3648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules

lb/gal) of primer (less water and exempt

solvents), as applied.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–1557 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of the

Comment Period for the Columbian

Sharp-Tailed Grouse Status Review

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Status review; notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), provides notice of the

reopening of the comment period for the

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

(Tympanuchus phasianellus

columbianus) status review. The

comment period is reopened to

accommodate requests by various

federal and state wildlife resource

agencies for additional time to provide

input. Reopening of the comment period

will also allow further opportunity for

all interested parties to submit

additional information and written

comments to be considered by the

Service for this status review (see DATES

and ADDRESSES).

DATES: Written materials from all

interested parties must be received by

March 27, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, data,

reports, map products, and other

information concerning this status

review should be sent to the Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Upper Columbia River Basin

Field Office, 11103 East Montgomery

Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Warren, at the address listed

above (telephone 509/891–6839;

facsimile 509/891–6748).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is

one of six recognized subspecies of

sharp-tailed grouse that occur in North

America (AOU 1957). Compared to the

other subspecies, Columbian sharptailed grouse are described as slightly

smaller with darker gray plumage.

Historically, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse range extended westward from

the continental divide in Montana,

Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado to

northeastern California and eastern

Oregon and Washington; southward to

northern Nevada and central Utah; and

northward through central British

Columbia.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse rely on

a variety of native habitats within the

sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe,

mountain shrub, and riparian zones of

the northwestern United States (Giesen

and Connelly 1993). Various upland

habitats, with a component of more

dense riparian or mountain shrub

habitat to provide escape cover, are

important to the subspecies from spring

to fall. The availability of suitable

wintering habitat, containing a

dominant component of deciduous trees

and shrubs, is also thought to be a key

element to healthy Columbian sharptailed grouse populations (Marks and

Marks 1987, Giesen and Connelly 1993).

In 1979, the range wide population

estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse was approximately 60,000 to

170,000 individuals, with roughly 60 to

80 percent occurring in British

Columbia (Miller and Graul 1980).

Miller and Graul (1980) also estimated

that the subspecies occupied less than

10 percent of its historic range in Idaho,

Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, 10 to 50

percent in Colorado and Washington,

and 80 percent or more in British

Columbia. The current minimum to

maximum range wide population

estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse is approximately 30,000 to

70,000 individuals, with roughly 60 to

70 percent occurring in southeastern

Idaho. The Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse has been extirpated from

California (circa 1920), Nevada (circa

1950), and Oregon (circa 1960) (Miller

and Graul 1980).

Declines in the overall abundance of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and the

extent of its occupied range have acted

to isolate various populations of the

subspecies. Three relatively large

populations of Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse still exist; one in northwestern

Colorado to south-central Wyoming, one

in southeastern Idaho to northern Utah,

and one in central British Columbia. To

varying degrees, the remaining areas

occupied by the subspecies are made up

of relatively small and isolated local

populations.

Much of the historic area used by

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse has been

converted for crop production and

affected by other influences including

rural and suburban development, dam

construction, minerals exploitation,

chaining, herbicide spraying, and fire

(Miller and Graul 1980, Wood 1991,

Giesen and Connelly 1993). In addition,

grazing practices over large portions of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range

may negatively impact native habitats

(Hart et al. 1950, Miller and Graul 1980,

Kessler and Bosch 1982, Giesen and

Connelly 1993). Intensive grazing

pressure may be especially detrimental

to nesting and wintering habitats used

by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations, primarily due to impacts

on their cover and food resources.

Much of the area currently and

potentially occupied by Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse is in private

ownership. Presently, large portions of

these privately owned lands are

withdrawn from crop production and

planted to native and non-native cover

under the Federal Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) (USDA 1998). CRP lands

have become very important to

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in

Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and

Washington. A number of CRP contracts

are scheduled to expire from 1999

through the year 2002. The potential net

changes that may occur under the CRP

vary considerably by the counties and

states occupied by Columbian sharptailed grouse. Presently, it is unclear

what affects these potential changes

may have on the subspecies’

populations.

Currently, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse are hunted in Colorado, Idaho,

and British Columbia. Hunting is not

likely to have an additive affect over

natural mortality for relatively large,

stable populations of upland birds

under managed conditions (Braun et al.

1994). However, depending on the

status of the hunted population and

hunter access patterns, some areas may

act as population ‘‘sinks’’ and be

adversely impacted by additional

mortality. Incidental or illegal take of

the subspecies may also occur,

especially in areas hunted extensively

for other upland game (Hart et al. 1950,

Miller and Graul 1980).

Reintroduction efforts for Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse have taken place in

Washington, Montana, Oregon, Nevada,

and Idaho. Many early reintroduction

efforts conducted for prairie grouse

(including sharp-tailed grouse) failed to

produce self-sustaining populations or

to increase the size or distribution of

augmented populations (Toepfer et al.

1990). However, several recent efforts

have shown greater potential to be

effective as the techniques for

reintroductions have improved.

The Service published a notice in the

Federal Register on October 26, 1999,

announcing that a range wide status

review for the Columbian sharp-tailed

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 15 / Monday, January 24, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3649

grouse was being conducted (64 FR

57620). The original comment period for

this status review closed December 27,

1999. The Service will now accept

information concerning this status

review through March 27, 2000. The

Service will also solicit the opinions of

appropriate and independent specialists

regarding the data, assumptions, and

supportive information presented for

the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

status review, per the Interagency

Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in

Endangered Species Act Activities (59

FR 34270).

References Cited

AOU. 1957. American Ornithological Union

Check-list of North American Birds. The

Lord Baltimore Press, Inc., Baltimore,

Maryland. pp 137–139.

Braun, C.E., K.M. Giesen, R.W. Hoffman, T.E.

Remington, and W.D. Snyder. 1994.

Upland Bird Management Analysis Guide,

1994–1998. Div. Report No. 19, Colorado

Division of Wildlife. pp 1–39.

Giesen, K.M. and J.W. Connelly. 1993.

Guidelines for Management of Columbian

Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitats. Wildl. Soc.

Bull. 21:325–333.

Hart, C.M., O.S. Lee, and J.B. Low. 1950. The

Sharp-tailed Grouse in Utah—Its Life

History, Status, and Management. Pub. No.

3, Utah State Dept. of Fish and Game.

Kessler, W.B. and R.P. Bosch. 1982. Sharptailed Grouse and Range Management

Practices in Western Rangelands. Pages

133–146 in J.M. Peek and P.D. Dalke, eds.

Wildlife—Livestock Relationships Symp.

10th Proc. Univ. of Idaho For., Wildl., and

Range Exp. Stn., Moscow, Idaho.

Marks, J.S. and V.S. Marks. 1987. Habitat

selection by Columbian Sharp-tailed

Grouse in West-central Idaho. Bureau of

Land Management Report, Boise, Idaho.

115 pp.

Miller, G.C. and W.D. Graul. 1980. Status of

Sharp-tailed Grouse in North America.

Pages 18–28 in P.A. Bohs and F.L. Knopf,

eds., Proc. of the Prairie Grouse Symp.,

Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.

Toepfer, J.E., R.L. Eng, and R.K. Anderson.

1990. Translocating Prairie Grouse: What

Have We Learned? Trans. 55th N.A. Wildl.

and Nat. Res. Conf. pp 569–579.

USDA. 1998. The Conservation Reserve

Program: 16th Signup. January 29, 1998

Report by the Farm Service Agency. 249

pp.

Wood, M.A. 1991. Columbian Sharp-tailed

Grouse Mitigation Implementation Plan for

Western Montana. Report by the Montana

Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 24 pp.

Author: The primary author of this notice

is Chris Warren of the Upper Columbia River

Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive,

Spokane, Washington 99206 (Telephone:

509/891–6839).

Authority: The authority of this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: January 13, 2000.

Thomas Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1446 Filed 1–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–p