Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60391

should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly

labeled with the party’s name,

proceeding (including the docket

number (MM Docket No. 83–484), type

of pleading, date of submission, and the

name of the electronic file on the

diskette. The label should also include

the following phrase: ‘‘Disk Copy—Not

an Original.’’ Each diskette should

contain only one party’s pleadings,

preferably in a single electronic file. In

addition, parties must send diskette

copies to the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Room CY–B402, Washington, D.C.

20554.

26. Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding

will be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding, subject to the

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ requirements

under Section 1.1206(b) of the rules, 47

CFR 1.1206(b), as revised. Ex parte

presentations are permissible if

disclosed in accordance with

Commission rules, except during the

Sunshine Agenda period when

presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are

generally prohibited. Persons making

oral ex parte presentations are reminded

that a memorandum summarizing a

presentation must contain a summary of

the substance of the presentation and

not merely a listing of the subjects

discussed. More than a one or two

sentence description or the views and

arguments presented is generally

required. 47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2), as

revised. Additional rules pertaining to

oral and written presentations are set

forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the

Commission’s rules.

27. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act

Analysis. The actions taken in this

Order and Request to Update Record

have been analyzed with respect to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA), and found to request new or

modified reporting or recordkeeping by

the public. It will be submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

emergency review under Section 3507

of the PRA.

Ordering Clauses

28. Authority for issuance of this

Order and Request to Update Record is

contained in sections 4(i), 303 and 315

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 315.

29. Sections 73.1920 and 73.1930 of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

73.1920, 73.1930 (broadcast personal

attack and political editorial rules), and

§ 76.209(b), (c), and (d) of the

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 76.209(b),

(c), (d), (cable personal attack and

political editorial rules) are suspended

upon the adoption date of this Order

and Request to Update Record through

December 2, 2000. This action is taken

pursuant to sections 4(i), 303 and 315 of

the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303, 315.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting, television

broadcasting.

47 CFR Part 76

Cable television service.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–26014 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition To List the Columbian SharpTailed Grouse as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month

finding for a petition to list Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus

phasianellus columbianus) throughout

its known historic range in the 48

contiguous United States under the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. We have reviewed the

petition, information available in our

files, other published and unpublished

information submitted to us during the

public comment period following the

90-day petition finding, consulted with

recognized prairie grouse experts, and

coordinated with other Federal, State,

and tribal resource agencies within the

historic range of the subspecies. On the

basis of the best scientific and

commercial information available, we

find that listing the Columbian sharptailed grouse as a threatened species

throughout its historic range in the

contiguous United States is not

warranted at this time.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made September 27,

2000. Comments and information may

be submitted until further notice is

given by a document published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, and material concerning the

petition finding may be submitted to the

Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia River

Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 11103 East

Montgomery Drive, Spokane,

Washington, 99206. The 12-month

petition finding, supporting data, and

comments are available for public

inspection, by appointment, during

normal business hours at the above

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Warren at the above address or

telephone (509) 893–8020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the

maximum extent practicable, that we

make a finding within 12 months of the

date of receipt of a petition containing

substantial information on whether the

petitioned action is: (a) not warranted,

(b) warranted, or (c) warranted but

precluded from an immediate proposal

by other pending proposals of higher

priority. Upon making a 12-month

finding, we must promptly publish such

notice in the Federal Register.

On March 16, 1995, we received a

petition from the Biodiversity Legal

Foundation, Boulder, Colorado, dated

March 14, 1995. The petitioner

requested that the Columbian sharptailed grouse be listed as a threatened

species throughout its known historic

range in the 48 contiguous United States

and that critical habitat be designated

for the species as soon as its biological

needs are sufficiently well known. The

petition also recommended a review of

the species’ status in British Columbia,

Canada.

We added the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse to our candidate species list on

January 6, 1989, as a Category 2 species

(54 FR 560). Category 2 species were

those for which we possessed

information indicating that a proposal to

list as endangered or threatened was

possibly appropriate, but for which

conclusive data on biological

vulnerability and threats were not

available to support a proposed rule. On

February 28, 1996, we discontinued the

designation of Category 2 species as

candidates for listing under the Act (61

FR 7596).

Due to a backlog of listing actions and

funding constraints in our listing

program, we have implemented our

Listing Priority Guidance during the

course of listing actions for the subject

petition. The guidance, first adopted on

60392 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), was

updated on May 16, 1996 (61 FR 24722),

December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475), May

8, 1998 (63 FR 25502), and, most

recently, on October 22, 1999 (64 FR

57114). The guidance is a biologically

based method of prioritizing listing

actions to provide the greatest

conservation benefit to imperiled

species in the most expeditious manner.

On October 26, 1999, we determined

that the petition presented substantial

information and that the petition action

may be warranted. We published an

announcement of our administrative

finding (64 FR 57620). At that time, we

initiated a status review of the

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in

accordance with our Listing Priority

Guidance.

Species Information

The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is

one of seven recognized subspecies of

sharp-tailed grouse that have been

described in North America (AOU 1957,

Aldrich 1963, Johnsgard 1973, Miller

and Graul 1980, Connelly et al. 1998).

Compared to the other subspecies,

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are the

smallest and have darker gray plumage,

more pronounced spotting on the throat,

and narrower markings on the

underside. 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 and extreme southeastern British

Columbia.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse rely on

a variety of good quality 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 (Saab and

Marks 1992, Giesen and Connelly 1993).

Suitable wintering habitat, that consists

largely of deciduous trees and shrubs, is

also thought to be a key element to

healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations (Marshall and Jensen 1937,

Hart et al. 1950, Marks and Marks 1987,

Giesen and Connelly 1993).

Male sharp-tailed grouse employ

elaborate courtship displays in the

spring to attract females to central

dancing grounds, called leks.

Established leks may be used for many

years, although the exact dancing

locations may shift position over time

and smaller satellite leks often form in

the vicinity of historic leks. Interacting

clusters of leks in a local area, where

males and females may switch sites

within and between seasons, are defined

as lek complexes (Schroeder et al., pers.

comm. 2000). Individual leks can

consist of several to over 30 displaying

males, under good conditions 15 to 25

males per lek are common (Meints,

Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, pers.

comm. 1995 and 1998; Schroeder,

Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

(WDFW), pers. comm. 1995, 1998, and

2000). Due to social structures within a

lek and other potential influences, such

as exposure to predation, leks seldom

support more than 25 males (Moyles

and Boag 1981, Rodgers 1992, Connelly

et al. 1998). The few dominant males at

a lek’s center account for the majority of

successful mating attempts (Leopold et

al. 1981, Moyles and Boag 1981).

Spring-to-fall home range sizes of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are

relatively small, generally less than 2

square kilometers (km2) (1.2 square

miles (mi2)), and the areas used are

usually within a few km (mi) of a lek.

Females typically nest and rear their

broods within 1.6 km (1 mi) of an active

lek, although nesting more than 3 km

(1.9 mi) from a lek has been recorded

(Saab and Marks 1992, Giesen and

Connelly 1993). Seasonal movements to

wintering areas from breeding grounds

are typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi)

(Giesen and Connelly 1993), although

movements of up to 20 km (12.4 mi)

have been recorded (Meints 1991). The

annual survival rate of sharp-tailed

grouse is relatively low, and ranges from

roughly 20 to 50 percent (WDFW 1995,

Connelly et al. 1998).

The area within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of a

lek is thought to be critical to the

management of Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse and this area should contain, or

provide access to, suitable wintering

habitats (Saab and Marks 1992, Giesen

and Connelly 1993). Because of their

influence on the species’ demographics,

leks (including the surrounding area)

can be viewed as the principal units

describing the arrangement of sharptailed grouse populations. Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse assemblages range

from local populations (single leks to

lek complexes), to regional populations

(potentially interacting local

populations occupying small geographic

areas, such as a county), to

metapopulations (potentially interacting

regional populations occupying larger

geographic areas).

Various historic accounts indicate

that Columbian sharp-tailed grouse were

once much more abundant throughout

their range where suitable habitats

occurred (Hart et al. 1950, Buss and

Dziedzic 1955, Gruell circa 1960,

WDFW 1995). Excessive hunting in the

mid to late 19th century is thought to

have been a major contributing factor to

the early extirpation of local

populations and the initial reduction of

the subspecies’ range (Hart et al. 1950).

However, since the turn of the century,

the conversion of native habitats for

crop production and their degradation

as a result of heavy livestock grazing are

thought to be the primary factors in

further population declines and range

reductions (Hart et al. 1950, Buss and

Dziedzic 1955, Miller and Graul 1980,

Marks and Marks 1987, Braun et al.

1994, WDFW 1995, McDonald and

Reese 1998, Connelly et al. 1998).

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have

been extirpated from California, Nevada,

and Oregon (Miller and Graul 1980,

Connelly et al. 1998). Past declines in

the subspecies’ overall abundance and

extent of occupied range have isolated

various populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse from one another

since the mid-1900’s (cf Hart et al.

1950).

When large geographic areas are

considered (e.g., states and provinces),

the overall distribution of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse appears to have

changed little since the mid-1900’s, and

various sources have acknowledged the

difficulty of obtaining accurate

population estimates for the subspecies

(Hart et al. 1950, Rogers 1969, Miller

and Graul 1980, Schroeder et al., pers.

comm. 2000). However, when smaller

geographic areas are considered (e.g.,

local populations, regional populations),

a general pattern of continued range

reduction and population decline is

apparent from the mid-1900’s to the

present (Miller and Graul 1980; WDFW

1995; Ritcey 1995; Schroeder et al.,

pers. comm. 2000; Mitchell, Utah Dept.

of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1995

and 1998; Hoffman, Colorado Dept. of

Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1995 and

1998; Thier, Montana Dept. of Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks, pers. comm. 1998;

Chutter, B.C. Min. of Env., Wildlife

Branch, pers. comm. 1995). Based on a

questionnaire distributed to wildlife

professionals in 1979 throughout the

species’ range, Miller and Graul (1980)

state that populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse occupy less than 10

percent of their former range in Idaho,

Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, 10 to 50

percent in Colorado and Washington,

and 80 percent or more in British

Columbia.

Most current population estimates

have been derived from spring breeding

population censuses collected by state

and Federal agencies over the last two

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60393

decades. In general, estimates of fall

population sizes are roughly double that

of the spring breeding population. Most

of the following discussions of

distribution and abundance of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse by State

and province are based on published

and unpublished agency reports

furnished after submission of the

petition in March 1995, and during the

public comment period for the status

review, initiated in October 26, 1999.

These reports are cited below, as

appropriate. In addition, the following

information is based on the best

estimates of recognized experts (SRTIM

2000), and an independent report

solicited by the Service that addresses

the viability of the various extant

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations (Bart 2000). This report was

prepared using and summarizing data

submitted by State and Bureau of Land

Management offices and on maps of

historic and current distributions of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse prepared

by Schroeder (2000) using information

obtained from State and Federal

biologists working on this species.

Based on the best available

information, the current minimum to

maximum breeding population estimate

for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is

approximately 51,000 to 52,000 (mean =

51,500) individuals within the U.S., and

56,000 to 61,500 (mean = 58,700)

individuals within the total range.

These populations occupy

approximately 38,400 km2 (23,800 mi2)

within the U.S. and 79,300 km2 (49,200

mi2) rangewide. Over 93 percent of all

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur

within the three metapopulations in

northwest Colorado/south-central

Wyoming (roughly 4,800 birds),

southeastern Idaho/northern Utah

(roughly 40,000 birds in Idaho and

5,100 in Utah), and central British

Columbia (4,700 to 9,600). These three

metapopulations are reported to be

either stable or increasing (state reports

summarized in Bart 2000). Rangewide,

these three metapopulations including

the stable population within British

Columbia, stable and/or increasing

populations occupy approximately

68,000 km2 (42,200 mi2) which is over

85 percent of the occupied range (79,300

km2) (49,200 mi2).

Colorado (Mumma, in litt. 1999; Bart

2000; House, in litt. 2000)—There are

two subpopulations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse in Colorado. The

northwest region contains numerous

interacting local populations with

multiple leks, which likely constitute a

distinct, interacting metapopulation

totaling roughly 4,700 birds in the

spring breeding population (9 percent of

the current rangewide spring breeding

population within the United States

(U.S.)) and occupies about 8,700 km2

(5,400 mi2) (23 percent of the current

range within the U.S.). This population

occurs primarily in Moffat, Routt, and

Rio Blanco Counties, and is continuous

with local populations in south-central

Wyoming (see below). Current trend

data indicate the population is likely

stable and increasing. Mesa County, in

the west-central region, may still harbor

a remnant local population. If this

population still exists, it is isolated from

other regional populations. The last

confirmed sightings of birds in this area

are from circa 1985. The spring breeding

population is estimated to currently be

comprised of up to 50 birds (less than

1 percent of the rangewide population

within the U.S.) and inhabit about 1,600

km2 (990 mi2) (approximately 4 percent

of the currently occupied U.S. range).

Idaho (Meints, pers. comm., 1995,

1998; Bart 2000; Mallet, in litt. 2000)—

There are three subpopulations of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

occupying the state of Idaho. The

southeastern region contains numerous,

interacting local populations with

multiple leks, which likely constitute a

distinct, interacting metapopulation

totaling roughly 40,000 birds in the

spring breeding population (78 percent

of the rangewide population within the

U.S.). The population occupies

approximately 14,800 km2 (9,200 mi2)

(39 percent of the current range within

the U.S.). This population is likely

stable and increasing. It occurs

primarily south of Rexburg and east of

Rupert, Idaho, and is continuous with

local populations in northern Utah (see

below). The upper Snake River region,

including the Sand Creek and Tex Creek

areas, harbors roughly 600 birds in the

spring breeding population

(approximately 300 in each area). Birds

from these two areas likely interact with

one another and with the larger

population in the southeastern region.

This population is reported to be stable.

Washington and Adams Counties, in the

west-central region, harbor roughly 200

to 300 birds in the spring breeding

population (less than 1 percent of the

total U.S. population), which supports

approximately 7 leks over about 1,690

km2 (1,050 mi2) (4 percent of the current

range within the U.S.). The population

is reported to be stable, although the

area is isolated from other regional

populations. Translocation efforts

conducted in extreme south-central

Idaho beginning in 1992 have resulted

in an isolated local population (200 to

400 birds in the spring breeding

population; less than 1 percent of U.S.

total), supporting at least 3 leks over 175

km2 (110mi2) (less than 1 percent of the

total range within the U.S.). This area is

contiguous with a small population of

reintroduced birds in northeastern

Nevada (see below). Translocated birds

originated from the population in

southeastern Idaho.

Montana (Wood 1991; Wood 1992;

Bart 2000; McCarthy, in litt. 2000)—Two

small local populations occur in the

northwestern region of this state, one in

Lincoln County near the international

boundary with British Columbia, the

other to the southeast in Powell County.

The Lincoln County area supports fewer

than 30 birds in the spring breeding

population on a single lek, while the

Powell County area supports fewer than

50 birds in the spring breeding

population on a few leks. From 1987

through 1991, and again in 1996 and

1997, the Lincoln County population

was augmented with birds translocated

primarily from central British Columbia

(one effort included birds translocated

from southeastern Idaho). The

taxonomic status of the Powell County

population is in question. Based on

evaluation of a limited number of

specimens, these birds may show a

greater morphological affinity to the

plains subspecies. These two local

populations are isolated from one

another and from other regional

populations. During the early 1970s and

again in 1980, limited efforts to

reintroduce sharp-tailed grouse to the

National Bison Range (roughly 50 km

(30 mi) northwest of Missoula) were

conducted with birds translocated from

southeastern Idaho. It is unlikely that

any of these birds or their offspring

persisted in the area. Both of these

populations are probably still declining,

but comprise less than 1 percent of the

total U.S. subpopulation.

Nevada (Morros 1999; Crawforth, in

litt. 2000)—One introduced population

currently exists in Nevada. During the

spring of 1999, 54 birds were

translocated to the Snake Range in Elko

County. Translocated birds originated

from the population in southeastern

Idaho. The most recent census

information indicates there are roughly

20 to 40 birds remaining from this

initial effort. Additional translocation

efforts are planned through 2003, with

a goal of releasing approximately 50

birds per year from the same source

population. This reintroduced local

population is likely continuous with

reintroduced birds in south-central

Idaho (see above).

Oregon (Crawford and Snyder 1992,

Bart 2000, Crawford and Coggins

2000)—One introduced population

currently exists in Oregon. From 1991

60394 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

through 1997, a total of 179 birds had

been translocated into Wallowa County

in northeastern Oregon from the

population in southeastern Idaho. As

the result of these reintroduction efforts,

an isolated local population may have

been established. Recent census

information indicates there are roughly

15 to 30 individuals in the spring

breeding population, supporting one or

few leks, and the population is likely

declining.

Utah (Bart 2000; Mitchell, in litt.

2000)—One subpopulation currently

exists in northern Utah. It contains

numerous, interacting local populations

with multiple leks, which likely

constitute a distinct, interacting

metapopulation totaling roughly 5,100

birds in the spring breeding population

(10 percent of the U.S. subpopulation).

This population is continuous with the

population in southeastern Idaho (see

above) and is reported to be stable and

increasing, currently occupying roughly

3,600 km2 (2,200 mi2) (9 percent of the

range within the U.S.) .

Washington (Schroeder, in litt. 2000;

Cawston, in litt. 2000; Schroeder et al.,

pers. comm. 2000)—Eight local

populations occur in north-central

Washington; 3 likely have multiple leks,

while 5 consist of single or few leks.

The overall estimate for the State is

approximately 900 individuals in the

spring breeding population. Some

minimal interaction may occur between

a few local populations, while others are

isolated. The region is isolated from

other regional populations and

comprises approximately 1,700 km2

(1,100 mi2) (4 percent of the range

within the U.S.). During the spring of

1998, and again in 1999, translocation

efforts were conducted to augment one

of the remnant, local populations in

north-central Washington. Translocated

birds originated from the population in

southeastern Idaho. The Nespelem

population is reported to be stable, but

the remainder of the populations are

likely declining.

Wyoming (Oedekoven 1985; Kruse, in

litt. 1999; Bart 2000)—The most recent

census information for Wyoming

indicates there is one population in the

south-central region of the state,

consisting of roughly 100 to 500 birds in

the spring breeding population (less

than 1 percent of the U.S.

subpopulation) and supporting multiple

leks over 2,500 km2 (1,600 mi2) (6

percent of the range within the U.S.).

The population occurs in Carbon

County and is continuous with the

population in northwestern Colorado

(see above). This population is reported

to be stable.

British Columbia, Canada (Ritcey

1995; Chutter, pers. comm. 1995; Bart

2000)—The central region of British

Columbia (Fraser Plateau) contains

numerous, interacting local populations

with multiple leks, which likely

constitute a distinct, interacting

metapopulation totaling roughly 4,700

to 9,600 birds in the spring breeding

population (averaging 12 percent of the

rangewide subpopulation) over an area

of approximately 41,000 km2 (25,000

mi2) (51 percent of the current

rangewide area). This metapopulation is

reported to be stable. The available

information indicates that the more

northerly populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse in British Columbia

may show a greater morphological and

behavioral affinity to the northern

subspecies (Tympanuchus phasianellus

caurus). The area directly south of

Cranbrook (southeastern region) may

contain one local population with single

to few leks. This population is isolated

from other regional populations. The

area south of Merritt to the Washington

border (south-central region) contains

individual birds or small flocks during

the winter, with no breeding behavior

(i.e., leks) apparent.

Section 4(a) of the Act describes five

threat factors that we must consider to

determine whether any species is a

threatened or endangered species for

purposes of the Act. Any one or

combination of the five threat factors

may indicate the appropriateness of a

warranted 12-month administrative

finding. Section 4(b) of the Act requires

that we also give consideration in our

determination of a species’ status to

efforts being made by any state or

foreign nation to protect such species.

Below, the available information is

considered with regard to the five threat

factors established by the Act and any

ongoing conservation measures for

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

(1) Present or Threatened Destruction,

Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat

or Range

Large portions of native habitats

historically used by Columbian sharptailed grouse have been converted for

crop production and impacted 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; Schroeder,

pers. comm. 1995 and 1998; Mitchell,

pers. comm. 1995 and 1998; Chutter,

pers. comm. 1995). In addition, past

grazing practices over large portions of

historic Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

range have impacted native habitats

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

Kessler and Bosch 1982, Wood 1992,

Giesen and Connelly 1993). Intensive

grazing pressure can be especially

detrimental to nesting and wintering

habitats potentially used by sharp-tailed

grouse, primarily due to impacts on

cover and food resources. However,

much of the area currently occupied by

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is not

subject to intensive grazing pressure

(SRTIM 2000, see below).

Most of the area currently occupied

by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is

privately owned (Bart 2000), and a large

proportion of these lands are withdrawn

from crop production and planted to

native and non-native cover under the

Federal Conservation Reserve Program

(CRP) (USDA 1998). Except under

extraordinary circumstances, CRP lands

are not subject to grazing and likely

have increased forb and insect

abundance from spring to fall, which

increases the value of these lands to

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse females

who make substantial use of CRP areas

during nesting and brood-rearing (C.

Warren, FWS, Spokane, in litt. 2000).

CRP lands, and probably substantial

amounts of adjacent ‘‘native’’ habitat

(including important wintering habitat

in some regions), are essentially free of

pesticide and herbicide applications

and grazing pressure (Warren, in litt.

2000). Accordingly, these CRP areas

have become very important Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse large

metapopulations in Colorado, Idaho,

Utah, and Wyoming (SRTIM 2000, Bart

2000).

A majority of CRP that are 10-year

contracts for lands in States supporting

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse were

renewed after 1997, resulting in 92 to 99

percent of these lands being relatively

secure until the years 2008 through

2010 (Warren, in litt. 2000). Between the

fall of 1997 and the fall of 1998, the total

amount of CRP land available to

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

increased within all of the counties

harboring the subspecies’

metapopulations within the United

States, including 25, 7, and 1 percent

increases in Utah, Colorado, and Idaho,

respectively. Lands under CRP contract

as of the year 2000 show 1 to 7 percent

acreage increases over those in 1998

(Warren, in litt. 2000).

The potential net changes that may

occur under the CRP or if CRP contracts

expire, vary considerably by county

within the five States where CRP is

shown to be important to Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse. Presently, it is

unclear what effects these changes may

have on the subspecies’ populations. If

CRP lands that are important to the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 60395

smaller populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse revert back to crop

production or are significantly altered,

adverse impacts to these populations

will occur and that will increase the risk

of extirpation of these smaller

populations (Bart 2000). However, the

larger metapopulations are likely

capable of adjusting to these potential

impacts and would not be adversely

effected. This is because smaller

subpopulations within the region could

supply a source for recolonization of

modified sites, or alternate areas of

suitable habitat would be developed

under new CRP contracts to allow the

affected local populations to adjust to

the changes.

Reclaimed mining lands have also

become important to the conservation of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in

northwestern Colorado (Mumma, in litt.

1999). These areas fall under the

requirements of the Colorado Mined

Land Reclamation Act (CMLRA). There

is currently little information available

regarding the ultimate fate of these areas

upon termination of the reclamation

bonds. However, it is not assured that

they will be converted by development

or subject to intensive grazing pressure

following bond release. In addition, as

with CRP contracts, it is likely that

newly reclaimed areas will become

available to Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse in Colorado as current and future

mining operations are completed.

(2) Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Currently, Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse are hunted in the fall in

Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and British

Columbia. Fall population sizes are

roughly double that of the estimated

spring breeding populations. Colorado

maintains a fall hunting season in 1998

and 1999 in the northwest region, with

bag and possession limits of two and

four birds, respectively. Over the last

four years, the annual state harvest

estimate has averaged 218 birds, which

is 2 percent of a fall population of

approximately 9,500 birds. Idaho also

maintains a fall hunting season in 1998

and 1999, with bag and possession

limits of two and four birds,

respectively. The latest available

information indicates that a total of

roughly 3,000 birds are harvested

annually from the southeastern and

upper Snake River regions, which is

approximately 4 percent of the fall

population of about 80,000 birds. Utah

reopened its hunting season in 1998 and

1999. Over the past 2 years, Utah has

issued 663 2-bird permits in a limitedentry hunt. The State harvest estimates

for 1998 and 1999 were 201 birds (less

than 2 percent) and 462 birds (less than

5 percent), respectively, of an

approximate fall population of 10,200

birds. In British Columbia, it is

estimated that up to 5,000 birds (35

percent of an average fall population of

14,300 birds) are harvested during some

hunting seasons, however, this estimate

is not based on rigorous surveys and is

subject to wide year-to-year variation.

For relatively large, stable populations

of upland birds under managed

conditions, hunting is not likely to have

an additive effect over natural mortality

because the percentage of the

population that is eliminated through

hunting mortality is minimal and

compensated through the normal

population processes of reproduction

and immigration (Braun et al. 1994,

SRTIM 2000). Depending on the status

of the hunted population and hunter

access patterns, some local areas may

act as population sinks and be adversely

impacted by the additional mortality.

However, the estimated harvest rates are

not likely to adversely effect the

metapopulations of Columbian sharptailed grouse in the States with hunting

seasons (Bart 2000).

Several reintroduction efforts have

taken place or are planned for

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The

relatively small, isolated populations

would be adversely impacted by the

removal of source birds for these

projects, as may have occurred in

British Columbia (Chutter, pers. comm.

1995). In addition, birds translocated

from disparate parts of their range may

not thrive or survive in the release area

(Wood 1991; Thier, pers. comm. 1998).

It is also unclear what effects the

translocation of birds to disparate parts

of their range may have on the genetic

integrity of the augmented populations.

Saab and Marks (1992) indicate that the

conservation of all potential sources of

genetic variation should be a critical

concern given the fragmented, isolated

nature of some of the subspecies’

populations. Radio-marked birds may

also be more susceptible to predation

and other mortality factors (Marks and

Marks 1987). The small and fragmented

populations of Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse would be at increased risk of

extirpation from these potential threats.

However, as with the potential impacts

to the habitats used by the subspecies

(above), the large metapopulations are

not likely to be adversely affected by

these management activities (Bart 2000).

(3) Disease or Predation

There are apparently no documented

severe episodes of disease or predation

that have played a significant role in the

population declines and range reduction

of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

Episodes of disease or altered predation

patterns may play an important role in

the dynamics of the smaller, isolated

populations and, as above, they are at

increased risk of extirpation from these

potential threats. However, these threats

are currently of minor concern for the

subspecies’ metapopulations.

(4) Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory

Mechanisms

In the majority of the subspecies’

current range regulatory mechanisms

and conservation measures are

apparently adequate for maintaining

viable populations of Columbian sharptailed grouse.

State hunting regulations appear to be

sufficient to control the legal take of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse where

they are hunted, and to avoid adverse

impacts to these populations (above). In

addition, the revegetation and

reclamation standards under the CRP

and CMLRA, respectively, promote the

improvement of habitat conditions for

the subspecies’ metapopulations, and

the CRP restricts livestock grazing on

contract lands except under

extraordinary circumstances.

(5) Other Natural or Human-Caused

Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued

Existence

The fragmented, isolated nature of

some local populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse may place them at

increased risk of extirpation (Bart 2000).

Random environmental and humaninfluenced events could cause

significant mortality to, or disruption of,

local populations of Columbian sharptailed grouse with single or few leks.

Such events could include drought, fire,

inclement weather, accidents,

cultivation practices, recreational

activities, altered predator dynamics, or

disease epidemics (Hart et al. 1950;

Rogers 1969; WDFW 1995; Mitchell,

pers. comm. 1995 and 1998). If the

affected population is also isolated,

there is little chance of reestablishment

to the area and further range reduction

is likely to occur.

There is also concern regarding the

lack of sufficient data with respect to

the genetic integrity of the subspecies’

various populations (Saab and Marks

1992). The deleterious effects of

inbreeding and genetic drift may pose

long-term threats to the smaller, isolated

populations. The breeding dynamics of

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and their

relatively short life spans and sedentary

habits may exacerbate these potential

influences. Conservation or

reestablishment of such populations

60396 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

may require intensive management

efforts (Toepfer et al. 1990).

The factors discussed above are not

considered to be threats to the

subspecies because the large, stable

metapopulations that occur in Colorado,

Idaho, and Utah, representing roughly

97 percent of the subspecies within the

U.S., would likely not be affected.

In summary, the available information

indicates that the subspecies’

metapopulations are relatively secure.

These large metapopulations have

persisted for the last several decades

with no discernable downward trend,

and recent information indicates that

they may currently be increasing, as are

the habitats available to them (SRTIM

2000). However, most of the small,

isolated populations of Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse will likely be

extirpated within a few decades due to

existing threats and current

management scenarios (Bart 2000).

Conservation Measures

An inter-agency (Federal and State)

team is currently preparing a

conservation assessment for Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse in Idaho (Ulliman et

al. 1998). Upon its completion, the

conservation strategy developed in

Idaho may be used as a general model

for conservation actions in other States

and British Columbia.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife

helped form and participates on the

Northwest Colorado Columbian Sharptailed Grouse Work Group (Mumma, in

litt. 1999). The work group includes

interested parties representing resource

industries, sportsmen’s and

conservation groups, and State and

Federal resource agencies. The work

group is currently developing a formal

conservation plan, and is committed to

improving conditions for the Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse population in the

northwest region of the State.

The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife has prepared a

management plan for Columbian sharptailed grouse occurring within the State

(WDFW 1995), and has recently listed

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as a State

threatened species (WDFW 1998a).

Washington currently has a program to

acquire lands for the protection and

active management of Columbian sharptailed grouse (WDFW 1998b).

Restoration and enhancement of native

habitats to improve conditions for

existing (and potential) populations are

planned for these areas (Schroeder, pers.

comm. 1995 and 1998).

Reintroduction efforts for Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse have taken place in

Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho,

and Nevada (SRTIM 2000). 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). Several recent

efforts have shown greater potential to

be effective as the techniques for

reintroductions have improved (Toepfer

et al. 1990; Crawforth, in litt. 2000;

Schroeder, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998;

Meints, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998).

However, most of these improvements

have been concerned with keeping

translocated birds in the immediate

vicinity of the release sites during the

breeding season. While some

reintroduced birds have established leks

and reproduced in the release area over

a number of years, none of these

populations can yet be considered

secure (Bart 2000). Continuing

reintroduction efforts are planned for

Idaho, Nevada, Washington, and

Oregon; and various reintroduction

efforts are being considered for

California, Colorado, and Montana

(SRTIM 2000).

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations in British Columbia may be

expanding on the periphery of their

current range where logging activity has

created suitable open, grassland habitat.

While this is not an active enhancement

effort, the beneficial effects of these

activities are believed to last up to

approximately 15 years (Ritcey 1995;

Chutter, pers. comm. 1995).

Conclusion

We have reviewed the petition,

literature cited in the petition, other

pertinent literature and information

available in our files, and consulted

with biologists and researchers familiar

with Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

After reviewing the best scientific and

commercial information available, and

considering the information’s

significance with regard to the five

listing factors established by the Act and

ongoing conservation measures, we find

that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed

grouse as a threatened species

throughout its known historic range in

the 48 contiguous United States, as

petitioned is not warranted.

In making this finding, we recognize

that there have been declines in

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse

populations primarily attributed to the

loss and degradation of important shrub

steppe, grassland, and riparian habitats.

These impacts are likely due to a

combination of factors including crop

production, over-grazing by livestock,

altered fire frequencies, rural and

suburban development, dam

construction, herbicide spraying,

recreation, and other factors. The

Service’s status review of the Columbian

sharp-tailed grouse range wide has

raised concern regarding the status of

many of the small populations such that

a further status review focusing on these

populations will be initiated. However,

the available information does not

indicate that the large metapopulations

of the subspecies are at increased risk of

extirpation. We also recognize that

various State and Federal agencies

throughout the subspecies’ historic

distribution are actively managing the

populations to try and improve their

overall status and/or attempting to

restore them to currently unoccupied

habitats. If information becomes

available indicating that listing as

endangered or threatened is appropriate,

we would propose to list the Columbia

sharp-tailed grouse. Furthermore, we

retain the option of recognizing a

population segment for listing should

information become available indicating

that such an action is appropriate and

warranted.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available on request from the

Upper Columbia River Basin Field

Office, (See ADDRESSES section).

Author

The primary author of this notice is

Chris Warren, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive,

Spokane, Washington 99206.

Authority: The authority for this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

Dated: September 27, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–25447 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 100400F]

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (SEIS); request for comments.