lek
                count and demographic (telemetry) data, as well as by multiple post-hoc
                adjustments, given results of ancillary research. Adjustments included
                reported distributions for detection probability (Coates et al. in
                press, entire), lek attendance probability (Wann et al. 2019, p. 7),
                and sex ratio (Hagen et al. 2018, p. 4). Also included was an
                adjustment to account for `unknown' leks, based on a 95 percent assumed
                known lek value. This value was derived from expert knowledge by
                members of the Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee. Using this
                estimate and the studies identified above describing effective
                population size being on the order of 10 to 20 percent of the actual
                population size, in the Bi-State area, the estimated average effective
                population size (for the entire Bi-State area in 2018) is approximately
                330 to 661 sage-grouse, below the 5,000 individual threshold
                recommended by some researchers, but above the 50 individual threshold.
                Genetic and radio-telemetry studies, however, indicate that some sage-
                grouse populations in the Bi-State area are isolated, suggesting that
                the effective population size is actually less (Table 2). Based on
                these data, we calculate the effective population size for four
                generally discrete populations in the Bi-State (as described in Oyler-
                McCance et al. 2014, Figure 4) to provide context surrounding long-term
                genetic viability of these units (Table 2).
                Table 2--2018 Estimated Population Size and Range of Estimated Effective
                 Population Size by Genetic Cluster for the Bi-State Area, Nevada and
                 California
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Estimated median Estimated effective
                 PMU population size population size
                 2018 range 2018
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Pine Nut....................... 33 3-6
                Desert Creek-Fales, Mount 2,342 234-468
                 Grant, Bodie..................
                Long Valley.................... 818 81-163
                White Mountains................ 45 4.5-9
                Bi-State DPS................... 3,305 330-661
                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Empirical data from Colorado showed the effective population size
                in Gunnison sage-grouse to be about 20 percent of actual population
                size (Stiver et al. 2008, p. 478). We are unaware of any other
                published estimates of
                [[Page 18081]]
                minimal population sizes necessary to maintain genetic diversity and
                long-term population sustainability in sage-grouse and specifically for
                the Bi-State DPS, and whether the described effective population sizes
                above are of concern. Most populations of the Bi-State DPS have been
                below the possible minimum population sizes as described above, in
                large part due to the natural cycling of sage-grouse populations, yet
                continue to persist.
                 Small population size and a discontinuous population structure
                occur throughout the Bi-State DPS's range, which could make the Bi-
                State DPS more vulnerable to impacts of threats described herein both
                currently and likely in the future in the absence of any ameliorating
                conservation efforts. However, conservation efforts addressing the
                threats acting upon these small populations have been implemented since
                publication of the proposed listing rule, including (but not limited
                to) translocation of sage-grouse into the Parker Meadows subpopulation,
                restoring critical brood-rearing habitat areas, and addressing invasive
                nonnative and native plants. Because we expect conservation
                implementation to continue under the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire),
                the risks associated with small population size will be reduced.
                Summary of Threats
                 Throughout the threats discussion, we considered individual threats
                and, where appropriate, how they interact with other threats. Here, we
                consider the threats holistically to determine their impact on the Bi-
                State sage-grouse and its habitat.
                 Currently and into the future, the threats with the highest impact
                to the DPS are wildfire and altered fire regimes, and nonnative
                invasive and native woodland succession. Threats from urbanization and
                habitat conversion; infrastructure; mining; grazing and rangeland
                management; climate change; predation, and small population size and
                population isolation are also occurring. Threats from recreation and
                disease affect only a few individuals a year, and we do not expect that
                rate to increase into the foreseeable future. All of these threats are
                exacerbated by the population isolation and discontinuous population
                structure.
                 In summarizing the impacts of threats, we also consider impacts of
                renewable energy, commercial and recreational hunting, scientific and
                educational uses, and contaminants (including pesticides). Though
                impacts from these threats are expected to be minimal relative to the
                overall condition of the DPS (Service 2020, pp. 63-124), and though we
                did not present summary analyses of these threats in this Federal
                Register document, we still consider them when evaluating the
                cumulative impact of all threats on the DPS.
                 Small, isolated populations such as those found in the Bi-State
                area are more challenged by stochastic events such as disease
                epidemics, prey population crashes, or environmental catastrophes.
                Interactions between climate change, drought, wildfire, WNv, and the
                limited potential to recover from population downturns or extirpations
                place significant challenges to the persistence of the Bi-State DPS of
                sage-grouse.
                 One of the most substantial interactions of threats is the cycle
                between climate change, cheatgrass, and altered fire regimes. Warmer
                temperatures and greater concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide
                create conditions favorable to cheatgrass, thus continuing the positive
                feedback cycle between the invasive annual grass and fire frequency
                (Chambers and Pellant 2008, p. 32; Global Climate Change Impacts in the
                United States 2009, p. 83; Halofsky et al. 2018, pp. 276-277). Fewer
                frost-free days also favor frost-sensitive woodland vegetation, which
                facilitates expansion of woodlands into the sagebrush biome, especially
                in the southern Great Basin (Neilson et al. 2005, p. 154). Thus,
                sagebrush habitats in the Great Basin will likely be lost at more
                southerly latitudes and low-elevation sites, and upper elevation areas
                will be more susceptible to woodland succession and cheatgrass
                invasion. In the Bi-State area, substantial changes in vegetation
                communities could occur between 2025 and 2100 (Neilson et al. 2005, p.
                155; Bradley 2010, p. 204; Comer et al. 2013, p. 142; Finch 2012, p.
                10).
                 Overall, the cumulative impact of all threats affecting the Bi-
                State DPS can be influenced by interactions with co-occurring threats,
                resulting in significant impacts to the resiliency, redundancy, and
                representation of the DPS as a whole. However, as a result of
                conservation actions associated with the 2012 BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012,
                entire), impacts from all threats individually and combined are
                generally being reduced from their current levels and will continue to
                be reduced even more in the future.
                Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing
                Decisions
                 The purpose of PECE (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) is to ensure
                consistent and adequate evaluation of recently formalized conservation
                efforts when making listing decisions. The policy provides guidance on
                how to evaluate conservation efforts that have not yet been implemented
                or have not yet demonstrated effectiveness. The evaluation focuses on
                the certainty that the conservation efforts will be implemented and the
                effectiveness of the conservation efforts in making listing a species
                unnecessary. The policy presents nine criteria for evaluating the
                certainty of implementation and six criteria for evaluating the
                certainty of effectiveness for conservation efforts. These criteria are
                not considered comprehensive evaluation criteria. The certainty of
                implementation and the effectiveness of a formalized conservation
                effort may also depend on species-specific, habitat-specific, location-
                specific, and effort-specific factors. We consider all appropriate
                factors in evaluating formalized conservation efforts. The specific
                circumstances will also determine the amount of information necessary
                to satisfy these criteria.
                 To consider that a formalized conservation effort contributes to
                forming a basis for not listing a species, or listing a species as
                threatened rather than endangered, we must find that the conservation
                effort is sufficiently certain to be (1) implemented and (2) effective,
                so as to have contributed to the elimination or adequate reduction of
                one or more threats to the species identified through section 4(a)(1)
                analysis under the Act. The elimination or adequate reduction of
                section 4(a)(1) threats may lead to a determination that the species
                does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered, or is
                threatened rather than endangered.
                 An agreement or plan may contain numerous conservation efforts, not
                all of which are sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective.
                Those conservation efforts that are not sufficiently certain to be
                implemented and effective cannot contribute to a determination that
                listing is unnecessary, or a determination to list as threatened rather
                than endangered. Regardless of the adoption of a conservation agreement
                or plan, however, if the best available scientific and commercial data
                indicate that the species meets the definition of ``endangered
                species'' or ``threatened species'' on the day of the listing decision,
                then we must proceed with appropriate rulemaking activity under section
                4 of the Act. Further, it is important to note that a conservation plan
                is not required to have absolute certainty of implementation and
                effectiveness in order to contribute to a
                [[Page 18082]]
                listing determination. Rather, we need to be reasonably certain that
                the conservation efforts will be implemented and effective such that
                the threats to the species are reduced or eliminated.
                 Prior to the Bi-State DPS becoming a candidate species in 2010, a
                variety of conservation initiatives were put in place to conserve the
                DPS and its habitat. The most significant initiative was the creation
                of the Nevada Governor's Sage Grouse Conservation Team in June 2002
                who, in cooperation with local stakeholders (the Bi-State Local Area
                Working Group), developed the first edition of the Greater Sage Grouse
                Conservation Plan for the Bi-State area in 2004 (BSLPG 2004, entire) to
                begin a cooperative effort to address threats to the Bi-State DPS and
                its habitat. The 2004 Action Plan served as the foundation for the
                conservation of the Bi-State DPS and its habitat. These efforts were
                later enhanced by both local- and national-level conservation
                strategies for sage-grouse conservation (including in the Bi-State
                area) associated with organizations including the Sage Grouse
                Initiative, and the Bi-State LAWG, the latter of which is specifically
                focused on Bi-State DPS conservation.
                 In December 2011, the Bi-State Executive Oversight Committee (EOC)
                was formed to leverage collective resources and assemble the best
                technical support to achieve long-term conservation of the Bi-State DPS
                and its habitat. The EOC comprises resource agency representatives from
                the Service, BLM, USFS, NRCS, USGS, NDOW, and CDFW. Recognizing that
                conservation efforts were already under way by this point in time, the
                EOC directed a Bi-State TAC, comprising technical experts/members from
                each agency, to summarize the conservation actions completed since
                2004, and to develop a comprehensive set of strategies, objectives, and
                actions that would be effective for the long-term conservation of the
                Bi-State DPS and its habitat. These strategies, objectives, and actions
                comprise the 2012 BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire), which is actively
                being implemented by the signatory agencies identified above, as well
                as Mono County, who is committed to implementing all relevant actions
                within the County (which harbors the two core populations of the Bi-
                State DPS). A majority of the conservation efforts outlined in the BSAP
                have already been started or completed (see sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the
                Action Plan (Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 4-13) and the updated project
                spreadsheet (Bi-State TAC 2019), and the Past and Ongoing Management
                Efforts discussion in the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 137-144).
                 Additionally, in February 2013, a Conservation Objectives Team
                (COT) of State agencies and Service representatives prepared the
                Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives
                Final Report (COT Report; Service 2013a, entire). This peer-reviewed
                report serves as a benchmark, delineating reasonable objectives
                necessary for the conservation and survival of greater sage-grouse,
                including the Bi-State DPS. The guidance includes management
                recommendations for the species and its habitat and establishes
                thresholds based on the degree to which threats need to be reduced or
                ameliorated to conserve greater sage-grouse so that it would not be in
                danger of extinction or likely to become in danger of extinction within
                the foreseeable future. Conservation success is expected to be achieved
                by removing or reducing threats, such that population trends would
                eventually be stable or increasing, even if numbers are not restored to
                historical levels. The 2012 BSAP is the main document guiding
                implementation of conservation actions, and the COT provides additional
                scientific background and guidelines for those actions.
                 Based on information provided in the 2013 proposed rules and
                discussions with the EOC, TAC, and LAWG, signatory agencies in 2014
                provided a package of information examining their commitments,
                including staffing and funding, to implement the actions needed for
                conservation of the Bi-State DPS and its habitat, as outlined in the
                BSAP. They also provided an updated prioritization of various
                conservation actions and site-specific locations in which to implement
                such actions, as needed, based on the Conservation Planning Tool (CPT--
                linked, data-driven predictive models and interactive maps that
                identify and rank areas for management actions and provide a basis to
                evaluate those actions) and the BSAP's Adaptive Management Strategy
                (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.). The agency commitment letters, which
                were one component of the information provided by the EOC (BLM 2014a,
                in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.; NDOW 2014,
                in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.; USGS 2014a, in litt.), outlined many
                partially completed or new conservation actions that will be
                implemented and completed to address the threats that were identified
                in our October 28, 2013, proposed listing rule (78 FR 64358).
                 The EOC evaluated the [then current] Bi-State DPS survey and trend
                information and concluded that their unified and collaborative approach
                addresses the conservation needs of the Bi-State DPS (Bi-State EOC
                2014, in litt.). Additionally, the EOC concluded that each partner
                agency is committed to implementing the BSAP and providing the
                necessary resources to do so regardless of the outcome of the Service's
                listing decision (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.). In the past year,
                several agencies have provided updated letters reaffirming their
                commitment to the BSAP and the TAC (BLM 2019, in litt.; Mono County
                2018, in litt.; NDOW 2018, in litt.; NRCS 2018, in litt.; USFS 2018, in
                litt.).
                 The information provided by the EOC indicates that significant
                conservation efforts are currently being implemented and that further
                actions are proposed for implementation in the future. These combined
                actions address the threats that (synergistically) are resulting in the
                most severe impacts on the DPS and its habitat now and into the future.
                These conservation actions are described in our detailed PECE analysis
                (Service 2019, entire).
                 Using the criteria in our PECE policy (68 FR 15100, March 28,
                2003), we evaluated the certainty of implementation (for those measures
                not already implemented) and effectiveness of conservation measures in
                the BSAP. Below is a summary of our full PECE analysis, which can be
                found at http://www.regulations.gov under either Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
                2018-0106 or Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107.
                 The BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) was designed to reduce or
                ameliorate threats impacting the Bi-State DPS. We have determined that
                the conservation efforts in the BSAP meet the PECE criteria with regard
                to certainty of implementation because of (but not limited to): (1) The
                agency commitments of staffing and significant funding (over $45
                million in the period 2015-2024); and (2) continued participation on
                the Bi-State EOC, TAC, and LAWG to ensure the most important
                conservation efforts are occurring at any given time considering
                ongoing research and monitoring that may influence changes in
                management strategies, as outlined in the BSAP's Science-based Adaptive
                Management Plan and through use of the CPT. Additionally, we have
                certainty of implementation by the various agencies for conservation
                efforts that address many different impacts. In particular, we have
                certainty of implementation for those completed and ongoing
                conservation efforts expected to provide the most significant
                [[Page 18083]]
                conservation value to the Bi-State DPS and its habitat, including
                actions (as outlined in the agencies' 2014, 2018, and 2019 commitment
                letters and work plans, and the comprehensive project database (Bi-
                State TAC 2019)) that:
                 (1) Protect and restore critical brood-rearing habitat (reduces
                impacts from development/habitat conversion, grazing and rangeland
                management, and effects resulting from climate change). Lead agencies
                under the BSAP implementing conservation actions to reduce these
                impacts are NRCS (e.g., conservation easements, riparian/meadow
                restoration), USFS (e.g., private-public land exchanges, riparian/
                meadow restoration or improvement, grazing management, wild horse
                management), BLM (e.g., riparian/meadow restoration, meadow irrigation
                and structure repair, racetrack fence removal, wild horse management),
                and Mono County (e.g., fencing modification).
                 (2) Restore habitat impacted by the spread of invasive, nonnative
                plants and pinyon-juniper encroachment (reduces impacts from nonnative,
                invasive and certain native plants, wildfire, predation, and effects
                resulting from climate change). Lead agencies under the BSAP
                implementing conservation actions to reduce these impacts are NRCS
                (e.g., pinyon-juniper removal), USFS (e.g., pinyon-juniper removal,
                riparian/meadow restoration, invasive weed treatments), and BLM (e.g.,
                pinyon-juniper removal, riparian/meadow restoration, invasive weed
                treatments, wildfire fuel break treatments, fencing removal).
                 (3) Ensure stable or increasing sage-grouse populations and
                population structure to: (a) Prioritize management actions related to
                synergistic impacts on already fragmented habitat, such that management
                efforts occur in locations that benefit the DPS the most (reducing
                impacts such as infrastructure, urbanization, and recreation), and (b)
                develop and implement sage-grouse translocation from stable
                subpopulations to other small subpopulations that may be experiencing a
                high risk of extirpation (reduces impacts from small population size
                and population structure). Lead agencies under the BSAP implementing
                conservation actions to reduce these impacts are USGS, NDOW, and CDFW.
                Actions under way by CDFW include conducting telemetry, research, or
                monitoring surveys that inform the CPT of adjustments to the BSAP
                conservation strategy that provide the greatest benefit to the DPS or
                its habitat (see section 6.5 in the BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, pp. 75-76)
                and implementing translocation programs from stable subpopulations to
                subpopulations that may be at high risk of extinction). Actions under
                way by BLM include permanent and seasonal road closures, nesting
                habitat seasonal closures, and fencing removal or marking; actions
                under way by USFS include permanent and seasonal road closures and
                power line removal. Actions under way by Mono County include
                coordination with private landowners to encourage reduced
                infrastructure and closure and relocation of the Long Valley landfill.
                 We also note that BLM, USFS, NRCS, and Mono County have provided
                specific plans and timetables laying out various conservation efforts
                for implementation from 2015 through 2024 (BLM 2014a, in litt.; Mono
                County 2014, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.), while CDFW, NDOW, and USGS
                have provided textual descriptions of their intended actions and
                contributions from 2015 through 2024 (CDFW 2014b, in litt.; NDOW 2014,
                in litt.; USGS 2014a, in litt.); many agencies sent letters reaffirming
                their commitment to the EOC and the TAC (BLM 2019, entire; Mono County
                2018, in litt.; NDOW 2018, in litt.; NRCS 2018, in litt.; USFS 2018, in
                litt.). Additionally, the collaboration between the Service, BLM, USFS,
                NRCS, Mono County, USGS, NDOW, and CDFW requires regular meetings and
                involvement from the parties, whether at the level of the Bi-State EOC,
                TAC, or LAWG, in order to implement the BSAP fully. These meetings have
                occurred regularly since 2014.
                 We are confident that the conservation efforts (as outlined in the
                BSAP, agency commitment letters, and our detailed PECE analysis, as
                well as the TAC comprehensive project database) will continue to be
                implemented because 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 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
                completed over the past 15 years, are currently occurring, and have
                been prioritized and placed on the agency's implementation schedules
                for future implementation. Agencies have committed to remain
                participants and continue conservation of the DPS and its habitat. The
                BSAP has sufficient methods (science advisors, the CPT, and a Science-
                based Adaptive Management Strategy) for determining the type and
                location of the most beneficial conservation actions to be implemented,
                including continued receipt of new population and threats information
                in the future that will guide conservation efforts.
                 We have determined that the conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
                the PECE criteria with regard to certainty of effectiveness to remove
                or reduce threats facing the Bi-State DPS because of, but not limited
                to, past project effectiveness within the Bi-State area or within
                sagebrush habitat areas across the range of the greater sage-grouse,
                and documented effective methodologies for addressing the threats
                identified as impacting the Bi-State DPS. For example:
                 (1) Development and Habitat Conversion--Conservation efforts to
                reduce development and habitat conversion are anticipated to occur in
                critical brood-rearing habitats across five PMUs, including through
                conservation easements and land exchanges (see detailed PECE analysis,
                Section 3.0). In total, 12,243 ha (30,254 ac) have been entered into
                conservation easements or acquired through land purchase or exchange
                since 2012 (Bi-State TAC 2018, p. 25). Our analysis of the database and
                the agency commitment letters reveals partially completed and future
                conservation efforts will occur in the Pine Nut, Bodie, Desert Creek-
                Fales, Mt. Grant, and South Mono PMUs, totaling approximately 7,284 ha
                (18,000 ac) of lands identified as important for conservation by the
                TAC. These efforts have funding obligated and are in various stages of
                easement development, with many anticipated to be completed in a few
                years (BSAP 2019). Further, an effort to acquire approximately 5,870 ha
                (14,500 ac) of lands in the Pine Nut PMU by the Carson City BLM has
                been approved and is anticipated to finalize in spring of 2020. These
                areas include high-priority targets identified in the BSAP, and are
                consistent with the COT Report's ex-urban conservation objective to
                limit urban and exurban development in sage-grouse habitats (Service
                2013a, p. 50). In total, approximately 31 percent of all private lands
                containing suitable sage-grouse habitat across the Bi-State are
                enrolled under an easement program or have been acquired by federal and
                State agencies and this number is expected to increase to 57 percent
                when combining additional efforts that are ongoing and reasonably
                likely to occur. Furthermore, these acquisitions represent
                approximately 67
                [[Page 18084]]
                percent of private lands identified as important for conservation of
                the species in the 2012 Action Plan. These actions are considered
                effective at reducing impacts from development and habitat conversion
                because conserving and managing lands in perpetuity are the most
                successful tools for permanent protection of critical sage-grouse
                habitat (as demonstrated by Pocewicz et al. (2011) in Wyoming).
                 (2) Grazing and Rangeland Management--Conservation actions under
                the BSAP continue to reduce grazing impacts and ensure management of
                livestock consistent with the needs of the DPS. This includes 46
                projects across the range of the DPS that have been completed since
                2012, including (but not limited to): Maintaining, improving, or
                restoring riparian/meadow sites impacted by grazing animals across
                multiple PMUs, improving BLM grazing allotment permit terms and
                conditions to protect riparian areas, and reducing the risk of
                overgrazing that can facilitate the dominance of cheatgrass in upland
                habitats (Bi-State TAC 2019, in litt.). An additional 32 projects
                focused on maintaining area closures to permitted livestock, monitoring
                compliance with permitted terms and conditions, maintenance of ``let-
                down'' fencing, and meadow irrigation have also been conducted on an
                annual and ongoing basis since 2012. The conservation efforts database
                identifies seven projects that are either in progress or not yet
                started, including new grazing permit processing and the restoration of
                degraded sagebrush and meadow habitat at several sites in the Desert-
                Creek Fales, Bodie, and Mount Grant PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2019, in litt.).
                Additionally, the BSAP identifies a specific strategy (MER6) to address
                grazing issues related to wild horse populations, which are known to
                negatively impact meadows and brood-rearing habitats used by the Bi-
                State DPS (Bi-State TAC 2012, p. 92).
                 The effectiveness of these grazing and rangeland management
                conservation efforts are confirmed by published literature (Boyd et al.
                2014, entire; Stevens et al. 2012, p. 301; Davies et al. 2011, pp.
                2575-2576; Pyke 2011, p. 537), which articulate the value of
                maintaining functional working landscapes that include grazing
                activities with site-specific management as necessary (e.g., restoring
                meadows to improve sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat) to ensure
                longevity of sagebrush ecosystems and the habitat areas deemed most
                critical to the Bi-State DPS.
                 (3) Nonnative Invasive Plants and Native Woodland Succession--
                Because both nonnative invasive plants and particularly native woodland
                species (pinyon-juniper encroachment) displace the sagebrush ecosystem
                necessary for the Bi-State DPS, significant conservation efforts are
                being and will continue to be implemented to address these problems.
                With regard to nonnative invasive plants, the Bi-State EOC and TAC
                recognize that effective control programs can be labor intensive and
                costly; however, the Bi-State EOC and TAC believes there is value for
                the Bi-State DPS in being strategic in implementing the conservation
                efforts that potentially reduce the impact these plants have on the
                DPS's habitat (e.g., treating nonnative, invasive plants in strategic
                areas to potentially reduce the likelihood of an outbreak or improve a
                priority habitat area) (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Since 2012, chemical
                or mechanical treatments of nonnative plant species have occurred on
                nearly 526 ha (1,300 ac), and weed monitoring was completed on 858 ha
                (2,121 ac) across multiple PMUs (Bi-State TAC 2018, p. 30). Two
                projects are currently under way or planned for the future that target
                invasive, nonnative plants on more than 243 ha (600 ac) in the Desert
                Creek-Fales and Pine Nut PMUs (cheatgrass is considered a high threat
                in Pine Nut compared to other PMUs). Additionally, the USFS committed
                to control least 40.5 ha (100 ac) of cheatgrass each year from 2015
                through 2024 in the Pine Nut PMU (USDA 2014, in litt.). While
                combatting invasive annual grasses remains a challenge, the most
                effective method to date is through the retention of a healthy native
                perennial understory, which is the primary objective of both the TAC
                and LAWG (Bi-State TAC 2018, p. 30). Methods of active restoration of
                degraded sites can be effective through herbicide or mechanical means
                but require additional actions such as reseeding with perennial species
                (Frost and Launchbaugh 2003, pp. 43-44; Jones et al. 2015, p. 17).
                 With regard to pinyon-juniper encroachment, ecologists have
                developed clear and effective recommendations to target appropriate
                phases of encroachment (specific age and density structure) to ensure
                restoration occurs in sagebrush and sage-grouse habitat areas that are
                most meaningful (e.g., critical brood-rearing habitat, corridors in
                fragmented areas) (e.g., Bates et al. 2011, pp. 476-479; Davies et al.
                2011, pp. 2577-2578). Accordingly, BLM, USFS, and NRCS are
                strategically targeting phases I and II pinyon-juniper encroachment in
                the Bi-State area, which is supported by literature as effective with
                careful planning and execution (e.g., Bates et al. 2011, pp. 476-479;
                Davies et al. 2011, pp. 2577-2578). As of December 2018, pinyon and
                juniper removal has taken place on more than 18,700 ha (46,400 ac)
                within or adjacent to sage-grouse habitat, including minor projects to
                remove phase I tree encroachment from nesting habitat to more intensive
                mechanical removal within both phase I and phase II areas to expand
                available sage-grouse habitat and enhance existing conditions within
                nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats, representing approximately
                25 percent of all conifer treatments proposed in the 2012 Action Plan
                (Bi-State TAC 2018, p. 27.). Furthermore, conifer treatment maintenance
                has been completed on more than 3,000 ha (7,400 ac). Approximately
                8,245 ha (20,373 ac) of additional conifer treatments are currently in
                progress and have analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act
                (NEPA) either completed or under development (Bi-State TAC 2018, in
                litt.).
                 Subsequent to our prior withdrawal of the 2013 proposed listing
                rule, several studies have been published that demonstrate the
                effectiveness of pinyon-juniper removal across the range of the greater
                sage-grouse. These studies have demonstrated that: Sage-grouse readily
                nest in conifer treatment sites after trees had been removed (Severson
                et al. 2017, p. 53); woodland treatments increased suitable available
                breeding habitat and enhanced nest and brood success (Sandford et al.
                2017, p. 63); and removal of pinyon-juniper trees encroaching into
                sagebrush vegetation communities can increase sage-grouse population
                growth through improving juvenile, yearling, and adult survival as well
                as improving nest survival (Olsen 2019, pp. 21-22). Additionally, sage-
                grouse population growth was 11.2 percent higher in treatment versus
                control sites within 5 years of conifer removal (Olsen 2019, pp. 21-
                22). Thus, we conclude that pinyon-juniper removal is effective in
                restoring areas impacted by woodland succession such that they become
                suitable and productive for sage-grouse, reducing the magnitude of the
                threat on the species.
                 (4) Infrastructure--Conservation efforts to reduce infrastructure
                are focused on roads, power lines, fencing, and a landfill. Permanent
                and seasonal road closures over a minimum of 2,137 miles in the Bodie,
                Desert Creek-Fales, Mount Grant, South Mono, and Pine Nut PMUs will
                reduce the likelihood of mortality and improve vital rates for sage-
                grouse near leks, including nesting and brood-rearing areas. Nearly 22
                miles
                [[Page 18085]]
                of power line and fencing removal projects have occurred in the Bodie,
                Pine Nut, and South Mono PMUs, and approximately 141 miles of fencing
                have been marked or modified across all PMUS. Some of these projects
                require annual maintenance, such as let-down fences, and three projects
                that will mark and modify fencing in the Pine Nut, Desert Creek-Fales,
                or South Mono PMUs are scheduled to be completed in the future.
                Additionally, a landfill in the Long Valley area of the South Mono PMU
                is a significant source of predators for one of the two core
                populations of the Bi-State DPS; Mono County is undergoing the initial
                stages of relocating this landfill (Bi-State TAC 2014, in litt.; Mono
                County 2014, in litt.: Mono County 2018, in litt.).
                 Removing or modifying the types of infrastructure described above
                will be effective at reducing the amount of invasive plants present
                along or around developed areas (Manier et al. 2014, pp. 167-170),
                reducing existing habitat fragmentation and potential vectors for
                invasive plants (Gelbard and Belnap 2003, pp. 424-431); removing some
                edge effects that can lead to avoidance of nesting in suitable habitat
                areas (Aldridge and Boyce 2007, pp. 516-523); reducing or removing
                anthropogenic noise that disturbs normal behavior patterns of sage-
                grouse (Blickley 2013, pp. 54-65); reducing collision-related
                mortalities (associated specifically with fencing) (Stevens et al.
                2012, pp. 299-302); and making currently undesirable habitat areas
                (that attract predators) favorable by sage-grouse as nest and brood
                sites by reducing predator attractants (e.g., power lines, landfill)
                (Dinkins et al. 2012, pp. 605-608).
                 (5) Wildfire--Fires have consumed some important habitat areas
                within the range of the Bi-State DPS, primarily within the Pine Nut
                PMU, but also recently as a result of the Spring Peak fire within the
                Bodie and Mount Grant PMUs and the Boot Fire in the Desert Creek-Fales
                PMU (Espinosa 2014, in litt.: Service 2020, p. 26). Site restoration
                activities are planned to be implemented following wildfires by
                utilizing the CPT to identify sites that are the best candidates for
                enhancing or returning sagebrush habitats to conditions that benefit
                sage-grouse (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Restoration efforts will be
                tracked for success, noting that some actions (e.g., seeding) vary in
                success rate, given variables such as elevation, precipitation, and
                site-conditions prior to a fire (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). Recovery of
                functional sagebrush habitats following wildfire and restoration
                actions can take decades (potentially several sage-grouse generations)
                to be realized, and requires monitoring to assure conservation
                objectives are met (such as ensuring appropriate levels of sagebrush
                and native herbs are established, and reducing nonnative plant
                dominance) (Arkle et al. 2014, p. 17). Additionally, the Bi-State TAC
                currently utilizes the CPT and field reconnaissance to maximize the
                likelihood of enhancing the desired sagebrush community composition
                post-fuels reduction treatment activities (Espinosa 2014, in litt.). As
                of December 2018, restoration following wildfire has resulted in fire
                rehabilitation treatments on more than 7,690 ha (19,000 ac) (Bi-State
                TAC 2018, in llitt.).
                (6) Small Population Size and Population Structure--The BSAP
                specifically identifies a strategy (MER7) to address small population
                size issues in the Bi-State area, by identifying potential sage-grouse
                population augmentation and reintroduction sites, developing
                translocation guidelines, and potentially implementing augmentation and
                reintroduction efforts (Bi-State TAC 2012, p. 93). Specific actions
                include developing contingency plans for the Parker Meadows and Gaspipe
                Spring subpopulations in the South Mono PMU, and populations in the
                Pine Nut PMU; and evaluating the need for augmentation for the Fales
                population of the Desert Creek-Fales PMU, the Powell Mountain area of
                the Mount Grant PMU, the McBride Flat/Sagehen Spring area in the Truman
                Meadows portion of the White Mountains PMU, and Coyote Flat of the
                South Mono PMU.
                 In 2016, CDFW began implementing a plan to translocate sage-grouse
                from stable subpopulations in the Bi-State area to the Parker Meadows
                subpopulation in the South Mono PMU (Bi-State TAC 2014, in litt.; CDFW
                2014b, in litt.; Mathews et al. 2018, pp. 14-34). Prior to initiating
                this effort, members of the Bi-State TAC conducted a site visit to
                assess habitat condition and conducted removal of conifer trees that
                had become established in proximity to the lek and brood-rearing
                meadow. Preliminary results suggest that translocated birds are
                increasingly remaining in the Parker Meadows area. Additionally,
                probability of nest initiation and nest success have increased, brood
                success is on par with the remainder of the DPS, and lek counts have
                increased over the past two years (Bi-State TAC 2018, pp. 13-14;
                Mathews et al. 2018, pp. 28-34). Efforts on this current action are
                directly relevant to future conservation efforts for other unstable
                subpopulations. It is reasonable to assume future translocations in the
                Bi-State area have a high likelihood of effectiveness given continued
                careful consideration to all the variables (including translocation
                that would occur concurrent with other threat reduction activities,
                such as conifer removal or predator control), and published literature
                that also indicates success of translocated sage-grouse when successful
                translocation methodology is followed (Musil et al. 1993, pp. 89-90;
                Reese and Connelly 1997, pp. 239-240; Hennefer 2007, pp. 33-37; Baxter
                et al. 2008, pp. 184-185).
                 For details of additional conservation efforts related to effects
                associated with climate change, disease, predation, and other threats,
                please see the full PECE analysis (Service 2019, entire).
                 We will have an ongoing role in monitoring the implementation and
                effectiveness of the partially completed and future conservation
                efforts given our regular participation with the Bi-State EOC, TAC, and
                LAWG, participation in providing updated versions of the BSAP, and by
                reviewing any monitoring and research reports. We are satisfied that
                the conservation efforts evaluated will be effective in reducing
                threats to the Bi-State DPS and its habitat; however, to do so, they do
                not need to be applied on every acre of suitable and unsuitable sage-
                grouse habitat. For instance, not all of the native pinyon-juniper
                vegetation needs to be removed, such as in areas within the range of
                the Bi-State DPS where pinyon-juniper historically occurred. Rather the
                effort needs, and is expected, to be implemented in areas that are most
                likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal) and critical areas that
                address habitat fragmentation or reduced-connectivity issues. These
                efforts need to occur at a rate that significantly reduces further
                habitat losses, which is consistent with the objective to address
                pinyon-juniper expansion provided in the March 22, 2013, COT Report for
                conservation of the greater sage-grouse (Service 2013a, pp. 47-48),
                including the Bi-State DPS.
                 We have determined that the agencies' resource commitments (e.g.,
                staffing and funding, including more than $45 million from 2015 through
                2024), and a demonstrated record of implementation will ensure
                continued conservation of habitat for the Bi-State DPS. The BSAP has
                sufficient monitoring and reporting requirements to ensure that the
                proposed future conservation measures are implemented as planned and
                are effective at removing threats to the DPS and its habitat. The
                collaboration between the Service, BLM, USFS, NRCS, Mono County, USGS,
                and
                [[Page 18086]]
                the States of Nevada and California requires regular team meetings (Bi-
                State EOC, TAC, and EOC), and continued involvement of all parties will
                occur (Bi-State EOC 2014, in litt.) in order to implement the BSAP
                fully. We find that the future conservation efforts in the BSAP meet
                the PECE criteria for certainty of implementation and effectiveness,
                and can be considered as part of the basis for our final listing
                determination for the Bi-State DPS.
                 In conclusion, we find that the conservation efforts in the BSAP,
                and as outlined in the agencies' 2014, 2018, and 2019 commitment
                letters, meet the PECE criteria with regard to certainty of
                implementation (for those measures not already implemented) and
                effectiveness and can be considered as part of the basis for our
                listing determination for the Bi-State DPS. Our full analysis of the
                2012 BSAP, and additional materials submitted to the Service as
                mentioned above, pursuant to PECE can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under either Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106 or
                Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107.
                Summary of Comments and Recommendations
                 As discussed above in Previous Federal Actions, the Bi-State DPS of
                the greater sage-grouse has a long and complex listing history. This
                has included multiple public comment periods since the proposed rules
                were published on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64328, 78 FR 64358). In the
                period 2013-2015, we published five documents announcing to the public
                new comment periods, extensions to the comment periods, new information
                that became available, and a 6-month extension of making the final
                listing determination (78 FR 77087, December 20, 2013; 79 FR 19314,
                April 8, 2014; 79 FR 26684, May 9, 2014; 79 FR 31901, June 3, 2014; and
                79 FR 45420, August 5, 2014). We held one public hearing in Minden,
                Nevada, on May 28, 2014, and one public hearing held in Bishop,
                California, on May 29, 2014. Newspaper notices inviting general public
                comment and advertisement of the information and public hearings was
                published in The Inyo Register, The Record Courier, and the Reno-
                Gazette Journal.
                 When we reinstated the proposed listing rule on April 11, 2019, we
                reopened the comment period for 60 days (84 FR 14909); the comment
                period opened on April 12, 2019, and closed on June 11, 2019. When we
                announced the 6-month extension on October 1, 2019 (84 FR 52058), we
                reopened the public comment period for an additional 30 days; the
                comment period closed on October 31, 2019. In all comment periods, we
                also contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes,
                scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and
                invited them to comment on the proposal. We did not receive any
                requests for further public hearings.
                 Between 2013 and 2015, we received more than 6,400 public comments
                on the proposed rules. In 2019, we have received more than 2,600 public
                comments in response to the reinstatement of the proposed rules and the
                6-month extension. Submitted comments were both for and against listing
                the species. All substantive information provided during the comment
                periods and relevant to this finding has either been incorporated
                directly into this withdrawal or is addressed below. For additional
                responses to comments for which there is no updated information since
                2015, please see the previous withdrawal of the proposed listing rule
                published on April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22828).
                 We also received a few comments related to the proposed 4(d) rule,
                and more than 200 comment letters both in support of and opposition to
                the proposed critical habitat designation; however, given the decision
                to withdraw the listing proposal, no further assessment of the proposed
                4(d) rule and critical habitat designation is necessary at this time.
                 (1) Comment: Several commenters inquired as to how the BLM RMPs,
                USFS LRMPs, the BSAP, and the plans developed by the LADWP are used in
                our evaluation of existing regulatory mechanisms. Commenters also
                questioned the effectiveness of these plans and of the effectiveness of
                regulatory mechanisms in general. Other commenters suggested that
                existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate.
                 Our Response: Existing regulatory mechanisms that could provide
                some protection for greater sage-grouse in the Bi-State area include:
                (1) Local land use laws, processes, and ordinances; (2) State laws and
                regulations; and (3) Federal laws and regulations. Regulatory
                mechanisms, if they exist, may preclude the need for listing if such
                mechanisms are judged to adequately address the threats to the species
                such that listing is not warranted. Conversely, threats on the
                landscape continue to affect the species and may be exacerbated when
                not addressed by existing regulatory mechanisms, or when the existing
                mechanisms are not adequate (or not adequately implemented or
                enforced).
                 We use an inherently qualitative approach to evaluate existing
                regulatory mechanisms when conducting a threats analysis for a proposed
                listing. In general, this means that we assess language in an existing
                mechanism/plan as well as any pertinent decisions instituted based on
                that language (track record) and evaluate it against the best available
                science informing species conservation. For the local land use
                regulatory mechanisms, the regulations in some counties identify the
                need for natural resource conservation and in some instances (such as
                Mono County) attempt to minimize impacts of development through zoning
                restrictions. To our knowledge, however, none preclude development, nor
                do they provide for monitoring of the loss of sage-grouse habitats.
                Similarly, State laws and regulations are general in nature and provide
                flexibility in implementation, and do not provide specific direction to
                State wildlife agencies, although they can occasionally afford
                regulatory authority over habitat preservation (e.g., creation of
                habitat easements and land acquisitions).
                 With respect to Federal laws, we note that recent LRMP and RMP
                amendments adopted by the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests
                and BLM's Carson City District and Tonopah Field Office in the Bi-State
                area appear to offer significant improved certainty toward sage-grouse
                conservation. These changes in conjunction with existing RMPs and
                LRMPs, with demonstrated track records of effectiveness (such as the
                BLM Bishop Field Office's RMP), supports a conclusion that currently
                existing Federal regulations are effective regulatory mechanisms.
                Federally managed lands account for approximately 89 percent of the Bi-
                State DPS habitat. Additionally, we note that recent changes to RMPs
                and LRMPs associated with greater sage-grouse conservation across its
                range in the western United States do not apply to the Bi-State DPS.
                For additional detail see the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section in
                the 2019 Species Report.
                 Since the proposed rule, we received additional information on
                Federal regulatory mechanisms. Jointly, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
                Forest and the Carson City and Tonopah Offices of the BLM have
                developed new Land Use Plan Amendments (HTNF 2016, entire; BLM 2016,
                entire). The amendments more fully address conservation of the Bi-State
                area by providing specific direction to management of the DPS and its
                habitat, including (but not limited to) direct effects (such as land
                disturbance) and indirect effects (such as noise) caused by management
                of: Recreation, grazing, weeds, wild horses and burros, minerals, fire
                management, and rights-
                [[Page 18087]]
                of-way. Furthermore in 2019, the Inyo National Forest completed a
                revised Land Management Plan, which also improves management
                consideration of sage-grouse conservation (USFS 2019, entire). For
                additional discussion on existing regulatory mechanisms and our
                conservation efforts analysis, see discussions in Summary of Factors
                Affecting the Species and the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms and
                Conservation Efforts sections in the 2019 Species Report (Service 2020,
                pp. 124-147).
                 Therefore, we conclude that the BLM and USFS Land Use Plan
                amendments will limit future additional impacts caused by discretionary
                actions, thus greatly enhancing the conservation afforded to the Bi-
                State DPS and its habitat.
                 The 2012 BSAP is not a regulatory mechanism. As such, we have
                evaluated it through our PECE policy, as described in Policy for
                Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions,
                above. Since we have concluded that it is sufficiently certain to be
                both implemented and effective, we have considered how the measures
                included in the plan are ameliorating the magnitude of threats. The
                LADWP plans are also not regulatory mechanisms, and we have evaluated
                them as an existing and ongoing conservation measure.
                 (2) Comment: Several commenters stated that conservation efforts to
                date have not been adequate, as threats remain on the landscape.
                 Our Response: While considerable effort has been expended over the
                past several years to address some of the known threats throughout
                portions or all of the Bi-State DPS's estimated occupied range, threats
                to the continued viability of the DPS into the future remain. The
                development of the 2012 BSAP (Bi-State TAC 2012, entire) has
                highlighted the importance of not only habitat restoration and
                enhancement but also the role of the States and other partners in
                reducing many of the known threats to the Bi-State DPS. Cooperative,
                committed efforts by Federal and State agencies, as well as Mono County
                will result in full implementation of the 2012 BSAP, including funding
                and staffing commitments from 2015 through 2024 to address the most
                significant impacts to the DPS and its habitat (BLM 2014a, in litt.;
                BLM 2019, in litt.; CDFW 2014b, in litt.; Mono County 2014, in litt.;
                Mono County 2018, in litt.; NDOW 2014, in litt.; NDOW 2018, in litt.;
                NRCS 2018, in litt.; USDA 2014, in litt.; USFS 2018, in litt.; USGS
                2014a, in litt.). Such plans will help provide the ongoing, targeted
                implementation of effective conservation actions that are essential for
                the conservation of the Bi-State DPS and its habitat into the future.
                We discuss the various conservation efforts occurring currently and
                into the future within the estimated occupied range of the Bi-State DPS
                of greater sage-grouse in more detail in the detailed PECE analysis
                (Service 2019, entire) under Policy for Evaluation of Conservation
                Efforts When Making Listing Decisions.
                 (3) Comment: A few commenters suggest that the Bi-State DPS is not
                a genetically unique subspecies or that it does not meet our standard
                for recognition as a DPS.
                 Our Response: 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 sage-grouse meets our criteria as a DPS of
                the greater sage-grouse under Service policy (61 FR 4722, February 7,
                1996). This determination was based principally on genetic information,
                where the DPS was found to be both markedly separated and significant
                to the remainder of the 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).
                Sage-grouse in the Bi-State area contain a large number of unique
                genetic haplotypes not found elsewhere within the range of the species
                (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 306; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1300;
                Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 92, Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 7).
                The genetic diversity present in the Bi-State area population is
                comparable to other populations, suggesting that the differences are
                not due to a genetic bottleneck or founder event (Oyler-McCance and
                Quinn 2011, p. 91; Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 8). These studies
                provide evidence that the present genetic uniqueness exhibited by Bi-
                State area sage-grouse developed over thousands and perhaps tens of
                thousands of years, hence, prior to the Euro-American settlement
                (Benedict et al. 2003, p. 308; Oyler-McCance et al. 2005, p. 1307;
                Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 9). The available genetic information
                demonstrates that the Bi-State sage-grouse are both discrete from other
                greater sage-grouse populations and are genetically unique. Therefore,
                we believe the best scientific and commercial data available continues
                to clearly demonstrate that the Bi-State sage-grouse meet both the
                discreteness and significance criteria to be designated as a distinct
                population segment.
                 (4) Comment: Several commenters stated that the 2013 proposed
                listing rule dismissed past conservation measures without fairly
                addressing their breadth, effectiveness, and chance of success.
                Further, they submit that the Service must evaluate the conservation
                measures through (at minimum) an analysis consistent with PECE and must
                fully consider how conservation measures will reduce or remove threats.
                The commenters believe that a fair evaluation of the past conservation
                efforts would demonstrate that they are sufficient to protect the Bi-
                State DPS.
                 Alternatively, several commenters argue that past conservation
                efforts, while well-intended, have been inadequate to provide
                sufficient conservation for the DPS. Further, the commenters contend
                that the 2012 BSAP is voluntary in nature and does not meet the PECE
                standard, and that populations have continued to decline since the
                implementation of the BSAP.
                 Our Response: In this finding, we acknowledge and commend the
                commitment of many partners in implementing numerous conservation
                actions within the range of the Bi-State DPS. The PECE policy applies
                to formalized conservation efforts that have not yet been implemented
                or those that have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated
                whether they are effective at the time of listing. Our analysis of all
                conservation efforts currently in place and under development for the
                future is described in detail above in Policy for Evaluation of
                Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions. The effect of
                conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms on the status of a
                species is considered under Summary of Biological Status and Threats.
                 In this document, we considered whether formalized conservation
                efforts such as the BSAP are included as part of the baseline through
                the analysis of the five listing factors or are appropriate for
                consideration under our PECE policy. All participating agencies have
                provided letters affirming their commitment to the plan, as well as
                funding and implementation schedules (Service 2019, entire). Due to
                these and other considerations as outlined in our detailed PECE
                analysis, we concluded that the 2012 BSAP is highly certain to be
                implemented.
                 We acknowledge that the most recent population studies show that
                some sage-grouse populations in the Bi-State DPS have declined (Coates
                et al. 2020, Table 3). However, the Bi-State DPS as a whole is showing
                a stable, long-term trend. Conservation measures are in place to
                counter negative population growth (such as the Parker Meadows
                translocation project). Currently, 53 of
                [[Page 18088]]
                the 76 high-priority projects have been initiated representing 68
                percent of the projects originally identified (Bi-State TAC 2018, p.
                3). Twelve projects (17 percent) were evaluated and determined to lie
                outside of occupied sage-grouse habitat and were subsequently removed
                from the list of priorities. Furthermore, 142 of the 159 identified
                actions in the BSAP have been initiated and are in stages of
                completion, meaning they are in progress, ongoing, occur annually, or
                have been evaluated as part of the planning process (Bi-State TAC 2018,
                p. 45; Service 2019, p. 33). Given that these measures are still
                ongoing, we do not expect that positive gains from these measures would
                yet be reflected in population studies.
                 Overall, due to many factors as outlined in our detailed PECE
                analysis, we concluded that future conservation measures are highly
                certain to be effective in ameliorating the threats currently impacting
                the Bi-State DPS. Therefore, we find the Bi-State DPS is not in danger
                of becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its
                range, and is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
                future (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its
                range, and we are withdrawing the proposed listing, 4(d), and critical
                habitat rules for the Bi-State DPS (see Determination of Status for the
                Bi-State DPS below).
                 (5) Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that predators are a
                significant threat and that we did not account for this impact
                accurately. Further, many commenters suggested predator removal
                programs should be implemented. Alternatively, several commenters
                suggested that predator control is not sustainable and may have
                negative and unintended consequences.
                 Our Response: As discussed in Predation, we recognize that
                predation of sage-grouse is the most commonly identified cause of
                direct mortality during all life stages. However, we note that sage-
                grouse have coevolved with a suite of predators (Schroeder et al. 1999,
                pp. 9-10), yet the species has persisted. Thus, this form of mortality
                is apparently offset by other aspects of the species life-history under
                ``normal'' conditions. However, when non-endemic predators are
                introduced into a system (one with which the prey species did not
                evolve (e.g., domestic cats and dogs)), or when other factors influence
                the balance between endemic predator and prey interactions, such that a
                predator gains a competitive advantage, predation may overwhelm a prey
                species life-history strategy and ultimately influence population
                growth and persistence (Braun 1998, pp. 145-146; Holloran 2005, p. 58;
                Coates 2007, p. 155; Bui 2009, p. 2; Coates and Delehanty 2010, p. 243;
                Howe et al. 2014, p. 41). Therefore, we agree that increases in sage-
                grouse predator abundance and predation rates are a concern by
                potentially negatively affecting population growth. However, we
                maintain that predation is a proximal cause of mortality and increases
                in predator abundance and predation rates are ultimately caused by
                changes in habitat conditions, which positively influence predator
                occurrence or efficiency. See also the Urbanization and Habitat
                Conversion, Infrastructure, and Predation sections in the associated
                Species Report for a detailed analysis on the impacts of predation
                (Service 2020, pp. 39-60, 110-117).
                 As a point of clarification, we agree that targeted, short-term
                predator removal programs may be warranted in instances where habitat
                restoration cannot be achieved in a timely manner. In these instances,
                predation rates and predator abundance may be artificially high and
                high sage-grouse mortality may be a concern. However, data do not
                appear to suggest that removal programs are sustainable or that they
                result in consistent increases in sage-grouse numbers (Hagen 2011, pp.
                98-99). We intend to explore the potential benefits and negative
                ramifications caused by predator control through our continued
                coordination efforts with the Bi-State TAC and LAWG for continued
                conservation of the Bi-State DPS. In 2018, a research project was
                initiated to explore the potential benefits gained through predator
                management. Specifically, this project targeted nesting common ravens
                in Long Valley associated with the local landfill through egg-oiling to
                prevent successful egg hatching. While final results will not be known
                for several years, preliminary results suggest improved nesting success
                of sage-grouse in Long Valley in the spring of 2019.
                 (6) Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that the degree of
                impact we assign to specific threat factors is not accurate and
                suggested revisions. Further, several commenters identified an
                inconsistency in our proposed listing rule associated with our
                assignment of significance level to grazing and rangeland management.
                 Our Response: The threats analysis and associated discussion of the
                degree of impact that is described in the Species Report (2013, 2014,
                and 2019 versions), our 2013 proposed listing rule, our 2015 proposed
                withdrawal, and this document are based upon the best available
                scientific and commercial information. No additional information or
                assessments were provided by the commenters to support their claim that
                the analysis and conclusions in our proposed listing rule were
                inaccurate. However, where applicable in our revised 2019 Species
                Report and this document, we have updated our threats analyses based on
                new information received since the proposed listing rule published on
                October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358). With regard to potential
                inconsistencies in the threats analysis in the proposed rule, we made
                corrections to any inconsistencies identified by commenters and as
                applicable in both the revised 2019 Species Report and this document.
                 Specifically, our 2013 proposed listing rule identified livestock
                grazing as a significant threat in the summary of threats section but
                did not reach this conclusion in the livestock grazing section of the
                document. We have corrected that error in this finding.
                 (7) Comment: One commenter suggested that the potential threat to
                sage-grouse posed by fencing can be mitigated. Alternatively, another
                commenter stated that fencing is a major threat and expressed concern
                that there are no programs in place to require fencing to be removed.
                 Our Response: We agree that certain practices, such as making
                fences more visible to sage-grouse through the use of visual markers or
                employing the use of alternative fence designs, such as let-down
                fencing, can reduce certain impacts to the Bi-State DPS caused by
                fencing, specifically collision. However, we do not anticipate that
                these efforts will completely ameliorate the threat of collision. For
                example, one study found that marking fences reduced the fence
                collision rate during the sage-grouse breeding season by 83 percent
                (Stevens et al. 2012, p. 301). Nevertheless, collisions still occurred
                at marked fences, especially those in close proximity to spring
                breeding sites, suggesting marking alone did not completely resolve the
                concern. Furthermore, while direct mortality through collision may be
                minimized by these approaches, indirect impacts caused by predation and
                other forms of habitat degradation may remain (see the discussion of
                impacts due to fences under Infrastructure above and in the 2019
                Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 54-57)). Therefore, a combination of
                approaches to managing fences and their impacts needs to be applied,
                which may include removal. These efforts are currently ongoing in the
                Bi-State area (Bi-State TAC 2018, p. 33).
                 With regard to the comment that fencing may be considered a major
                threat, we have described the impacts
                [[Page 18089]]
                that may occur from fencing based on the best scientific and commercial
                information available. We found that fencing impacts are widespread but
                generally minor. In addition, management actions are being undertaken
                to further ameliorate this threat. For example, approximately 20 km (13
                mi) of fencing has been removed or modified in the Bi-State area, and
                approximately 101 km (63 mi) of fencing has been marked with visual
                flight diverters. Furthermore, the BLM RMP and USFS LRMP amendments
                prepared by the Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo National Forests, and the
                Carson City District and Tonopah Field Office of the BLM, specifically
                identify restrictions on new fence installation and removal or marking
                of fences already in place within 1.9-3.2 km (1.2-2 mi) of an active
                lek.
                 The removal of fencing throughout all of the Bi-State area is not
                feasible. However, consideration of alternative approaches to
                traditional fencing would help reduce impacts of fencing to sage-grouse
                (for example, use of let-down fence designs), and we will continue to
                work with partners to encourage implementation of reduced or
                alternative approaches to fencing in areas that are most important to
                the Bi-State DPS. Conservation efforts are under way currently and into
                the future to reduce fencing impacts in priority areas (e.g., BLM's
                removal of racetrack fencing in Bodie PMU, marking or modifying fencing
                in Pine Nut and South Mono PMUs) (Bi-State TAC 2018, entire).
                 (8) Comment: A few commenters suggested woodlands and woodland
                expansion is natural and should be left alone. Specifically, commenters
                speculated that forest occurrence is a reestablishment of sites that
                were harvested during historic mining in the latter part of the 1800s
                or that woodlands are naturally occurring. Further, the commenters
                suggested that woodland treatments are not effective at positively
                influencing sage-grouse population performance.
                 Our Response: Across the Bi-State area, we estimate that
                approximately 40 percent of the historically available sagebrush
                habitat has been usurped by woodland succession over the past 150 years
                (USGS 2012, unpublished data). As described in the 2019 Species Report
                (Service 2020, pp. 73-79) and in Nonnative Invasive Plants and Native
                Woodland Succession, the cause of this increase is likely multifaceted
                but most certainly includes recovery from past disturbances such as
                mining. However, the support for this single mechanism is not apparent.
                For example, while there are locations within the Bi-State area where
                there are stumps from harvested trees attributable to the mining era,
                most locations do not contain evidence of past tree cutting.
                Furthermore, genetic evidence suggests that sage-grouse populations
                contained within the Bi-State area were historically more connected and
                that these connections began to erode relatively recently (Oyler-
                McCance et al. 2014, pp. 10-11). This finding suggests that barriers to
                movement, such as trees, were less restrictive historically as compared
                to today. No additional information was received by the commenter or
                others since the proposed listing rule published that would modify our
                understanding of this threat. Therefore, based on the best available
                information, we conclude that woodland expansion is a significant
                threat in the Bi-State area as it has reduced habitat availability and
                negatively influenced population connectivity. As a result,
                conservation efforts are under way currently and into the future to
                reduce potential woodland succession impacts in priority areas (e.g.,
                BLM, USFS, and NRCS treatments of phase I and II pinyon-juniper
                encroachment in all six PMUs) (phases of pinyon-juniper encroachment
                are generally defined by percent tree cover and tree age in the
                affected area) (Miller et al. 2008, p. 5; Bi-State TAC 2018, pp. 26-
                29).
                 Ultimately, the cause of woodland encroachment becomes less
                relevant in light of its implications as the response to tree presence
                by sage-grouse is uniformly negative (Commons et al. 1999, p. 238;
                Doherty et al. 2008, p. 187; Freese 2009, pp. 84-85, 89-90; Casazza et
                al. 2011, p. 159; Baruch-Mordo et al. 2013, p. 237; Prochazka et al.
                2017, p. 46). Therefore, to reduce this impact on the Bi-State DPS and
                its habitat, as described in the BSAP, land managers should consider
                management of pinyon-juniper encroachment in specific areas that would
                most benefit the Bi-State DPS (e.g., lek sites, migration corridors,
                and brood-rearing habitat) and that is consistent with our
                understanding of a specific site's vegetation potential. The removal of
                trees conveys positive benefits to sage-grouse stemming from increased
                habitat availability, increased adult and nest survival, and ultimately
                overall improved population performance (Coates et al. 2017b, pp. 31-
                33; Sandford et al. 2017, p. 63; Severson et al. 2017, p. 53; Prochazka
                et al. 2017, p. 46; Olsen 2019, pp. 21-22).
                 (9) Comment: Several commenters suggest that fire is the most
                significant threat to the Bi-State DPS and that post-fire restoration
                is difficult. Alternatively, several other commenters suggest that fire
                is a natural process and does not constitute a complete loss of habitat
                for the Bi-State DPS because sage-grouse will use burned areas.
                 Our Response: In the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 79-86) and
                in Wildfires and Altered Fire Regime, we address potential habitat
                changes that may be related to wildland fires and post-fire restoration
                activities. We agree that fire is a natural process on the landscape
                within the Bi-State area; however, we also note that we found that the
                ``too-little'' and ``too-much'' fire scenarios present challenges for
                the Bi-State DPS. In other words, in some locations, the lack of fire
                has facilitated the expansion of woodlands, especially into montane
                shrub communities. In other locations, recent fires have been followed
                by invasive-weed establishment facilitating a reoccurring fire cycle
                that restricts sagebrush restoration. These scenarios present
                challenges for the species. Still, although fires have occurred across
                the range of the Bi-State DPS historically and recently, we acknowledge
                that a sufficient amount of suitable habitat remains for sage-grouse
                use. Some of this remaining suitable habitat is threatened by
                additional fire because of adjacent invasive annual plants and woodland
                establishment, which can influence the frequency and intensity of
                future fire events. Further, impacts to remaining sagebrush habitat may
                be exacerbated due to interactions with other threats that are acting
                in the Bi-State area (see Summary of Threats). As a result of these
                impacts, conservation efforts are under way currently and into the
                future to reduce impacts associated with nonnative, invasive plants
                (e.g., multiple BLM and USFS invasive weed management treatments in
                multiple PMUs), and woodland succession (e.g., BLM, USFS, and NRCS
                treatments of phase I and II pinyon-juniper encroachment in all six
                PMUs) (Bi-State TAC 2014, in litt.).
                 Additionally, while short-term (and potentially long-term) impacts
                from fire events to sage-grouse are known to occur, including but not
                limited to habitat loss and population declines (Beck et al. 2012, p.
                452; Knick et al. 2011, p. 233; Wisdom et al. 2011, p. 469), we agree
                that some information suggests sage-grouse use of burned habitat. Small
                fires may maintain a suitable habitat mosaic by reducing shrub
                encroachment and encouraging understory growth. However, without
                available nearby sagebrush cover, the broad utility of these sites is
                questionable (Woodward 2006, p. 65). For example, sage-grouse using
                burned areas were rarely found more than 60 m
                [[Page 18090]]
                (200 ft) from the edge of the burn and may preferentially use the
                burned and unburned edge habitat (Slater 2003, p. 63).
                 We recognize that fire is natural and the primary disturbance
                mechanism in the sagebrush ecosystem. We also recognize that sage-
                grouse will selectively utilize portions of burned habitat. However,
                the challenge that wildfire presents to the sustainability of the
                system remains, especially given the relatively limited and fragmented
                suitable sagebrush habitat present in the Bi-State area. Still, land
                managers within the range of the Bi-State DPS are currently
                implementing and will continue to implement conservation efforts into
                the future that are expected to reduce the potential impacts of
                wildfire as it relates to nonnative, invasive plants and pinyon-juniper
                encroachment (Bi-State TAC 2018, pp. 22-23).
                 (10) Comment: Several commenters suggested that climate change
                poses a significant impact to the Bi-State DPS and its habitat,
                including one commenter that stated we underestimated the impact that
                climate change and drought may have on the DPS.
                 Our Response: In the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 86-94) and
                in Climate, we address potential impacts associated with climate
                change. We found that projected climate change and its associated
                consequences have the potential to affect sage-grouse and sagebrush
                habitat in the Bi-State area. The impacts of climate change interact
                with other stressors such as disease, invasive species, prey
                availability, moisture, vegetation community dynamics, disturbance
                regimes, and other habitat degradations and loss that are already
                affecting the species (Strzepek et al. 2010, p. 5; Walker and Naugle
                2011, entire; Finch 2012, pp. 60, 80; IPCC 2014, p. 60; Ault et al.
                2014, p. 7545; Garfin et al. 2014, p. 463; He et al. 2018, pp. 16-17;
                Reich et al. 2018, p. 21). In the 2015 withdrawal of our proposed rule,
                we concluded that the overall impact of climate change to the Bi-State
                DPS at this time is considered moderate. Neither the commenters nor
                others provided new information related to climate change that would
                result in a change in our analysis. Our conclusion of moderate impact
                from climate change may ultimately prove to be conservative, but we
                believe this is the most supportable conclusion given the inherent
                uncertainties associated with climate modeling, especially prediction
                concerning precipitation. Additionally, conservation efforts associated
                with the 2012 BSAP (such as grazing exclosures, changes to grazing
                management plans, prescribed fires, invasive plant control, mechanical
                treatments, and conservation of meadow habitats) are increasing
                resiliency such that the magnitude of climate changes impacts will be
                reduced into the foreseeable future. If in the future substantial new
                information becomes available as to the specific impacts that may be
                incurred by the Bi-State DPS associated with climate change, we will
                revisit this assessment.
                 (11) Comment: Several commenters stated that we should have
                proposed listing the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse as an
                endangered species as opposed to a threatened species.
                 Our Response: Section 3 of the Act defines an endangered species as
                any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
                significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as any
                species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
                foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
                range. With regard to the Bi-State DPS, we have identified a series of
                threats across the range of the Bi-State DPS that are resulting in the
                present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
                habitat or range, and other natural or manmade threats affecting the
                DPS's continued existence. We have determined that, assuming current
                conditions continue into the future, these impacts are such that the
                DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
                future (i.e., the definition of a threatened species).
                 Many of these impacts are cumulatively acting upon the Bi-State DPS
                and increase the risk of extinction, but not to such a degree that the
                DPS is in danger of extinction today (see Determination of Status for
                the Bi-State DPS, below). However, after consideration of partially
                completed projects and future conservation efforts that we have found
                to be highly certain to be implemented and effective (see Policy for
                Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions,
                above), we conclude the Bi-State DPS is not in danger of becoming
                extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and is
                not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
                (threatened), throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
                Therefore, the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse does not meet the
                definition of a threatened or endangered species, and we are
                withdrawing the proposed listing, 4(d), and critical habitat rules for
                the Bi-State DPS.
                 (12) Comment: Some commenters were concerned about the effects of
                listing on mining and associated activities conducted under the General
                Mining Law of 1872. One commenter suggested that listing did not take
                into consideration Federal mining law and recognition of valid existing
                rights. Another commenter was concerned that there would be no
                assurances that development of a mining claim will result in the
                ability to mine it.
                 Our Response: In the proposed listing rule, we identified mining
                and associated activities to be a threat to the Bi-State DPS; however,
                today we consider it a less significant impact and one that does not
                occur across the entire Bi-State area. On federally managed land
                outside of designated wilderness and wilderness study area
                (approximately 92 percent of all federal lands (1,629,669 ha or
                4,027,000 ac)), new mining may occur pursuant to the Mining Law of 1872
                (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), which was enacted to promote exploration and
                development of domestic mineral resources, as well as the settlement of
                the western United States. It permits U.S. citizens and businesses to
                prospect hardrock (locatable) minerals and, if a valuable deposit is
                found, file a claim giving them the right to use the land for mining
                activities and sell the minerals extracted. Gold and other minerals are
                frequently mined as locatable minerals subject to the Mining Law of
                1872. Federal agencies with jurisdiction over land where mining occurs
                will review mining and other actions that they fund, authorize, or
                carry out to determine if listed species may be affected in accordance
                with section 7 of the Act. Because we are withdrawing our proposed rule
                to list the Bi-State DPS and it will not be placed on the list of
                federally endangered or threatened species, consultations under section
                7 of the Act will not be required specific to the Bi-State DPS.
                 As discussed above, potential exists for mining operations to
                expand both currently and into the future, but the scope of impacts
                from existing mining expansion is not considered extensive. We
                concluded that, by itself, mining is not currently considered a
                significant impact to the Bi-State population, though mining
                exploration continues, and mining activity could occur at any time in
                the future.
                 (13) Comment: Several commenters stated that they believe mining is
                not a threat to the Bi-State DPS. Alternatively, another commenter
                suggested impacts from mining are significant.
                 Our Response: In the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 60-63) and
                in Mining,
                [[Page 18091]]
                we address potential impacts associated with mining activities. Sage-
                grouse could be impacted directly or indirectly from an increase in
                human presence, land use practices, ground shock, noise, dust, reduced
                air quality, degradation of water quality and quantity, and changes in
                vegetation and topography (Moore and Mills 1977, entire; Brown and
                Clayton 2004, p. 2). However, these effects are theoretical, given that
                information relating sage-grouse response to mineral developments is
                not extensive. Neither the commenters nor others provided new
                information related to this threat. While we maintain that it is
                reasonable to assume a negative impact from mining on sage-grouse,
                based on the current extent and location of mineral developments in the
                Bi-State area, we conclude that mining is not considered a significant
                impact at this time. Mining is a potential future concern based on its
                potential to impact important lek complexes and population
                connectivity. It may also create effects that combine with other
                threats currently acting on the Bi-State DPS resulting in a higher
                degree of negative impact in the future, though not to the extent that
                the species will become endangered in the forseeable future. See the
                Mining section of the 2019 Species Report for a complete discussion of
                the potential effects of mining activities on the Bi-State DPS and its
                habitat.
                 (14) Comment: Numerous commenters suggested that our grazing and
                rangeland management assessment in the proposed listing rule is not
                accurate and requires additional clarification. Specifically, they
                suggested that: (1) Current livestock grazing is compatible with sage-
                grouse conservation in the Bi-State area, (2) a more clearly defined
                delineation is needed between past and present grazing impacts, and (3)
                additional delineation is needed among grazing animals (such as cattle,
                horses, sheep). Alternatively, several other commenters suggested that
                grazing and rangeland management are a significant threat to the Bi-
                State DPS's conservation and that this threat is not adequately
                controlled by existing management programs.
                 Our Response: In the 2019 Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 65-73)
                and in Grazing and Rangeland Management, we found that the majority of
                sage-grouse habitat in the Bi-State area is not significantly impacted
                by livestock grazing. Specifically, RHAs or their equivalents (the
                standard used by Federal agencies to assess habitat condition) have
                been completed on allotments covering approximately 81 percent of
                suitable sage-grouse habitat in the Bi-State area. Of the allotments
                with RHAs completed, 81 percent (n=97) are meeting upland vegetation
                standards, suggesting that approximately 352,249 ha (870,427 ac) out of
                approximately 563,941 ha (1,393,529 ac) of suitable sage-grouse habitat
                are known to be in a condition compatible with sagebrush community
                maintenance. Furthermore, of the allotments with RHAs completed, 45
                percent are meeting riparian standards and 27 percent are not, with the
                remainder being unknown or the allotment not containing riparian
                habitat. Of those not meeting riparian standards (approximately 15
                percent), livestock were a significant or partially significant cause
                for the allotment failing to meet identified standards while the
                remainders were attributed to other causes such as past mining activity
                or road presence. In each instance of an allotment not meeting
                standards due to livestock, remedial actions have been taken by the
                representative land managing agency (such as changes in intensity,
                duration, or season of use by livestock). Furthermore, while we have
                information on the class of livestock (i.e., sheep, cattle) associated
                with any given allotment, we did not analyze these allotments
                independently based on this difference.
                 While it is true that types of livestock will use vegetation
                communities differently, meaning some animals consume more shrubs and
                others consume more grasses, RHAs or their equivalents are a measure of
                the condition of the allotment against a desired condition, which
                includes among other things fish and wildlife habitat condition. Given
                that RHAs in the Bi-State area consider suitable sage-grouse habitat
                condition as part of their evaluation, including shrub and herbaceous
                cover, we consider RHAs as a unit of measure sufficiently fine-scaled
                to be informative. Ultimately, based on data contained within RHAs, we
                concluded that modern livestock grazing is not a significant impact on
                sage-grouse habitat.
                 We also note that historical impacts from livestock grazing and
                impacts caused by feral horses are apparent, but data to assess these
                impacts are limited. None of the commenters provided additional data to
                assist with this assessment. In total, we believe that historical
                impacts (past grazing and other land uses) and impacts from feral horse
                use is apparent in local areas, but we consider current management to
                be sufficient to address these issues.
                 (15) Comment: Several commenters provided information pertaining to
                population performance and size across the DPS as a whole as well as
                for individual Population Management Units.
                 Our Response: While we appreciate these updates, all of these
                comments and the data contained within them have been considered in the
                associated 2019 Species Report as well as within this document.
                Furthermore, we note that the most recent final results stemming from
                the IPM (Coates et al. 2020, entire) are similarly incorporated into
                our 2019 Species Report and this document. The data provided by
                commenters have either been updated by incorporating more recent data
                into the analysis or by making slight alterations to the modelling
                approach. Many preliminary research results are presented to the Local
                Area Working Group during regularly occurring meetings. These results,
                however, are often prone to change as the research is finalized.
                Therefore, the numbers presented in the 2019 Species Report and
                incorporated into this document represent the most up-to-date finalized
                findings and represent the best scientific and commercial data
                available.
                 (16) Comment: At least one commenter questioned the efficacy and
                rationale for the currently ongoing translocation effort in the Parker
                Meadows subpopulation. The commenter specifically expressed concern
                over the potential impact this action may have on the source population
                and further questioned whether the habitat in the Parker Meadows area
                is sufficiently suitable for the reintroduction.
                 Our Response: The 2012 Action Plan identified augmentation of the
                Parker Meadows subpopulation via translocation as a conservation
                action. This effort was identified as a need based on the small size of
                the subpopulation, genetic information highlighting relatively low
                genetic diversity in the subpopulation, and recent monitoring results
                identifying low hatchability of clutches (females were laying eggs but
                these eggs were not hatching, suggesting eggs were either going
                unfertilized or genetic anomalies were inhibiting some aspect of egg
                development). To restore genetic and demographic health to the
                subpopulation, birds from outside the subpopulation were captured and
                moved to the Parker Meadows site. The overarching intent of this action
                was to conserve and enhance connectivity between PMUs, specifically
                between the South Mono and Bodie PMUs.
                 Prior to initiating this effort, members of the Bi-State TAC
                conducted a site visit to assess habitat condition. Habitat
                [[Page 18092]]
                was deemed to be of suitable condition but for the occurrence of a
                limited number of conifer trees that had become established in
                proximity to the lek and brood-rearing meadow. These trees were removed
                prior to the augmentation. In addition, the Bi-State TAC evaluated the
                potential impact the source population may incur, due to the removal of
                birds, via the IPM. Essentially, the study evaluated how altering adult
                female and brood survival for the source population impacted population
                performance. The source population was the Bodie PMU, and the results
                suggested the removal of birds from this location would not affect
                overall population growth within this PMU. We evaluated the potential
                impact from this action in the 2019 Species Report, within the
                Scientific and Educational Uses section (Service 2020, pp. 101-104).
                 Ultimately, measuring the success of this translocation effort will
                require additional time. Preliminary results suggest that translocated
                birds are remaining in the Parker Meadows area at an increasing rate,
                probability of nest initiation and nest success have increased, brood
                success is on par with the remainder of the DPS, and lek counts have
                increased over the past 2 years.
                 (17) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the
                estimated effective population size of the DPS as a whole as well as
                for specific populations.
                 Our Response: As discussed in Small Population Size and Population
                Isolation, studies suggest effective population size should exceed 50
                to 100 individuals to avoid short-term extinction risk caused by
                inbreeding depression, and mathematical models suggest that effective
                population size should exceed 500 individuals to retain evolutionary
                potential and avoid long-term extinction risk (Franklin 1980, entire;
                Soule 1980, entire). However, some estimates of an effective population
                size necessary to retain evolutionary potential are as high as 5,000
                individuals, although these estimates are thought to be highly species
                specific and influenced by many extrinsic factors (Lande 1995, p. 789).
                The effective population size of the Bi-State DPS in 2018 was between
                330 and 661 birds (Table 2; Service 2020, pp. 119-121).
                 We agree that the size of the populations and the relative degree
                of isolation among populations within the Bi-State area is a concern to
                species conservation as it can exacerbate the effects of genetic
                issues, stochastic events, and other threats to the DPS. However, as
                discussed above, the current genetic diversity present in the Bi-State
                area population is comparable to other populations, suggesting that the
                differences are not due to a genetic bottleneck or founder event
                (Oyler-McCance and Quinn 2011, p. 91; Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, p. 8).
                The available genetic information demonstrates that the Bi-State sage-
                grouse are both discrete from other greater sage-grouse populations and
                are genetically unique. Further, a significant impetus of the 2012
                Action Plan was to facilitate connectivity among populations across the
                DPS. While we remain concerned regarding isolation of these
                populations, we believe that effective implementation of the 2012
                Action Plan will help alleviate concerns over loss of genetic diversity
                or the accumulation of deleterious alleles.
                 (18) Comment: Several commenters identified new potential threats
                to the DPS, which were not apparent at the time of our proposed listing
                in 2013. Specifically, these include a potential change to how LADWP
                manages their lands in Long Valley, the potential for additional
                development within the designated West-wide Energy Corridor, a
                potential new hydro-pump storage energy development in the White
                Mountains PMU, and the development of a Programmatic Environmental
                Impact Statement pertaining to fuel break development in the Great
                Basin (PEIS).
                 Our Response: We appreciate these updates on potential threats and
                note that each of these identified new threats has been considered in
                the associated 2019 Species Report as well as in this document.
                 The Record of Decision on the West-wide Energy Corridor was signed
                in 2009 by the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture. This action
                was challenged in court the same year, and a settlement was reached in
                2012. One aspect of the settlement was a reevaluation of the corridors
                identified in 2009, and the public scoping for this assessment was
                reopened in the past year. Thus, we have been aware of this potential
                activity for nearly a decade but recognize the renewed interest in its
                potential impact to the Bi-State DPS.
                 A section of these designated corridors passes through the Mount
                Grant PMU. This corridor section currently has a high-voltage
                transmission line in place, but additional development may take place
                assuming the completion of this NEPA action. While we recognize that
                additional development may occur and may cause impacts to this
                population, we do not have any knowledge of, nor did the commenters
                provide, additional data informing the likelihood of future
                development. The reevaluation of these corridors is currently ongoing
                per the 2012 settlement. This reevaluation may, in fact, result in
                revisions to the 2009 corridor proposals. We do not have sufficient
                certainty at this time of what the potential impacts of this action may
                have on the Mount Grant PMU.
                 The LADWP is currently evaluating alterations to the amount of
                water it has traditionally provided for agricultural use in Long
                Valley. This water allocation has most commonly been used to irrigate
                portions of Long Valley to benefit forage production for local ranching
                operations. An ancillary benefit of this practice has been the
                enhancement of sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat. Thus, changes to this
                practice could influence the sage-grouse population in Long Valley by
                negatively impacting chick survival. To address these type of concerns,
                in June of 2019, LADWP sent a letter to the Service reaffirming their
                commitment to their 2013 Conservation Strategy (implemented by a
                memorandum of understanding with FWS), through which LADWP supports
                sage-grouse conservation by, in part, utilizing its water resources to
                maintain and improve important habitat for sage-grouse on their lands;
                and to continue using a collaborative, science-based, and adaptive
                management approach to achieve the best habitat results. Therefore, we
                recognize the potential impacts that alteration to water supplies in
                Long Valley may have on the local sage-grouse population, but we
                consider this to be a manageable stressor, in light of LADWP's
                continuing commitment toward Bi-State DPS conservation.
                 In 2019, an application was submitted to the Federal Energy
                Regulatory Commission to build and maintain a new hydro-pump storage
                facility within the White Mountains PMU, representing a potentially new
                threat to the DPS. However, this application was subsequently
                withdrawn. Therefore, the Service does not consider this formerly
                proposed facility to be an active threat to the Bi-State DPS.
                 In 2017, the BLM published a notice of intent to prepare the
                development of a Great-Basin-Wide Fuel Break PEIS. The purpose of this
                document is to expedite the development, enhancement, maintenance, and
                utilization of fuel breaks to prevent or minimize the likelihood of
                large-scale wildfire events, which are becoming more prevalent in the
                Great Basin. This would be accomplished by establishing strategic fuel
                breaks wherein fire fighters could stage and anchor suppression
                activities to increase
                [[Page 18093]]
                quicker suppression response times. We recognize that Bi-State DPS
                habitat is included within the scope of the PEIS. Further, we recognize
                that fragmentation of habitats through the establishment of fuel breaks
                may negatively impact some wildlife species including greater sage-
                grouse (Shinneman et al. 2019, pp. 4-7).
                 There are trade-offs between the effects of habitat lost to fire
                and habitat lost or degraded by the establishment of a fuel break.
                Because the plan has not yet been prepared, it is difficult to fully
                assess its impacts on sagebrush habitat. Still, we anticipated that,
                after the PEIS is complete, site-specific NEPA analysis (or possibly
                categorical exclusion or determinations of NEPA adequacy analyses) will
                still be developed, as the PEIS does not detail the specific locations
                where these fuel breaks will be established. Given current direction
                provided by Land Use Plans in the Bi-State area, identified ``Best
                Management Practices'' outlined in the PEIS, and the existing
                collaboration among the EOC, TAC, and LAWG, we contend that future
                discussions pertaining to the potential establishment of fuel breaks in
                the Bi-State area will be robust and afford substantial deference to
                sage-grouse as well as the integrity of the entire sagebrush ecosystem.
                Therefore, we do not consider the PEIS to negatively impact the
                species, and thus do not consider it in our threats analysis.
                 (19) Comment: One commenter questioned the feasibility of ongoing
                financial commitments provided by the Bi-State EOC toward the
                implementation of the 2012 BSAP.
                 Our Response: The BSAP identifies threats to the conservation of
                sage-grouse in the Bi-State area and delineates specific conservation
                actions to alleviate those threats. In 2014, the Bi-State EOC pledged
                to fund these actions at a value in excess of 45 million dollars over a
                10-year timeframe. We recognize that funding commitments provided by
                Federal agencies over a 10-year time horizon may appear speculative,
                given these agencies typically work with annual funding cycles driven
                by the U.S. Congress appropriations process; however, agency managers
                still retain substantial discretion to forecast and plan how to utilize
                appropriations in a longer term strategy. From 2014 through 2018,
                approximately 26 million dollars have already been allocated,
                representing approximately 57 percent of pledged funds (Bi-State TAC
                2018, p. 35). Furthermore, agency partners in the EOC recently updated
                their respective letters of commitment to continue funding for the next
                5 years. Given the robust collaborative effort in the Bi-State area in
                combination with the realized funding track record over the past 5
                years and recent reiterations of commitments for future funding, we
                consider the likelihood of future commitments to be high.
                 (20) Comment: One commenter suggested we should assess human
                population density on a county-by-county basis to determine how it
                compares to the four people per 1 km\2\ threshold established by
                Aldridge et al. (2008).
                 Our Response: In 2008, Aldridge et al. (2008) published a peer-
                reviewed scientific article, which evaluated a number of predictive
                variables to compare locations of extant versus extirpated sage-grouse
                populations. We note that this correlative study does not imply
                causation but is a frequently used approach in wildlife studies and
                that this type of approach can be highly informative.
                 As discussed in Urbanization and Habitat Conversion, in modeling
                several measures of human population on greater sage-grouse
                persistence, including current population density, historical
                population density, and human population growth, the best predictor of
                sage-grouse extirpation was human population density in 1950 (Aldridge
                et al. 2008, p. 985). This finding suggests that human development has
                had long-term impacts on habitat suitability and sage-grouse
                persistence. Extirpation was more likely in areas having a moderate
                human population density of at least four people per 1 km\2\ (10 people
                per 1 mi\2\). Furthermore, increase in human populations from this
                moderate level did not infer a greater likelihood of extirpation,
                likely because much of the additional growth occurred in areas no
                longer suitable for sage-grouse (Aldridge et al. 2008, pp. 991-992).
                 In the 2019 Species Report, we examined the potential likelihood of
                population changes that may influence urbanization and habitat
                conversion in the future, by reviewing the most recent U.S. Census
                Bureau data (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). We found five of eight counties
                in the Bi-State area have documented declines in the estimated number
                of people present between 2010 and 2017: Alpine, Mono, and Inyo
                Counties in California, and Mineral and Carson City Counties in Nevada.
                In addition, all of these counties except Carson City, Nevada, support
                substantially fewer than four people per 1 km\2\ (10 people per 1
                mi\2\). The remaining three counties in the Bi-State area have seen
                human population increases over the past decade, ranging from 2.8
                percent for Douglas County, Nevada, and 4.1 percent for Lyon County,
                Nevada, to 8.4 percent for Esmerelda County, Nevada (U.S. Census Bureau
                2018). While Esmerelda County still contains substantially fewer than
                four people per km\2\ (four people per 0.4 mi\2\), both Lyon and
                Douglas Counties, Nevada, have from two to six times that population
                density.
                 Although we do not have specific information on possible future
                developments from each of these counties with documented human
                population increases, we are aware that recent development levels are
                reduced as compared to the past. Obviously, this metric can be
                informative but potentially misleading or unsatisfying. Frequently,
                counties have high- and low-density areas such as cities and towns or
                more rural developments. Evaluating the number of people per area does
                not capture the true distribution of people across the landscape. So,
                while it is reasonable to use the Aldridge et al. (2008) study to
                explore similarities or differences among locations, two counties with
                the same density of people can have differing levels of effects to
                sage-grouse based on the pattern of development.
                 (21) Comment: One commenter suggested we should invite and
                interview Native American tribal partners to share their knowledge of
                historical and pre-historical occurrence of sage-grouse in the Bi-State
                area.
                 Our Response: We agree that our Native American partners have a
                rich oral and written history in the Bi-State area, and we have been
                working with them since 2014 to incorporate their knowledge into the
                Bi-State collaboration. The first milestone of this endeavor occurred
                in 2016 in the form of a Traditional Ecological Knowledge Summit
                intended to engage and learn from the local and more broadly dispersed
                Native American Tribes in the Great Basin on sage-grouse history and
                conservation and the cultural significance of pinyon pine trees. This
                well-attended event presented an opportunity for the dissemination of
                traditional knowledge and subsequently led to the establishment of the
                Bi-State Traditional Natural Resources Committee. The intent of this
                committee is simple, to expand the breadth of the Bi-State
                collaboration such that decisions and actions are informed by and take
                into consideration Native American concerns and insights. We are
                pleased to further expand the Bi-State collaborative through the
                participation of Native American tribes and agree that inclusion of
                traditional knowledge is an
                [[Page 18094]]
                imperative. With respect to this listing decision process specifically,
                we extended an invitation to Tribal partners to review and comment on
                our 2019 Species Report prior to its completion, but we did not receive
                any responses.
                 (22) Comment: One commenter stated that we must consider the best
                available science on impacts to sage-grouse wintering habitats and map
                Bi-State sage-grouse wintering habitat to assess threats to it.
                Further, they stated this is of critical importance because wintering
                habitats may be found outside habitats designated on the basis of
                breeding and nesting habitats.
                 Our Response: We concur that an understanding of wintering habitats
                is important to conservation and management of the Bi-State DPS. We
                further agree that mapping of wintering habitat would be useful to
                assess threats. However, we are required to make our determination
                based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time
                of our rulemaking, and information on wintering habitats as well as
                maps of wintering habitat are not currently available. In preparing
                this document, we considered the best scientific and commercial data
                available regarding the Bi-State DPS to evaluate their potential status
                under the Act. We solicited peer review of our evaluation of the
                available data, and our peer reviewers supported our analysis. Science
                is a cumulative process, and the body of knowledge is ever-growing. In
                light of this, the Service will always take new research into
                consideration into future analyses of the Bi-State DPS, but we are
                required to publish a final decision on the Bi-State DPS in the Federal
                Register by April 1, 2020. If plausible new research supports amendment
                or revision of this withdrawal document in the future, the Service will
                consider the new information consistent with the Act and our
                established work priorities at that time.
                 (23) Comment: One commenter suggested we should present up-to-date
                acreage for private lands covered by conservation easements and provide
                descriptions of projects funded by the NRCS.
                 Our Response: We estimate that, since 2003, approximately 10,415 ha
                (25,737 ac) of private land, which may provide suitable habitat for
                sage-grouse in the Bi-State DPS, are currently enrolled in various
                easement programs. The easements are targeted primarily at development
                and water rights and vary in length from 30 years to in perpetuity. The
                majority of these easement lands are located in the Bodie PMU, with the
                remainder of easements occurring in the Desert Creek-Fales, South Mono,
                Pine Nut, and White Mountains PMUs. In addition, we estimate that
                approximately 9,737 ha (24,060 ac) of previously private land within
                the Bi-State DPS has been acquired by State and Federal agencies over
                this same timeframe. In total, approximately 20,153 ha (49,800 ac) of
                land, either through conservation easements or acquisitions, has been
                substantially protected from urbanization challenges. These acres
                represent approximately 31 percent of total private lands containing
                mapped sage-grouse habitat across the Bi-State. Furthermore, 12,243 ha
                (30,254 ac) of the total 20,153 ha (49,800 ac) of easements and
                acquisitions completed since 2003 have been accomplished since the
                adoption of the BSAP in 2012. Further, we note that approximately 7,284
                ha (18,000 ac) of private lands have funding obligated for conservation
                easements, but these transactions are still in progress. An effort to
                acquire approximately 5,870 ha (14,500 ac) of lands in the Pine Nut PMU
                by the Carson City BLM has been approved and is anticipated to finalize
                in spring of 2020.
                 The NRCS, via the Farm Bill, can fund restoration actions on
                private and public lands across the Bi-State DPS. The suite of actions
                they can fund is broad, but based on a Conference Report with the
                Service in 2010, there are three main types of conservation practice
                standards employed: management, vegetative, and structural. Examples of
                practices that fall under these three main categories include (but are
                not limited to): (1) Prescribed grazing assistance, upland and meadow
                management, access management; (2) forest slash management, cover crop,
                weed control, seeding; and (3) infrastructure, fish and wildlife
                structure, obstruction removal. While a variety of these practices have
                been employed in the Bi-State area, in general the preponderance of
                NRCS's efforts in the Bi-State area have focused on securing
                conservation easements and conifer removal. Since 2010, NRCS has placed
                into easement approximately 8,741 ha (21,600 ac) of private lands. In
                addition, over this same timeframe, NRCS has funded the removal of
                approximately 4,649 ha (11,488 ac) of conifer trees for the benefit of
                the species across multiple PMUs.
                 (24) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over population
                performance in some subpopulations and how this may result in range
                contraction of the DPS. Further one commenter submitted that we
                evaluate lek count data collected by the States and incorporate it into
                population trend analysis.
                 Our Response: We agree that some of the smaller peripheral
                populations experiencing population declines may result in range
                contractions in the Bi-State DPS as a whole. A recent analysis
                considering data from the past 24 years on four populations found that
                some populations in the Bi-State DPS are contracting their habitat use,
                with contractions most apparent in the Fales, Long Valley, and Sagehen
                populations (Coates et al. 2020, p. 44). Over this same time,
                distributional area in the Bodie Hills has increased (Coates et al.
                2020, p. 44). Across the entire Bi-State area, these results suggest a
                median net loss of 858 ha (2,120 ac) annually. Additionally, recent
                changes in distribution (past 11 years) suggests a pattern similar to
                those described for the long-term spatial trend analysis.
                 This short-term analysis also considered additional populations
                (Coates et al. 2020, p. 51). These results suggest contractions of
                total area for the Desert Creek, Long Valley, Mount Grant, Pine Nut,
                Sagehen, and White Mountains populations and expansion in the Bodie
                Hills, Fales, and Parker Meadows populations. Similar to the long-term
                analysis, the net effect over the 11 years was a loss of total area
                occupied over time, which corresponds to a median loss of 2,312 ha
                (5,713 ac) annually since 2008 (Coates et al. 2020, p. 51). These
                apparent declines in certain populations and habitat use over the
                shorter time period was likely influenced by the fact that the DPS is
                in the downward portion of their cyclic population growth. We also note
                that a significant drought affected this DPS from 2011 to 2015, and
                based on our understanding of the drivers behind sage-grouse population
                cycles, this drought condition has very likely affected recent
                population performance. We will continue to monitor the condition of
                these smaller, peripheral populations while working with our partners
                to implement beneficial actions from the BSAP.
                 As part of our assessments of the Bi-State DPS, we request and
                review lek count data from NDOW and CDFW. We recognize that this data
                can be informative but further acknowledge that these data have
                limitations. For example, sage-grouse are known to forgo breeding
                activity during years of poor conditions, such as drought. Therefore,
                an individual animal may still be present in the population but does
                not attend the lek and therefore is not counted. While the data in this
                instance may suggest decline, it is misleading. There is support,
                however, that over a longer timeframe (8-10 years), lek counts act as a
                reasonable index to
                [[Page 18095]]
                population performance. Modeling these data helps alleviate concerns
                over the inherent errors associated with lek counts. Further,
                integrating the observations with additional data such as that
                collected via telemetry studies makes for a much more robust approach
                to understanding population dynamics. Ultimately, we do not dismiss lek
                count information, but we contend that incorporating this information
                into a more holistic approach--such as the Integrated Population Model
                for the Bi-State DPS--is a more informative approach to understanding
                population abundance and trend.
                 (25) Comment: One commenter suggested we review Smith and Beck
                (2017) and contends that sagebrush treatments do not benefit greater
                sage-grouse and further that pinyon-juniper treatments also disturb
                sagebrush habitat, implying pinyon-juniper treatments do not benefit
                sage-grouse.
                 Our Response: We appreciate this information. We agree with the
                findings in this report and submit that these results have been
                supported by others investigating habitat selection by greater sage-
                grouse. While the removal of sagebrush to benefit herbaceous understory
                development was a relatively frequent activity in the 1940s to the
                1970s (Knick et al. 2011, p. 220), this form of action has been greatly
                curtailed in the past two decades. There may still be benefits to this
                type of action, and it is still conducted sporadically, but recent
                treatment methodology has been to open small gaps in the shrub canopy
                to alter the mosaic of the landscape in hopes of improving brood-
                rearing habitat. The validity of this treatment approach remains
                uncertain, and our understanding of the appropriate sage-grouse habitat
                mosaic remains untested.
                 The intent of pinyon-juniper removal projects is to facilitate
                sagebrush community conservation and improve the suitability of a
                location for sage-grouse. Sage-grouse avoid tree communities, and their
                fitness is impacted by exposure to it. Furthermore, left unmanaged,
                trees will ultimately out-compete understory species (shrubs and
                herbaceous), resulting in a homogenous forested vegetation condition.
                Restoration of the shrub community at this point becomes extremely
                challenging. Targeted pinyon-juniper treatments in the Bi-State area
                are focused on, what is termed, phase I and phase II encroachment
                conditions. Phase I refers generally to conditions where trees are
                small (shrub high) with less than 10 percent canopy cover and the shrub
                community remains intact. Phase II occurs as the tree canopy cover
                increase (10-30 percent), trees increase in size, and the shrub
                community begins to decrease in dominance.
                 Treatments of phase I communities is typically accomplished with
                garden pruners and pedestrian locomotion. This type of treatment would
                have negligible impact on the shrub community due to disturbance. As
                trees begin to increase in size, chainsaws and machinery are employed.
                In these instances, disturbance to the shrub community may occur but
                specific prescriptions and best management practices are followed to
                alleviate this exact concern. Shrub community disturbance in these
                instances do not equate to the treatments described by Smith and Beck
                (2017), where shrubs were specifically targeted for removal across
                large acreages. Finally, the potential short-term and restricted impact
                to the shrub community caused by tree removal treatments are outweighed
                by the long-term benefit gained through increasing and improving sage-
                grouse habitats.
                 (26) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that economic
                development will be negatively impacted by listing and suggested that
                it is necessary for the Service to conduct an analysis of the impacts
                that listing a species may have on local economies prior to issuance of
                a final rule. Alternatively, one commenter submitted that the local
                economy will be positively benefited.
                 Our Response: Under the Act, the Secretary shall make
                determinations whether any species is an endangered species or a
                threatened species solely on the basis of the best scientific and
                commercial data available. Thus, the Service is not allowed to consider
                the economic impact of listing when making determinations whether a
                species is an endangered species or a threatened species.
                Determination of Status for the Bi-State DPS
                 Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
                regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
                whether a species meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or
                ``threatened species.'' The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
                species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
                significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as a
                species that is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
                foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
                range.'' The Act requires that we determine whether a species meets the
                definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' because
                of any of the following 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. For a more detailed discussion on
                the factors considered when determining whether a species meets the
                definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species'' and our
                analysis on how we determine the foreseeable future in making these
                decisions, see Regulatory Framework, above.
                Status Throughout All of Its Range
                 In this document, we reviewed the biological condition of the Bi-
                State DPS and its resources, and the influence of those resources on
                the species' overall viability and the risks to that viability. We
                presented summary evaluations of 11 threats analyzed in the Species
                Report: urbanization and habitat conversion (Factor A); infrastructure
                (Factor A); mining (Factor A); grazing and rangeland management (Factor
                A); nonnative invasive plants and native woodland succession (Factor
                A); wildfires and altered fire regime (Factor A); climate change,
                including drought (Factor A); recreation (Factor E); disease (Factor
                C); predation (Factor C); and small population size and population
                isolation (Factor E). We also evaluate the adequacy of existing
                regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) in ameliorating the magnitude and
                effect of threats. Please see the Species Report (Service 2020, pp. 39-
                136) for a more detailed discussion of each threat.
                 In the Species Report, we also presented our evaluation of four
                additional threats: Renewable energy (Factor A), commercial and
                recreational hunting (Factor B); scientific and educational uses
                (Factor B); and contaminants (including pesticides) (Factor E). In the
                species report, we concluded that, although these threats are currently
                having some impact on individual sage-grouse and their habitat, their
                overall effect now and into the future is expected to be minimal. We
                did not present summary analyses of those threats in this document but,
                did consider them in Summary of Threats and consider them now as a part
                of our determination of status.
                 When we issued a proposed rule to list the Bi-State DPS in 2013 (78
                FR 64358, October 28, 2013), we found that the species was likely to
                become endangered in the foreseeable future
                [[Page 18096]]
                throughout all of its range due to threats associated with native
                woodland succession, the wildfire-invasive plant cycle, effects
                associated with small population size, and increased fragmentation of
                sagebrush habitat in the Bi-State area. Many of these threats remain on
                the landscape today. Pinyon-juniper encroachment (Factor A) continues
                to alter sagebrush habitat in the Bi-State area. Effects due to
                wildfire (Factor A) and nonnative invasive plants (cheatgrass) (Factor
                A) also continue to alter and degrade sagebrush habitat. The effects of
                drought (Factor A) are exacerbating impacts of wildfire, invasive
                plants, and altered wildfire regimes across the Bi-State area. In the
                future, climate change (Factor A) will result in warmer temperatures,
                altered precipitation regimes, and more frequent droughts. These
                changes will likely result in a greater intensity of these other
                threats into the foreseeable future. Drought in particular appears to
                have a strong influence on population dynamics and population cycling
                in the Bi-State DPS (Coates et al. 2020, pp. 27, 29).
                 Areas across the Bi-State DPS are experiencing combined impacts of
                threats from wildfire, invasive species, urbanization (Factor A),
                infrastructure effects (Factor A), and recreation (Factor E); these
                effects may be exacerbated by population isolation and discontinuous
                population structure (Factor E). Regulatory mechanisms (Factor D),
                particularly RMPs and land management plans, are helping to ameliorate
                some threats across the Bi-State DPS. These plans provide specific
                direction for management of the DPS and its habitat, including
                decreasing habitat disturbance (direct effects) and noise and other
                impacts (indirect effects), through provisions addressing recreation,
                grazing, weeds, wild horses, minerals, and fire management.
                 Impacts associated with Factor B (commercial and recreational
                hunting, and scientific and educational uses) are having very minor
                effects the Bi-State DPS now, and they are not expected to
                substantially increase within the foreseeable future. Predation (Factor
                C), particularly by ravens, is impacting the DPS, but not at a
                magnitude where resiliency is significantly affected. However, as
                habitat degradation and fragmentation continue to increase, the
                magnitude of the threat of predation could increase into the future.
                 The key distinction between now and the 2013 proposed listing rule
                is the implementation of the 2012 BSAP, which began implementation in
                2014 with the publication of the 2014 EOC report and the letters of
                commitment from partner agencies. Ongoing and future conservation
                efforts associated with the BSAP are likely to increase habitat
                quantity, quality, and connectivity, and enhance resiliency,
                redundancy, and representation. Efforts associated with the BSAP will:
                 (1) Protect and restore critical brood-rearing habitat (reduces
                impacts from development/habitat conversion, grazing and rangeland
                management, and effects resulting from climate change).
                 (2) Restore habitat impacted by nonnative, invasive species (e.g.,
                cheatgrass) and pinyon-juniper encroachment (reduces impacts from
                nonnative, invasive and certain native plants, wildfire, predation, and
                effects resulting from climate change).
                 (3) Improve our understanding of sage-grouse populations,
                structure, etc., to: (a) Prioritize management actions related to
                synergistic impacts on already fragmented habitat (reduced impacts such
                as infrastructure, urbanization, and recreation), such that management
                efforts occur in locations that benefit the DPS the most; and (b)
                develop and implement sage-grouse translocations from stable
                subpopulations to other small subpopulations that may be experiencing a
                high risk of extirpation (reduces impacts from small population size
                and population structure).
                 These measures will likely increase the number of sage-grouse and
                resiliency of populations throughout the Bi-State DPS. These efforts to
                stop and reverse habitat loss and fragmentation will make small
                populations of Bi-State sage-grouse less susceptible to the effects of
                habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. They will expand the
                amount of protected habitat in critical brood-rearing habitat areas as
                well as restore currently unsuitable habitat in areas utilized for
                dispersal and colonization. As a whole, conservation efforts associated
                with the BSAP are expected to increase species redundancy and the Bi-
                State's ability to withstand future random, stochastic events.
                 Additionally, in recent years, we have gained increased certainty
                of the effectiveness of pinyon-juniper removal on restoring sagebrush
                habitat and the use of restored areas by sage-grouse (Sandford et al.
                2017, p. 63; Severson et al. 2017, p. 53; Olsen 2019, pp. 21-22).
                Further, sage-grouse using restored areas had significantly increased
                survival and brood success in treated versus control areas, with
                population growth was 11.2 percent higher in treatment than in control
                sites within 5 years of conifer removal (Olsen 2019, pp. 21-22).
                 Recent trend analyses have given us a stronger understanding of the
                population dynamics of the Bi-State DPS. The Bi-State DPS appears to be
                undergoing population cycling, which is typical of sage-grouse
                populations rangewide. The most recent study concluded that the DPS, as
                a whole, experiences stable trends over all three time periods studied,
                and that in the period 1995-2018, the DPS increased by 2 percent a year
                (95 percent CRI = 0.74-1.42) (Coates et al. 2020, p. 25). Although the
                Bi-State DPS experienced periods of decline, these declines were offset
                by later periods of population growth (Coates et al. 2020, p. 25).
                Overall, the modelled probability of extirpation of the Bi-State DPS
                over the next 10 years is very low (1.1 percent; Coates et al. 2020,
                Table 1). It is important to note that individual population trends of
                some populations within PMUs have declined, and areas such as Sagehen
                and Parker Meadows (both in the South Mono PMU) have high probabilities
                of extirpation over the next 10 years, though the extirpation
                probability of the South Mono PMU is only 3.8 percent (Coates et al.
                2020, Table 1). Longer-term extirpation probabilities are not available
                for all PMUs, but the 30-year probabilities of declining below 50 males
                for the North Mono Lake area (the Desert-Creek Fales, Bodie, and Mount
                Grant PMUs) and for the South Mono PMU were both 8 percent (Garton et
                al 2015, p. 14). Conservation efforts are in place to help offset
                declining populations such as the translocation of broods to Parker
                Meadows, which has shown some early signs of success. Conservation
                measures in other areas, including post-fire restoration, wild horse
                gathers, fuel reduction treatment, and pinyon-juniper removal, are
                further reducing the magnitude of threats.
                 Many of the conservation efforts associated with the BSAP have only
                been completed in recent years or are in the process of being
                completed. As discussed in more detail in our full PECE analysis, 142
                of the 159 identified actions in the BSAP have been initiated and are
                in stages of completion, meaning they are in progress, ongoing, occur
                annually, or have been evaluated as part of the planning process (Bi-
                State TAC 2018, p. 45), but have not necessarily been completed. Thus,
                the full benefits of the conservation actions may not yet be achieved
                or apparent in sage-grouse population growth rates or in probabilities
                of extirpation, which are calculated by projecting past trends into the
                future. Some positive results are already apparent. For example, the
                translocation effort in Parker Meadows began in 2018 and has shown some
                [[Page 18097]]
                early signs of success in improved reproductive success and
                recruitment. Overall, as described in our PECE analysis (Service 2019,
                entire), based on studies showing the effectiveness of other
                conservation actions (such as pinyon-juniper removal) and on detailed
                implementation schedules provided by agencies participating in the
                BSAP, we have sufficient certainty that conservation efforts outlined
                in the BSAP will be implemented and effective, and will increase the
                viability of the species into the future.
                 The BSAP does not remove or eliminate all threats to the species,
                and we expect impacts from cheatgrass, pinyon-juniper encroachment,
                altered wildfire regime, and climate change to continue to act on the
                species into the foreseeable future. Overall, however, we find that the
                BSAP and existing regulatory mechanisms are reducing the level of
                threats and increasing population resiliency across the Bi-State DPS.
                 After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
                cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
                conclude that, due to the effects of conservation actions as analyzed
                under our PECE policy, the threats impacting the Bi-State DPS of the
                greater-sage grouse have been greatly reduced. Thus, after assessing
                the best available information, we conclude that the Bi-State DPS is
                not in danger of extinction throughout all of its range. We, therefore,
                proceed with determining whether the Bi-State DPS is likely to become
                so within the foreseeable future.
                 Threats such as wildfire and altered fire regimes, climate change,
                nonnative invasive plants and native woodland succession, recreation,
                and others are expected to continue or increase into the future. Within
                the foreseeable future, we expect the individual and combined impacts
                of these threats to continue to increase. In particular, effects
                associated with climate change, such as drought, will continue to
                degrade habitat supporting the Bi-State DPS. However, as noted above,
                actions associated with the BSAP are expected to increase resiliency,
                redundancy, and representation of the Bi-State DPS, increasing the
                overall viability of the DPS such that they will be able to withstand
                the increased magnitude of threats into the foreseeable future. Thus,
                after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the
                Bi-State DPS is not likely to become in danger of extinction within the
                foreseeable future throughout all of its range.
                Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
                 Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
                warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
                within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
                of its range. Having determined that the Bi-State DPS is not in danger
                of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
                throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
                danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
                future in a significant portion of its range. The range of a species
                can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of
                ways, so we first screen the potential portions of the species' range
                to determine if there are any portions that warrant further
                consideration. To do the ``screening'' analysis, we ask whether there
                are portions of the species' range for which there is substantial
                information indicating that: (1) The portion may be significant; and,
                (2) the species may be, in that portion, either in danger of extinction
                or likely to become so in the foreseeable future. For a particular
                portion, if we cannot answer both questions in the affirmative, then
                that portion does not warrant further consideration and the species
                does not warrant listing because of its status in that portion of its
                range. Conversely, we emphasize that answering both of these questions
                in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is in danger
                of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
                throughout a significant portion of its range--rather, it is a
                threshold step to determine whether a more-detailed analysis of the
                issue is required.
                 If we answer these questions in the affirmative, we then conduct a
                more thorough analysis to determine whether the portion does indeed
                meet both of the ``significant portion of the range'' prongs: (1) The
                portion is significant and (2) the species is, in that portion, either
                in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable
                future. Confirmation that a portion does indeed meet one of these
                prongs does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or other
                determination as to whether the species is an endangered species or
                threatened species. Rather, we must then undertake a more detailed
                analysis of the other prong to make that determination. Only if the
                portion does indeed meet both prongs would the species warrant listing
                because of its status in a significant portion of its range.
                 At both stages in this process--the stage of screening potential
                portions to identify any that warrant further consideration, and the
                stage of undertaking the more detailed analysis of any portions that do
                warrant further consideration--it might be more efficient for us to
                address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first.
                Our selection of which question to address first for a particular
                portion depends on the biology of the species, its range, and the
                threats it faces. Regardless of which question we address first, if we
                reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we
                address, we do not need to evaluate the second question for that
                portion of the species' range.
                 For the Bi-State DPS, we chose to address the status question
                (i.e., identifying portions where the Bi-State DPS may be in danger of
                extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future) first. To
                conduct this screening, we considered whether any of the threats acting
                on the DPS are geographically concentrated in any portion of the range
                at a biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following threats
                throughout the range of the DPS: Urbanization and habitat conversion
                (Factor A); infrastructure (Factor A); mining (Factor A); grazing and
                rangeland management (Factor A); nonnative invasive plants and native
                woodland succession (Factor A); wildfires and altered fire regime
                (Factor A); climate change, including drought (Factor A); recreation
                (Factor E); disease (Factor C); predation (Factor C); renewable energy
                (Factor A), commercial and recreational hunting (Factor B); scientific
                and educational uses (Factor B); pesticides and other contaminants
                (Factor E), as well as the potential for effects from small population
                size (Factor E).
                 We identified one portion of the Bi-State DPS, essentially the Pine
                Nut PMU, that is experiencing a concentration of the following threats:
                Urbanization, infrastructure, wildfire (and associated isolation and
                fragmentation of populations), cheatgrass, livestock and feral horses,
                nonnative woodland succession, and recreation. Although these threats
                are not unique to this PMU area, they are acting at a greater intensity
                here (e.g., higher risks from cheatgrass invasion created by more
                frequent wildfires), either individually or in combination, than
                elsewhere in the range. In addition, the PMU's small population size
                (usually less than 100 birds), coupled with the information suggesting
                this unit has a high projected probability of extirpation over the next
                10 years (69.7 percent; Coates et al. 2020, Table 1), leads us to find
                that this portion meets
                [[Page 18098]]
                the screening criteria of whether substantial information exists
                indicating the population occurring here may be threatened or
                endangered.
                 We then proceeded to the significance screening question, asking
                whether there is substantial information indicating that this portion
                of the range (i.e., the Pine Nut PMU) may be significant. As an initial
                note, the Service's most recent definition of ``significant'' within
                agency policy guidance has been invalidated by court order (see Desert
                Survivors v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
                2018). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis the Service is
                screening for significant portions of the range by applying any
                reasonable definition of ``significant.'' Biological importance/
                significance is often considered in terms of resiliency, redundancy, or
                representation.
                 We evaluated the available information about the portion of the DPS
                that occupies the Pine Nut PMU in this context, assessing its
                significance in terms of these conservation concepts, and determined
                the information did not substantially indicate it may be significant.
                Sage-grouse in this PMU exhibit similar habitat use and behaviors to
                sage-grouse in the remainder of the Bi-State DPS; thus, there is no
                unique observable environmental usage or behavioral characteristics
                attributable to just this area's population. While unique genetic
                characteristics have been documented in the PMU's birds, including
                haplotypes not present elsewhere in the DPS, particularly in the
                northern portion (Oyler-McCance et al. 2014, pp. 1303, 1308), we note
                that each of the five other populations in the DPS also exhibit unique
                genetic characteristics and haplotypes. So although there is genetic
                differentiation between the Pine Nut PMU and other PMUs, we found no
                information indicating that the Pine Nut PMU's genetic characteristics
                represent a unique or significant adaptive capacity compared to the
                remainder of the DPS.
                 In addition, the Pine Nut PMU has the smallest number of birds
                compared to the other PMUs in the DPS, making up approximately 5% of
                the total population (see Table 1 above), and there is very limited
                movement of these birds into occupied areas of other PMUs. For the
                northern portion of this PMU, which has very few birds and little to no
                lek attendance reported in recent years (see the description of the
                Pine Nut PMU in Range and Population Estimates above), there has been
                no detected movement of birds to other PMUs. There is some movement of
                birds between the southern portion of Pine Nut PMU and the Desert
                Creek-Fales PMU and the Bodie PMU to the south, but this has involved
                only very few birds.
                 Overall, we found no substantial information that would indicate
                the Pine Nut PMU may be significant. While the Pine Nut PMU provides
                some contribution to the DPS's overall ability to withstand
                catastrophic or stochastic events (redundancy and resiliency,
                respectively), and to adapt to changing environmental conditions
                (representation), the best scientific and commercial information
                available indicates that this contribution is very limited in scope due
                to its small population size and isolation from other populations.
                Therefore, because we could not answer both screening questions in the
                affirmative, we conclude that the Pine Nut PMU portion of the range
                does not warrant further consideration as a significant portion of the
                range.
                 In addition to the Pine Nut PMU, we identified another portion of
                the DPS, the White Mountains PMU, where the information regarding
                projections of extirpation probability suggests the population may be
                experiencing a disproportionate response to threats. While the
                magnitude of most threats acting in this PMU (e.g., threats associated
                with cheatgrass, infrastructure, recreation, grazing, predation, and
                drought) are generally lower than the remainder of the range, it also
                has a projected high probability of extirpation (75.1 percent; Coates
                et al. 2020, Table 1). These projections were calculated from limited
                data, as completing surveys was difficult given the area's remoteness
                and being at the highest elevation for the Bi-State DPS, and as a
                result, the authors note that some leks needed to be omitted from the
                analysis due to data quality issues, leks could have been missed, and
                the model may underrepresent abundance for that PMU (Coates et al.
                2020, p. 36). (Coates et al. 2020, pp. 9, 36). However, though the
                model may underrepresent abundance (and thus over represent the
                probability of extirpation to some degree), out of an abundance of
                caution, we proceeded under the premise that this portion of the range
                meets the screening criteria of whether substantial information exists
                indicating the population occurring here may be threatened or
                endangered.
                 Subsequently, as with the Pine Nut PMU, we then proceeded to the
                significance screening question, asking whether there is substantial
                information indicating that this portion of the range (i.e., the White
                Mountains PMU) may be significant. As in the Pine Nut PMU, sage-grouse
                in the White Mountains PMU exhibit similar habitat use and behaviors to
                sage-grouse in the remainder of the Bi-State DPS; thus, there is no
                unique observable environmental usage or behavioral characteristics
                attributable to just this area's population. In the White Mountains
                PMU, unique genetic characteristics have been documented in the PMU's
                birds, including haplotypes not present elsewhere in the DPS (Oyler-
                McCance et al. 2014, pp. 1304, 1308). However, although there is
                genetic differentiation between the White Mountains PMU and other PMUs,
                we found no information indicating that the White Mountains PMU's
                genetic characteristics represent a unique or significant adaptive
                capacity compared to the remainder of the DPS.
                 Additionally, the White Mountains PMU has relatively few birds
                compared to most other PMUs in the DPS. Though exact counts are not
                available due to the isolated nature of this PMU, recent surveys have
                found only two leks, with between zero and nine males documented per
                lek per year (NDOW 2018, unpublished data). Historical evidence
                suggests bird densities in this area have always been low (Bi-State
                Local Planning Group 2004, p. 108); Service 2020, pp. 31-32).
                Additionally, there has been no recent recorded movement of birds into
                occupied areas of other PMUs. Though a potential connectivity corridor
                exists between populations in the South Mono and White Mountains PMUs,
                the vegetation within this corridor has apparently changed due to
                woodland succession, and an aerial survey suggests that current
                vegetation is not suitable sage-grouse habitat (Bi-State Lek
                Surveillance Program 2012, p. 36; Service 2020, pp. 29-30).
                 Overall, we found no substantial information that would indicate
                the White Mountains PMU may be significant. While the White Mountains
                PMU provides some contribution to the DPS's overall ability to
                withstand catastrophic or stochastic events (redundancy and resiliency,
                respectively), and to adapt to changing environmental conditions
                (representation), the best scientific and commercial information
                available indicates that this contribution is very limited in scope due
                to its small population size and isolation from other populations.
                Therefore, because we could not answer both screening questions in the
                affirmative, we conclude that the White Mountains PMU portion of the
                range does not warrant further consideration as a significant portion
                of the range.
                [[Page 18099]]
                 Because we did not identify any portions of the Bi-State DPS entity
                where: (1) It may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in
                the foreseeable future; and (2) it may be significant, a more thorough
                significant portion of the range analysis is not required. Therefore,
                we conclude, based on this screening analysis, that no portions warrant
                further consideration through a more detailed analysis, and the Bi-
                State DPS is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so within
                the foreseeable future within a significant portion of its range. Our
                approach to analyzing significant portion of the species' range in this
                determination is consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert
                Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL
                4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018); Center for Biological Diversity v.
                Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017); and Center for
                Biological Diversity v. Everson, 2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020).
                Determination of Status
                 Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
                indicates that the Bi-State DPS of greater sage-grouse no longer meets
                the definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we are withdrawing
                our proposed rule to list the DPS as threatened. Consequently, we are
                also withdrawing the associated proposed 4(d) and critical habitat
                rules.
                References Cited
                 A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
                on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
                Reno Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
                Authors
                 The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
                U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Reno
                Fish and Wildlife Office.
                Authority
                 The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
                1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
                Aurelia Skipwith,
                Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
                [FR Doc. 2020-06384 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT