22984 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

critical habitat for wintering piping

plovers by June 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Questions about this

document should be directed to the

Chief, Division of Conservation and

Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4401 North Fairfax, Room 420,

Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Nolin at the above address or

telephone (703) 358–2171.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

The piping plover (Charadrius

melodus) is a small North American

shorebird that breeds in the Great

Plains, Great Lakes, and upper Atlantic

Coast states; its wintering areas include

the lower Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the

United States. On December 11, 1985,

we published a final rule (50 FR 50720),

listing the piping plover as endangered

in the Great Lakes watershed (Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, northeastern

Minnesota, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario)

and as threatened elsewhere within its

range. All piping plovers on migratory

routes outside of the Great Lakes

watershed or on their wintering grounds

are considered threatened. We did not

designate critical habitat for the species

at that time.

In December 1996, Defenders of

Wildlife (Defenders) filed a lawsuit

against the Department of the Interior

and the Service for failing to designate

critical habitat for the Great Lakes

population of the piping plover.

Defenders filed a second similar lawsuit

for the Northern Great Plains piping

plover population in 1997. These

lawsuits were subsequently combined

(Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Bruce

Babbitt et al., Consolidated Cases Civil

No. 1:96–CV–02695AER and Civil No.

1:97–CV00777AER). In February 2000,

the court issued an order directing us to

publish a proposed critical habitat

designation for the Great Lakes

population of the piping plover by June

30, 2000. Publication of a similar

proposal for nesting areas of the

Northern Great Plains population of

piping plover by May 31, 2001, was also

ordered. A subsequent order directs us

to finalize the critical habitat

designations for the Great Lakes

population by April 30, 2001, including

its wintering habitat, and for the

Northern Great Plains population by

March 15, 2002.

Since we cannot distinguish the Great

Lakes and Great Plains birds on their

wintering grounds, we felt it was

appropriate to propose critical habitat

for all wintering piping plovers

collectively. Further, we determined

that the appropriate course of action

would be to propose critical habitat for

all U.S.-wintering piping plovers on the

same schedule required, under court

order, for the Great Lakes breeding

population. We proposed critical habitat

for wintering piping plovers on July 6,

2000 (65 FR 41782), and published

extensions of the comment period on

August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52691), and

October 27, 2000 (65 FR 64414), so that

the comment period closed on

November 24, 2000. We later reopened

the comment period from February 22,

2001, through March 1, 2001 (66 FR

11134), to accept additional

information. The proposal includes 146

areas along the coasts of North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and

Texas. This includes approximately

2,691 kilometers (1,672 miles) of

shoreline along the Gulf and Atlantic

coasts and along margins of interior

bays, inlets, and lagoons.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered

Species Act requires that we designate

or revise critical habitat based upon the

best scientific and commercial data

available and after taking into

consideration the economic impact, and

any other relevant impact, of specifying

any particular area as critical habitat.

We may exclude an area from critical

habitat if we determine that the benefits

of excluding the area outweigh the

benefits of including the area as critical

habitat, provided such exclusion will

not result in the extinction of the

species. We prepared and made

available a draft economic analysis

concerning the proposed critical habitat

designation (65 FR 52691). We received

considerable public comment on our

draft analysis of the economic effects of

the proposed critical habitat

designation; we reopened the comment

period the last time (66 FR 11134)

primarily to accept additional

information into the record on potential

economic effects of the designation.

Given the extent and detail of the

comments on our draft economic

analysis, and especially the significant

portion of these comments that arrived

after we reopened the comment period

in late February, we were only able to

develop a draft final economic analysis

on April 17, 2001, and a revised draft

one week later. We are currently

reviewing this revised draft. The final

economic analysis is a critically

important part of the analysis required

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; without

the economic analysis, we are unable to

complete an adequate and effective

4(b)(2) analysis.

We, therefore, have delayed by 60

days our final decision on critical

habitat for wintering piping plovers.

Since the current court order requires

this decision to have been made by

April 30, 2001, we have requested the

court to extend the deadline by 60 days,

or until June 29, 2001. We will base our

final determination on material and

information already in the record for

this critical habitat determination and

will publish our determination in the

Federal Register.

Elsewhere in the Federal Register

today we are publishing a final rule

designating critical habitat in the

breeding areas of the endangered Great

Lakes population of piping plovers. In

addition, by May 30, 2001, we will

make a proposed determination of

critical habitat for the breeding areas of

the threatened population of piping

plovers in the northern Great Plains.

Author

The primary authors of this document

are Wendi Weber and Patrick Leonard,

Division of Conservation and

Classification, Arlington, Virginia.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.C.S. 1531

et seq.).

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11206 Filed 5–2–01; 12:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–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 Washington

Population of Western Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a

12-month finding for a petition to list

the Washington population of western

sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus

phaios) under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find

that the petitioned action is warranted,

but precluded by higher priority listing

actions. We will develop a proposed

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22985

rule to list this population segment

pursuant to our Listing Priority

Guidance (LPG). We made this finding

in accordance with a court-approved

settlement in the case of Northwest

Ecosystem Alliance v. Babbitt (No. 00–

520–EAS(D.D.C)).

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was made on April 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit information,

comments, or questions concerning this

petition finding to the Supervisor,

Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane,

Washington 99206. The petition,

administrative finding, supporting

information, and comments received are

available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Warren, Fish and Wildlife

Biologist, at the above address, by

phone at (509) 891–6839, facsimile at

(509) 891–6748, or electronic mail at

chris_warren@fws.gov.

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 that,

for any petition that contains substantial

information, we conduct a status review

and make a finding within 12 months of

the date of receipt of the petition on

whether the petitioned action is: (a) not

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)

warranted but precluded from

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 May 28, 1999, we received a

petition, dated May 14, 1999, from the

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance,

Bellingham, Washington, and

Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Boulder,

Colorado. The petitioners requested that

the Washington population of western

sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus

phaios) be listed as threatened or

endangered under the Act. The petition

clearly identified itself as such and

contained the names, addresses, and

signatures of the petitioning

organizations’ representatives.

Accompanying the petition was

information relating to the taxonomy,

ecology, threats, and the past and

present distribution of western sage

grouse.

The petitioners requested listing of

the Washington population of western

sage grouse based upon threats to the

population and its isolation from the

remainder of the taxon, and they

provided biological and ecological

support for this argument. We

considered this request appropriate

because, while we do not base listing

decisions on political subdivisions other

than international boundaries, we must

consider for listing under the Act any

population of vertebrate taxa (species or

subspecies) if it can be recognized as a

distinct population segment (DPS) (61

FR 4722). The criteria under which we

recognize DPSs are based upon the

population’s discreteness from the

remainder of the taxon and its

significance to the taxon to which it

belongs. Therefore, our status review

considered the population segment of

western sage grouse in Washington as it

relates to the remainder of the taxon.

In July, 2000, the American

Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) recognized

sage grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus) by the common name of

greater sage grouse. In addition, the

AOU recognized sage grouse inhabiting

southwestern Colorado and extreme

southeastern Utah as a congeneric

species (C. minimus), referred to as

Gunnison sage grouse (AOU 2000). The

western subspecies of greater sage

grouse (C. u. phaios) was first described

in 1946 (Aldrich 1946) and was

recognized by the AOU in 1957 (AOU

1957). Compared to the eastern

subspecies (C. u. urophasianus),

western sage grouse have reduced white

markings and darker grayish-brown

feathering, resulting in a more dusky

overall appearance. We adopted the

above nomenclature and recognized

ranges of these taxa for this finding.

We condensed information regarding

the description and natural history of

greater sage grouse from the following

sources—Aldrich 1963, Dalke et al.

1963, Johnsgard 1973, Connelly et al.

1988, Fischer et al. 1993, Drut 1994,

WDFW 1995, Western Sage and

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Workshop (WSCSGW) 1996 and 1998,

and Schroeder et al. 1999.

Grouse are gallinaceous (chicken-like,

ground-nesting) birds, and greater sage

grouse are the largest North American

grouse species. Males and females have

dark grayish-brown body plumage with

many small gray and white speckles,

fleshy yellow combs over the eyes, long

pointed tails, and dark-green toes. Males

also have blackish chin and throat

feathers, specialized erectile feathers at

the back of the head and neck, and

white feathers around the neck and

upper belly. During breeding displays,

males also exhibit patches of bare, olivegreen skin on their breasts.

Greater sage grouse depend on shrub

steppe habitats throughout their life

cycle, and are particularly tied to

several species of sagebrush (Artemesia

spp.). Adult greater sage grouse rely on

sagebrush throughout much of the year

to provide roosting cover and food, and

depend almost exclusively on sagebrush

for food during the winter. A wide

variety of forbs (broad-leaved

herbaceous plants) are also used by

greater sage grouse during the spring

and summer periods. Greater sage

grouse hens require sufficient forb

abundance for their pre-laying and

nesting periods, and an assortment of

forb and insect species form important

nutritional components for chicks

during the early stages of development.

Greater sage grouse may disperse up to

160 kilometers (km) (100 miles (mi))

between seasonal use areas, however,

average movements are generally less

than 35 km (21 mi).

During the spring breeding season,

male greater sage grouse gather together

and perform courtship displays on

relatively open areas called leks. Leks

are often surrounded by more dense

shrub steppe cover where males and

females may disperse to roost or escape

predators during the breeding season.

Males defend individual territories

within leks and perform elaborate

displays with their specialized plumage

and vocalizations to attract females for

mating. Relatively few, dominant males

account for the majority of breeding on

a given lek.

Females typically select nest sites

under sagebrush cover, although other

vegetation is sometimes used. The

simple nests consist of scrapes on the

ground, which are sometimes lined with

feathers and vegetation. Clutch sizes

range from 6 to 13 eggs, and females

may renest with loss of their first clutch.

Nest success ranges from 10 to 63

percent and is relatively low compared

to other prairie grouse species. Chicks

begin to fly at 2 to 3 weeks of age and

broods remain together for up to 12

weeks. Shrub canopy and the cover

provided by grasses and forbs act to

conceal nesting hens and their broods.

The annual mortality rate for greater

sage grouse is roughly 50 to 55 percent,

which is relatively low compared to

other prairie grouse species. Most

juvenile mortality occurs during nesting

and the chicks’ flightless stage and is

due primarily to predation or severe

weather conditions. Up to 50 percent of

all greater sage grouse mortality is

caused by predation, from both avian

(e.g., hawks, eagles, and ravens) and

ground (e.g., coyotes, badgers, and

ground squirrels) predators.

Historically, greater sage grouse

occurred in 12 States and 3 Canadian

provinces (after Schroeder et al. 1999);

22986 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

their range extended from southeastern

Alberta and southwestern

Saskatchewan, Canada, south to

northwestern Colorado, west to eastern

California, Oregon, and Washington,

and north to southern British Columbia,

Canada. Range-wide, the distribution of

greater sage grouse has declined in a

number of areas. Currently, greater sage

grouse occur in 11 States and 2

Canadian provinces; they were

extirpated from Nebraska and British

Columbia (after Braun 1998). There have

also been considerable declines in the

abundance of greater sage grouse from

historic levels (Hornaday 1916,

Crawford and Lutz 1985, Drut 1994,

WDFW 1995, Coggins and Crawford

1996, Braun 1998, Schroeder et al. 1999,

among others).

The historic distribution of western

sage grouse extended from south-central

British Columbia southward throughout

eastern Washington and Oregon, except

in extreme southeastern Oregon near the

Idaho/Nevada borders (Figure 1).

Populations in northern California and

western Nevada are thought to represent

an intermediate form between the

western and eastern subspecies of

greater sage grouse (AOU 1957, Aldrich

1963). Currently, western sage grouse

occupy central and southern Oregon

and two relatively small areas in central

Washington.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22987

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

22988 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Except for Wallowa County, western

sage grouse were distributed throughout

the sagebrush-dominated habitats of

eastern Oregon until the early 1900s

(Gabrielson and Jewett 1940). By 1920,

western sage grouse populations had

decreased and the birds were

considered scarce except for areas in

central and southern Oregon (Gabrielson

and Jewett 1940, Drut 1994). Presently,

Malheur, Harney, and Lake Counties

harbor the bulk of greater sage grouse in

Oregon (roughly 24,000 to 58,000 birds,

both subspecies combined), with the

balance of Oregon’s western sage grouse

population (roughly 3,000 to 8,000

birds) split among Baker, Crook,

Deschutes, Grant, Klamath, Union, and

Wheeler Counties (after Willis et al.

1993).

Historically, western sage grouse in

Washington ranged from Oroville in the

north, west along the Cascade foothills,

east to the Spokane River, and south to

the Oregon border (Yocom 1956).

Historic references indicate there were

large numbers of western sage grouse in

Washington (in Sveum 1995 and WDFW

1995), and annual State harvests

averaged roughly 1,800 birds from 1951

to 1973. Harvest rates declined from

1974 (n = 900) to 1987 (n = 18), and

Washington closed the hunting season

in 1988 (WDFW 1995). Western sage

grouse currently occupy approximately

10 percent of their historic distribution

in the State. There are two

subpopulations of western sage grouse

remaining in Washington, totaling

approximately 1,000 birds (WSGWG

1998). The northern subpopulation

occurs primarily on private and Stateowned lands in Douglas County

(roughly 650 birds); the southern

subpopulation occurs at the Yakima

Training Center (YTC), administered by

the U.S. Department of the Army

(Army), in Kittitas and Yakima Counties

(roughly 350 birds).

Rough estimates, based on the historic

distribution of western sage grouse (after

WDFW 2000) and contemporary density

projections (Johnsgard 1973; Drut et al.

1994a; WDFW 1995; Schroeder, WDFW,

pers. comm. 1999), indicate that there

may have been between 200,000 and

2,000,000 western sage grouse

historically. Using best- and worst-case

scenarios, western sage grouse

abundance has declined between 66

percent and 99 percent from historic

levels, respectively.

Previous Federal Action

We added the western sage grouse to

our candidate species list on September

18, 1985, as a category 2 species (50 FR

37958). 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).

In 1992, we entered into a voluntary

Conservation Agreement with the Army

and the WDFW for western sage grouse

occurring at the YTC. The Conservation

Agreement expired April 30, 2000.

Efforts to update and implement a

revised Conservation Agreement for

western sage grouse throughout

Washington are ongoing.

We published a 90-day finding for the

subject petition on August 24, 2000 (65

FR 51578), which concluded that

substantial information was available to

indicate that the petitioned action may

be warranted and that a status review

would commence. The original public

comment period ended October 23,

2000, but was reopened on January 9,

2001 until February 16, 2001, to provide

additional opportunity for input from

interested parties (66 FR 1632). This 12-

month finding is made in accordance

with a court-ordered settlement in the

case of Northwest Alliance v. Babbitt

(No. 00–520–EAS(D.D.C.)), which

requires us to complete a finding by

May 1, 2001.

Distinct Population Segment Review

Under the Act, we must consider for

listing any species, subspecies, or, for

vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if

there is sufficient information to

indicate that such action may be

warranted. To implement the measures

prescribed by the Act and its

Congressional guidance, we (along with

the National Marine Fisheries Service)

developed policy that addresses the

recognition of DPSs for potential listing

actions (61 FR 4722). The policy allows

for more refined application of the Act

that better reflects the biological needs

of the taxon being considered and

avoids the inclusion of entities that do

not require its protective measures.

Under our DPS policy, we use two

elements to assess whether a population

segment under consideration for listing

may be recognized as a DPS. The

elements are: (1) The population

segment’s discreteness from the

remainder of the taxon; and (2) the

population segment’s significance to the

taxon to which it belongs. If we

determine that a population segment

being considered for listing represents a

DPS, then the level of threat to the

population segment is evaluated based

on the five listing factors established by

the Act to determine if listing it as either

threatened or endangered is warranted.

Below, we assess the population

segment of western sage grouse that

remains in Washington under our DPS

policy.

Discreteness—A population segment

of a vertebrate species may be

considered discrete if it satisfies either

one of the following two conditions: (1)

It is markedly separated from other

populations of the same taxon as a

consequence of physical, physiological,

ecological, or behavioral factors.

Quantitative measures of genetic or

morphological discontinuity may

provide evidence of this separation. (2)

It is delimited by international

governmental boundaries within which

differences in control of exploitation,

management of habitat, conservation

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist

that are significant with regard to

conservation of the taxon. We did not

address the international boundary

criterion in this 12-month petition

finding because western sage grouse

have been extirpated from British

Columbia.

The two subpopulations of western

sage grouse that remain in central

Washington are separated by

approximately 55 km (34 mi). While this

distance is well within the species’

maximum estimated dispersal distance,

a number of recent telemetry studies

have never documented their

intermixing (Schroeder pers. comm.

1999; Pounds, YTC, pers. comm. 1999).

However, until recently, the two

subpopulations were considered

relatively continuous and may now

represent isolated components of a

single metapopulation (WDFW 1995,

Schroeder et al. 2000). In addition,

sporadic sightings outside current

concentrations indicate there may be

some minimal interaction and, possibly,

genetic interchange between them

(WDFW 1995).

The next closest western sage grouse

to the population in Washington are

located over 185 km (115 mi) to the

south, in central Oregon. Historically,

there was a greater level of continuity

and interaction between the population

segments of western sage grouse in these

two regions (Drut 1994). However,

bottlenecks in the distribution of

western sage grouse may have existed

historically across central Oregon

(Figure 1). In this area, western sage

grouse range is confined to relatively

narrow corridors of lower elevation,

shrub steppe habitats that transect

higher elevation, forested habitats. In

addition, the shrub steppe habitats and

land forms found in central Oregon may

further restrict western sage grouse

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22989

distribution within this region (see

below).

It is currently unclear to what extent

the restrictions of shrub steppe habitats

in central Oregon may have acted to

isolate population segments of western

sage grouse historically. Nevertheless,

with regard to western sage grouse

seasonal movements, dispersal

behavior, and recent census information

(Schroeder pers. comm. 1999; Pounds

pers. comm. 1999; Ferry, Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers.

comm. 2001), the population segment

remaining in Washington is now

considered physically discrete from the

population segment in central and

southern Oregon (WDFW 1995,

WSGWG 1998, Schroeder et al. 2000). It

is likely that the population segments

within these two regions have been

physically discrete since at least the

early-1900s (Gabrielson and Jewett

1940, Crawford and Lutz 1985, Drut

1994).

Based on the above information, we

find that the population segment of

western sage grouse that occurs in

Washington is discrete from the

remainder of the taxon.

Significance—Our DPS policy

provides several examples of the types

of information that may demonstrate the

significance of a population segment to

the remainder of its taxon, including—

(a) Persistence of the discrete

population segment in an ecological

setting unusual or unique for the taxon;

and (b) evidence that the discrete

population segment differs markedly

from other population segments in its

genetic characteristics; and (c) evidence

that loss of the discrete population

segment would result in a significant

gap in the range of the taxon. We

address these significance factors below

as they relate to the population segment

of western sage grouse that remains in

Washington.

(a) Persistence in an unusual or

unique ecological setting—The broad

shrub steppe biome historically

occupied by greater sage grouse across

their range consists of a number of

variable habitat types that grade from

one to the next, and which may be

considerably different between the

regions occupied by the species (Miller

and Eddleman 2000). The different

habitats historically and currently

occupied by greater sage grouse are a

reflection of the different geologic,

climatic, and edaphic (soil) conditions

and disturbance regimes influencing the

various regions within the shrub steppe

biome (Miller and Eddleman 2000).

Necessarily, greater sage grouse have

adapted to the mosaic of shrub steppe

habitat types found throughout their

historic distribution (Schroeder et al.

1999).

With regard to the historic range of

western sage grouse, several studies

defined and mapped landscape-level

ecosystem components of the

northwestern United States (Franklin

and Dyrness 1988, Quigley et al. 1997),

while others focused on the

management and conservation of

natural resources within these regional

ecosystems (Wisdom et al. 1998, Miller

and Eddleman 2000). Although there are

a number of differences between these

studies and their stated objectives, the

ecosystem mapping units that result are

surprisingly consistent (Quigley et al.

1997). Use of this biogeographic

information is important in determining

if the population segment of western

sage grouse that remains in Washington

occupies an unusual or unique

ecological setting. In addition, it is

important for delineating the bounds of

any potential DPS in the region, as

required by our DPS policy.

Four (and potentially five) of the

ecosystems identified by the above

studies provide essential habitat

requirements for western sage grouse.

For the purposes of this finding, we

refer to the ecosystems historically

occupied by western sage grouse as the

Columbia Basin, High Lava Plains,

Northern Great Basin, Owyhee Uplands,

and, potentially, the Modoc Plateau

(after Quigley et al. 1997). The

Columbia Basin occurs in Washington

and northern Oregon, while the other

four ecosystems occur in central and

southern Oregon. These ecosystems are

interspersed to varying degrees with

forested habitats of the Southern and

Eastern Cascades ecosystems to the

west, Okanogan Highlands to the north,

and the Bitterroot and Blue Mountains

to the east; and steppe (grassland)

habitats of the Palouse Prairie to the

east.

The population segment of western

sage grouse that remains in Washington

occurs entirely within the Columbia

Basin and is the only representation of

the taxon within this ecosystem. The

population segment of western sage

grouse in central and southern Oregon

shows nearly continuous occupation

across the High Lava Plains, Northern

Great Basin, and Owyhee Uplands.

Given the available information, it is

unclear if the disjunct subpopulation of

greater sage grouse in the vicinity of

Gerber Reservoir in extreme southcentral Oregon (Modoc Plateau)

represents western sage grouse or the

northern extent of intermediate

populations in northern California. This

area is not considered further for the

purposes of this finding.

A number of significant differences

are found between the Columbia Basin

and the balance of historic western sage

grouse range in central and southern

Oregon (Table 1). In general, the

Columbia Basin is lower in elevation,

contains deeper soils of varying origin,

and has been influenced by different

geological processes. These structural

differences, combined with regional

climatic conditions, significantly

influence the broad plant associations

found within each ecosystem

(Daubenmire 1988, Franklin and

Dyrness 1988). Historically, transitional

steppe habitats were much more

prevalent within the Columbia Basin

than within the ecosystems of central

and southern Oregon. In contrast,

juniper (Juniperus spp.) woodlands and

salt-desert shrub habitats were much

more common in central and southern

Oregon. Finally, there are significant

differences in the type and distribution

of sagebrush taxa among the ecosystems

historically occupied by western sage

grouse.

Table 1.—Differences in Ecosystem Elements Between Regions Occupied by the Extant Population Segments of Western

Sage Grouse (After Winward 1980, Daubenmire 1988, Franklin and Dyrness 1988, McNab and Avers 1994, Dobler

et al. 1996, Quigley et al. 1997, and Miller and Eddleman 2000)

ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS—GEOLOGIC, EDAPHIC, AND TRANSITIONAL HABITATS

Population

segment Elevations Soils Channeledscablands

Internallydrained playas Steppe Juniper

woodland

Salt-desert

shrub

Columbia Basin <3,000 ft ............. Deep/Loamy

Glacial/

Eolian.

Prominent

(north).

Rare/Absent .... Abundant

(east).

Rare/Absent .... Rare/Absent.

22990 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS—GEOLOGIC, EDAPHIC, AND TRANSITIONAL HABITATS—Continued

Population

segment Elevations Soils Channeledscablands

Internallydrained playas Steppe Juniper

woodland

Salt-desert

shrub

Central/Southern Oregon.>3,500 ft ............. Thin/Rocky

Volcanic/Alluvial.

Rare/Absent .... Prominent

(NGB, OU) 1.

Rare/Absent .... Abundant

(HLP)

Present

(NGB, OU).

Abundant

(NGB, OU).

1Element primarily applies to the ecosystems noted: HLP—High Lava Plains; NGB—Northern Great Basin; OU—Owyhee Uplands.

ECOSYSTEM ELEMENTS—SAGEBRUSH (Artemesia) TAXA1

Population

segment

Basin

ssp

Wyoming

ssp

Mountain

ssp Low Three-Tip Stiff Early Silver Black

Columbia

Basin.

Dominant .. Rare/Absent.Rare/Absent.Rare/Absent.Abundant

(north).

Abundant .. Rare/Absent Rare/Absent.Rare/Absent.

Central/Southern Oregon.Rare/Absent.Dominant .. Abundant .. Abundant .. Present (OU) Present ..... Present (HLP) Present

(NGB,

OU).

Present

(NGB,

OU).

1Big Sagebrush (A. tridentata) Subspecies (ssp): Basin—A.t. tridentata, Wyoming—A.t. wyomingensis, Mountain—A.t. vaseyana; Low—A.

arbuscula; Three-tip—A. tripartita; Stiff—A. rigida; Early—A. longiloba; Silver—A. cana; Black—A. nova.

There are a number of broad habitat

associations in common between the

Columbia Basin and the ecosystems of

central and southern Oregon

(Daubenmire 1988, Franklin and

Dyrness 1988). However, even within

these common habitat associations,

notable differences exist. In general, the

composition of forb species differs

considerably between the Columbia

Basin and the ecosystems in central and

southern Oregon (Daubenmire 1988 and

Franklin and Dyrness 1988). Even when

the same forb species may be present,

the two regions typically support

different subspecies and/or varieties of

these taxa (Hitchcock and Cronquist

1973).

The differences noted above between

the Columbia Basin and the ecosystems

of central and southern Oregon affect

the essential habitat requirements of

western sage grouse within these

different regions, as described below.

Greater sage grouse are sagebrush

‘‘obligates’’ and depend on sagebrush to

a great degree to provide essential food

and cover requirements, especially

during winter (Drut 1994, Barnett and

Crawford 1994, WDFW 1995, Schroeder

et al. 1999). Greater sage grouse display

preferential use of different taxa of

sagebrush as winter food (Remington

and Braun 1985, Welch et al. 1991) and,

in some areas, low sagebrush may be

preferred over big sagebrush (in

Schroeder et al. 1999). In addition,

greater sage grouse display preference

for the different subspecies of big

sagebrush as food, showing the highest

preference for mountain big sagebrush,

followed by Wyoming big sagebrush,

then basin big sagebrush (Welch et al.

1991). The different growth forms of

sagebrush taxa (Winward 1980 and

1981, Meyer 1992) also provide different

cover conditions for greater sage grouse,

and their winter movements are

associated with locating appropriate

sites (WDFW 1995, Schroeder et al.

1999). The sagebrush taxa that are

available as winter food and cover for

western sage grouse differ between the

Columbia Basin and the ecosystems of

central and southern Oregon (Table 1).

During the breeding season, adult

greater sage grouse undergo a nutritional

deficit and lose weight (WDFW 1995,

Schroeder et al. 1999). During this

period and continuing into summer,

forbs and insects become increasingly

important as food items for greater sage

grouse. Western sage grouse hens

require sufficient forb abundance for

their pre-laying and nesting periods,

and an assortment of forb and insect

species form important nutritional

components for chicks during the early

stages of their development (Gregg et al.

1993, Barnett and Crawford 1994, Drut

et al. 1994b, Hanf et al. 1994).

Preferential use of food resources by

greater sage grouse is believed to be

associated with the foods’ nutritive

values, the dietary needs of the birds,

and, ultimately, the birds’ reproductive

fitness and survival (Remington and

Braun 1985, Johnson and Boyce 1990,

Barnett and Crawford 1994, Drut et al.

1994a, Drut et al. 1994b, Hanf et al.

1994, WDFW 1995, Schroeder et al.

1999). Many of the native forb species

and varieties that differ between the

Columbia Basin and the ecosystems of

central and southern Oregon (Hitchcock

and Cronquist 1973, Franklin and

Dyrness 1988) form important food

items for greater sage grouse from spring

through summer, including those within

the genera Agoseris, Astragalus, Crepis,

Aster, Erigeron, Eriogonum, and

Lomatium (Sveum 1995, Miller and

Eddleman 2000).

From spring through fall, sagebrush

canopies provide vertical cover for

greater sage grouse, while grasses and

forbs provide horizontal cover. This

variety of cover is very important for

concealing nesting hens and their

broods from potential avian and ground

predators, as well as providing

protection from inclement weather.

Western sage grouse in central and

southern Oregon use different sagebrush

habitat associations (e.g., mountain big

sagebrush, low sagebrush) throughout

the spring and summer periods (Gregg et

al. 1993, Barnett and Crawford 1994,

Drut et al. 1994a, Hanf et al. 1994). The

sagebrush habitat associations

preferentially selected by western sage

grouse in central and southern Oregon

are not available to the population

segment within the Columbia Basin

(Table 1).

Juniper woodlands and salt-desert

shrub communities are notable

primarily for their potential to exclude

western sage grouse and the

management implications that result. As

juniper becomes more abundant and

areas become increasingly closed

woodlands, use by greater sage grouse is

precluded. The exclusion of fire from

juniper woodlands allow these

communities to expand. Active invasion

of sagebrush habitat associations by

juniper woodlands has occurred over

the last 130 years (Miller and Eddleman

2000). Likewise, salt-desert shrub

habitats are not typically used by greater

sage grouse. Intense grazing pressure

and other local activities that can affect

the hydrology of an area (e.g., irrigation,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22991

mining, impoundments) may alter the

composition and distribution of saltdesert shrub communities. The historic,

present, and predicted future

occurrence of juniper woodlands and

salt-desert shrub communities differ

between the Columbia Basin and the

ecosystems of central and southern

Oregon (Table 1, Keane et al. 1996).

Based on the above information, we

conclude that the Columbia Basin

represents a unique ecological setting

due to its geologic, climatic, edaphic,

and plant community components. In

addition, the unique elements of the

Columbia Basin ecosystem affect the

essential habitat requirements of

western sage grouse. Necessarily, the

population segment of western sage

grouse occupying the Columbia Basin

must differentially exploit the resources

that are available, as compared to the

population segment within the

ecosystems of central and southern

Oregon. The different habitat use

patterns of western sage grouse within

the Columbia Basin have bearing on

their food and cover preferences,

distribution, movements, reproductive

fitness, and, ultimately, their survival.

The unique elements of the Columbia

Basin also hold different management

implications for western sage grouse

within this ecosystem (see below).

(b) Markedly different genetic

characteristics—To date, most genetic

research on greater sage grouse has

concentrated on clarifying issues

surrounding the taxonomic separation

of Gunnison sage grouse in Colorado.

Results of this research show Gunnison

sage grouse to have a dissimilar genetic

profile and less genetic diversity than

greater sage grouse populations in

Colorado (Quinn et al. 1997, OylerMcCance et al. 1999).

This information supports the new

species designation for these birds

(AOU 2000). The genetic information

concerning Gunnison sage grouse

demonstrates that the genus may

differentiate significantly within a

relatively small geographic region. In

addition, this information is important

for helping to determine the extent of

genetic differentiation between

population segments of greater sage

grouse, and whether such differentiation

may be significant to the remainder of

the taxon.

Additional studies to investigate the

range-wide genetic profiles of greater

sage grouse are ongoing (Quinn et al.

1997; Benedict and Quinn 1998;

Benedict et al. 2001). To date, rangewide investigations include samples

from Colorado, Utah, Nevada,

California, Oregon, and Washington.

Sample sizes are minimal for portions of

the range, and the results are

preliminary and have been used

primarily to guide further investigation

(Oyler-McCance, University of Denver,

pers. comm. 1999; Quinn pers. comm.

1999).

The range-wide investigations into the

genetic profiles of greater sage grouse

have identified a number of rare and

unique haplotypes (from mitochondrial

DNA). In addition, haplotype

frequencies and the level of genetic

diversity vary among the local

populations sampled (Quinn et al. 1997,

Benedict and Quinn 1998, Benedict et

al. 2001). So far, there are several

notable results from this range-wide

work (Benedict et al. 2001). First, the

population sampled from the Mono

Lake area in California and Nevada

stands out for having an unusually high

proportion of novel haplotypes, sharing

only a single haplotype (represented by

just one individual) with the rest of the

range. This population represents the

extreme southwestern extent of historic

greater sage grouse range. Second, there

is no apparent genetic distinction

between the recognized eastern and

western subspecies. Third, the

population segment that remains within

the Columbia Basin stands out for

having very low genetic diversity, with

just three haplotypes represented among

the two subpopulations. Thirteen

individuals sampled from the northern

subpopulation (n = 18) and all of the

individuals sampled from the southern

subpopulation (n = 18) represent a

single, widespread haplotype that is

shared with most of the other sampled

locales. The remaining five individuals

from the northern subpopulation are

represented by a novel (n = 3) or rare (n

= 2) haplotype (Benedict et al. 2001).

The comparatively low genetic

diversity of the population segment of

western sage grouse that remains within

the Columbia Basin is consistent with a

recent and severe bottleneck in its

effective population size (i.e., the

number of individuals contributing to

reproduction), reduced or no gene flow

to this population segment from other

regions, or both (Benedict et al. 2001,

Oyler-McCance et al. in litt. 2001). The

results from the range-wide work on the

regional genetic profiles of greater sage

grouse are suggestive and demonstrate a

marked difference between the

population segment of western sage

grouse within the Columbia Basin and

the population segment in central and

southern Oregon. However, these results

do not necessarily indicate that genetic

differentiation of this population

segment is significant to the remainder

of the taxon. To what extent the forces

of isolation, adaptive change, genetic

drift, and/or inbreeding may have

influenced the regional genetic profiles

of greater sage grouse, including those

that remain within the Columbia Basin,

merits further investigation (Benedict et

al. 2001, Oyler-McCance et al. in litt.

2001).

(c) Significant gap in the range of the

taxon—Western sage grouse represent

the extreme northwestern extent of

greater sage grouse range. In addition,

the population segment that remains

within the Columbia Basin represents

an isolated portion of the northern-most

extent of the historic distribution of

western sage grouse. The Columbia

Basin historically encompassed roughly

55 percent of the entire range of western

sage grouse (Figure 1). Currently,

western sage grouse occupy

approximately 5 percent of their historic

distribution within this ecosystem.

A number of studies address the

characteristics of peripheral and/or

isolated populations and their potential

influences on, and importance to, the

remainder of the taxon. Peripheral and

isolated populations may experience

increased directional selection due to

marginal or varied habitats or species

compositions at range peripheries,

exhibit adaptations specific to these

differing selective pressures,

demonstrate genetic consequences of

reduced gene flow dependent on

varying levels of isolation, and/or have

different responses to anthropogenic

influences (Levin 1970, MacArthur

1972, Morain 1984, Lacy 1987,

Hengeveld 1990, Saunders et al. 1991,

Hoffmann and Blows 1994, Furlow and

Armijo-Prewitt 1995, Garcia-Ramos and

Kirkpatrick 1997, among others).

Recent discussions addressed the

attributes of isolated and peripheral

populations and their potential

importance to conservation efforts.

Some investigations would emphasize

genetic distinctiveness (Lesica and

Allendorf 1995, Waples 1998), while

others suggest a spectrum of influences

may demonstrate the value of discrete

populations (Pennock and Dimmick

1997, Ruggiero et al. 1999). The

purposes of the Act are to conserve

species ‘‘* * * of esthetic, ecological,

educational, historical, recreational, and

scientific value. * * *’’ As addressed

above, the DPS policy reflects this

broader objective and does not limit the

concept of significance strictly to

genetic distinctiveness.

The available information regarding

the historic distribution and potential

isolation of western sage grouse within

the Columbia Basin demonstrates that

this population segment is likely

experiencing increased directional

selection due to marginal and varied

22992 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

habitats at the taxon’s range periphery,

exhibiting genetic consequences of

reduced gene flow from other

population segments, and responding

(and will continue to respond) to the

different anthropogenic influences in

the region.

Based on the above information, we

conclude that loss of the population

segment of western sage grouse that

remains within the Columbia Basin

would represent a significant gap in the

historic range of the taxon (i.e., the loss

of a conspicuous peripheral and isolated

extension of historic range and

representation of the taxon within a

unique ecological setting).

Conclusion

To summarize, we find that the

discrete population segment of western

sage grouse that occurs in Washington is

significant to the remainder of the

taxon, and thus represents a distinct

population segment. The significance of

this population segment is primarily

due to its persistence in the unique

ecological setting of the Columbia Basin.

In addition, information concerning the

historic and current distribution of

western sage grouse indicates that the

loss of the Columbia Basin population

segment would represent a significant

gap in the historic range of the taxon.

Finally, the available genetic

information on western sage grouse,

while inconclusive, further supports the

recognition of this population as a DPS.

We have determined that extirpation of

this population segment may result in

the loss of unique characteristics within

the taxon, likely precluding further

scientific inquiry into potential

differentiation of these characteristics.

As required by our DPS policy, we

determined that the bounds of this DPS

are conterminous with the historic

distribution of western sage grouse

within the Columbia Basin ecosystem

(Figure 1). Consequently, we refer to

this population segment as the

Columbia Basin DPS for the remainder

of this finding.

Consideration of threats to, and

conservation measures for, the

Columbia Basin DPS are addressed

below.

Summary of Factors Affecting the DPS

The Act establishes five categories of

threat that, either singly or in

combination, indicate a DPS may be

threatened or endangered. The five

listing factors that must be considered

are—(1) present or threatened

destruction, modification, or

curtailment of habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational,

scientific, or educational purposes; (3)

disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5)

other natural or human-caused factors

affecting the DPS’ continued existence.

(1) Present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of habitat

or range. A number of influences have

been implicated in the decline of greater

sage grouse distribution and abundance

throughout the species’ range (Crawford

and Lutz 1985, Blus et al. 1989, Braun

et al. 1994, Drut 1994, WDFW 1995,

Fischer et al. 1996, Connelly and Braun

1997, Schroeder et al. 1999). Of primary

concern are impacts to native shrub

steppe habitats, which include

conversion for agriculture, urban and

mineral resources developments,

construction of utility and

transportation corridors, and habitat

degradation through overgrazing, brush

control, altered fire frequencies, and

exotic species invasions. Other potential

influences that may be associated with

greater sage grouse population declines

include predation, excessive hunting,

disease and parasitism, chemical

applications for pest control, weather

cycles, and recreational activities. As a

result of these combined influences,

greater sage grouse distribution and

abundance have continued to decline

over the past decade, and a number of

populations may now be at risk of

extinction throughout the species’ range

(in WSCSGW 1996 and 1998).

Currently, greater sage grouse

populations may be considered secure

in five States, including Montana,

Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon

(Connelly and Braun 1997).

Native Americans began grazing

horses in the Columbia Basin in the

mid-1700s and, by the mid-1800s,

European settlers had established

extensive cattle and horse grazing

operations throughout the shrub steppe

habitats used by western sage grouse

(Daubenmire 1988, WDFW 1995,

Livingston 1998). By the late 1800s,

sheep production became increasingly

important and large flocks were grazed

along with other previously established

livestock herds. Concurrent with

significant declines in native shrub

steppe habitats (see below),

contemporary grazing levels are much

reduced from historic levels. However,

large livestock operations continue

within the shrub steppe habitats of the

Columbia Basin to the present. From

1986 to 1993, roughly 500,000 cattle

were being supported in nine central

Washington counties that historically

harbored western sage grouse (WDFW

1995).

There is some evidence that the shrub

steppe habitats of the Columbia Basin

evolved in the absence of substantial

grazing pressure from large native

herbivores since the latest period of

glaciation, roughly 12,000 years before

present (Mack and Thompson 1982,

Daubenmire 1988). Excessive grazing

pressure can have significant impacts on

the shrub steppe ecosystems found

throughout the historic range of greater

sage grouse (Fleischner 1994), and these

impacts may be exacerbated in the

Columbia Basin. In this region,

excessive grazing removes current

herbaceous growth and residual cover of

native grasses and forbs, and can

increase the canopy cover and density

of sagebrush and invasive species

(Daubenmire 1988, WDFW 1995,

Livingston 1998). These impacts may be

especially critical to western sage grouse

populations during the spring nesting

and brood rearing periods, and may

negatively affect their reproductive

potential (Crawford 1997, Connelly and

Braun 1997, Schroeder et al. 1999).

The latest available estimate (1993) of

the number of cattle supported in

Douglas County, which also supports

the northern subpopulation of the

Columbia Basin DPS, is roughly 20,000

(WDFW 1995). It is currently unclear if

this level of livestock use in the county

may have negative effects on western

sage grouse or their habitats. Prior to

1992, livestock grazing pressure was

intense throughout the area of Kittitas

and Yakima Counties that now

comprises the YTC, which supports the

southern subpopulation of the Columbia

Basin DPS. In 1992, grazing intensity

was reduced at the YTC within the

western sage grouse protection areas

identified by the Army. In 1995, cattle

grazing was eliminated throughout the

installation (Livingston 1998). Twice

annually during spring and fall, flocks

of sheep are trailed through the YTC

over a period of several weeks (Pounds

pers. comm. 1999). It is unknown to

what degree current livestock use levels

may be impacting western sage grouse

or their habitat at the YTC. However,

impacts from past livestock grazing are

still evident throughout the installation

(Livingston 1998).

During the first half of the 1900s, large

portions of the shrub steppe habitats on

deeper soils within the Columbia Basin

were converted for dryland crop

production (Daubenmire 1988, Franklin

and Dyrness 1988, WDFW 1995). During

the mid-1900s, a number of hydroelectric dams were developed on the

Columbia and Snake Rivers in

Washington and Oregon. The reservoirs

formed by these projects impacted

native shrub steppe habitats adjacent to

the rivers and led to further conversion

of large expanses of upland shrub

steppe habitats in the Columbia Basin

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22993

for irrigated agriculture (WDFW 1995,

Franklin and Dyrness 1988). It has been

estimated that approximately 60 percent

of the original shrub steppe habitat in

Washington has been converted,

primarily for agricultural uses (Dobler

1994). While at much reduced levels,

shrub steppe habitats within the

Columbia Basin continue to be

converted for both dryland and irrigated

crop production. In addition, the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation retains options

for further development of the Columbia

Basin Irrigation Project in central

Washington (USDI 1998). Major

portions of Washington’s shrub steppe

ecosystem are considered among the

least protected areas in the state

(Cassidy 1997).

Large areas of privately owned lands

in Douglas County are currently

withdrawn from crop production and

planted to native and non-native cover

under the federal Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP), established in 1985

(USDA 1998). Lands under the CRP are

very important to the northern

subpopulation of the Columbia Basin

DPS (Schroeder pers. comm. 1999).

These areas, some of which have been

set aside since the late 1980s, can

provide the essential grass and shrub

cover requirements of western sage

grouse on lands previously used for

agriculture. The juxtaposition of CRP

lands with the remaining areas of native

shrub steppe habitats and crop lands

may further increase the value of these

habitat patches for western sage grouse

(Schroeder pers. comm. 1999). A

number of CRP contracts in Washington

have expired since 1995, and more are

scheduled to expire from now through

2002. New contracts completed in 1998

for Douglas County have increased the

acreage of CRP lands potentially

available for use by western sage grouse.

However, contracts extend for just 10

years and new standards for CRP lands

will be implemented that may require

replanting of significant acreage under

existing contracts (USDA 1998;

Schroeder pers. comm. 1999). Presently,

it is unclear what effects these changes

have had, or will have, on the northern

subpopulation of the Columbia Basin

DPS.

In 1991, the Army expanded the YTC

along its northern boundary by

approximately 24,000 ha (60,000 ac) to

form its present configuration and size

of approximately 130,000 ha (325,000

ac). One of the primary justifications for

expansion of the installation was to

reduce impacts to heavily used areas by

allowing rotational training exercises

and rehabilitation of impacted sites

(USDD 1989). In 1994, the Army

restationed mechanized and armored

combat forces to Fort Lewis in western

Washington (USDD 1994). This action

was undertaken to accommodate

brigade-level maneuver exercises and

may result in an increase in overall

training activity and associated impacts

at the YTC. Large-scale training

exercises at the YTC are scheduled to

occur at 18- to 24-month intervals and

may involve more than 10,000 troops

and 1,000 tracked and wheeled vehicles.

Small-scale training exercises are also

conducted annually at the YTC by other

United States’ (e.g., Washington

National Guard) and allied military

units (USDD 1989, Livingston 1998).

In the fall of 1995, the Army

conducted its first large-scale training

exercise at the YTC following the

restationing action. Analysis of the

impacts from this exercise indicated

that over 9 percent of the sagebrush

plants within the western sage grouse

protection areas experienced major

structural damage. In addition,

modeling exercises indicated that

sagebrush cover would decline due to

similar training scenarios if conducted

on a biannual basis (Cadwell et al.

1996). Analyses of the potential impacts

to other shrub steppe components that

may be important to western sage grouse

at the YTC (e.g., grass, forb, and insect

quality and abundance), or those

associated with the smaller, ongoing

training activities, are not currently

available. However, it has been

suggested that native vegetation on

impacted sites with limited soil

disturbance will recover following largescale maneuver exercises (Cadwell et al.

1996). In addition, the YTC conducts

aggressive revegetation efforts for

sagebrush and native grasses within the

western sage grouse protection areas

(Livingston 1998) and has eliminated

season-long grazing on the installation

(USDD 1996). Evaluation of the quality

or quantity of naturally recovered areas

and the efficacy of revegetation efforts is

currently not available.

Natural and human-caused fire is a

significant threat to western sage grouse

throughout the Columbia Basin because,

at increased frequencies, it can remove

sagebrush from the vegetation

assemblage (USDI 1994, WDFW 1995).

Sagebrush is easily killed by fire

(Daubenmire 1988) and, in the absence

of a sufficient seed source, may not

readily reinvade sites where it has been

removed. Fire may be especially

damaging at the YTC where military

training activities provide multiple

ignition sources, vegetative cover is

relatively continuous, and invasive

species such as cheatgrass (Bromus

tectorum) and knapweed (Centauria

spp) may provide fine fuels that can

carry a fire. The Army considered fire

management and control in its planning

efforts for the restationing action (USDD

1996), and the YTC has since developed

a detailed fire management plan (USDD

1998). However, the potential for

relatively large range fires to occur at

the YTC remains. In 1996, over 25,000

ha (60,000 ac) of shrub steppe habitat,

much of it currently and potentially

used by western sage grouse, was

burned as a result of training activities.

A fire of this magnitude within the

identified western sage grouse

protection areas would jeopardize the

subspecies’ persistence at the

installation (Livingston 1998).

(2) Over-utilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes. Recent scientific

investigations in Washington have

resulted in some mortality of western

sage grouse. However, the level of

mortality incurred is not likely to

significantly influence the viability of

the Columbia Basin DPS (Schroeder

pers. comm. 1999; Pounds pers. comm.

1999).

The northern subpopulation of the

Columbia Basin DPS occurs primarily

on private lands and is not subject to

extensive viewing by the general public

or other recreational activities

(Schroeder pers. comm. 1999). The YTC

closely manages recreation and sage

grouse viewing by the general public

using the installation, and these

activities are not believed to be

significant to the well-being of the

southern subpopulation of the Columbia

Basin DPS (Pounds pers. comm. 1999).

The Columbia Basin DPS has not been

subject to hunting since 1987 (WDFW

1995).

(3) Disease or predation. Greater sage

grouse are subject to a number of

mortality factors related to disease and

predation (WDFW 1995). However,

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 western sage grouse. Episodes of

disease or altered predation patterns

may play an important role in the

dynamics of small and isolated

populations, and increase the risk of

their extirpation (see below).

(4) Inadequacy of existing regulatory

mechanisms. Revegetation standards

under the CRP promote the

improvement of habitat conditions for

the northern subpopulation of the

Columbia Basin DPS, and the CRP

restricts livestock grazing on contract

lands except under extraordinary

circumstances. However, these

measures are not specifically

promulgated for the protection of

22994 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

western sage grouse, and there are few

other mechanisms that regulate grazing

practices or the conversion of native

habitats on privately owned lands.

The Service is currently assisting with

development of a county-wide Habitat

Conservation Plan (HCP) for private

lands in central Washington (Foster

Creek Conservation District, Douglas

County). When completed, the HCP will

include measures to protect the

northern subpopulation of the Columbia

Basin DPS. However, the Act does not

provide regulatory protections for

unlisted species during development of

HCPs (USDI 1996).

Some illegal or accidental shooting of

western sage grouse may occur in

Washington in association with hunting

seasons for other upland game species.

However, the state hunting moratorium

and hunting regulations implemented

by the Army at the YTC appear to be

sufficient to control this form of

mortality, and it is not likely to

significantly influence the viability of

the Columbia Basin DPS (Schroeder

pers. comm. 1999; Pounds pers. comm.

1999).

The Army implements a number of

regulations at the YTC to promote

environmental protection of the

installation’s natural resources.

However, various impacts to the

habitats important to western sage

grouse occur, and are primarily the

result of training-related fire and direct

damage to vegetation communities from

training maneuvers (see above).

(5) Other natural or human-caused

factors affecting the DPS’ continued

existence. The fragmented, isolated

nature of the Columbia Basin DPS is a

concern for conservation of the taxon

within the Columbia Basin ecosystem. A

preliminary viability analysis conducted

by the WSGWG (1998) indicates that

neither subpopulation is likely viable

over the long term (approximately 100

years). In addition to the relatively

large-scale impacts on native shrub

steppe habitats (above), other naturally

occurring impacts and human

influences of lesser magnitude may pose

threats to the Columbia Basin’s isolated

subpopulations. Potential risks include

direct impacts to individuals from

inclement weather conditions, altered

predator demographics or behavior,

agricultural practices (e.g., cultivation,

harvest, etc.), vehicle collisions, pest

control measures, scientific

investigations, and military training

(e.g., smoke obscurant and live-fire

exercises, etc.). Impacts may also result

from indirect disturbance of the

subpopulations caused by agricultural

and grazing activities, transportation

corridors, recreation, and military

training events (over-flights, troop

movements, etc.). Small, isolated

populations may also be at greater risk

to the effects of inbreeding (Benedict et

al. 2001, Oyler-McCance et al. in litt.

2001). Although it is unlikely that any

one of these factors have played a

significant role in the population

declines and range reductions of

western sage grouse, these combined

influences may now play an important

role in the dynamics of the relatively

small and isolated subpopulations that

make up the Columbia Basin DPS.

Finding

We reviewed the petition, information

available in our files, other published

and unpublished information submitted

to us during the public comment period

following our 90-day petition finding

and consulted with recognized prairie

grouse experts and other federal, state,

and tribal resource agencies within the

historic range of western sage grouse.

On the basis of the best scientific and

commercial information available, we

find that listing the Columbia Basin DPS

of western sage grouse as threatened is

warranted, but precluded by higher

priority listing actions.

In making this finding, we recognize

that there have been declines in the

distribution and abundance of western

sage grouse throughout the Columbia

Basin, primarily attributed to the loss

and degradation of native shrub steppe

habitats. These impacts are likely due to

a combination of factors including crop

production, fire, military training, overgrazing by livestock, rural and suburban

development, and dam construction.

The Columbia Basin DPS of western

sage grouse is also at increased risk from

inbreeding depression and random

environmental influences due to its

small size and level of fragmentation.

We also recognize that various state and

Federal agencies in Washington and

Oregon, and throughout the species’

historic distribution, are actively

managing the birds to try to improve

their overall population status and/or

attempting to restore them to currently

unoccupied habitats.

Due to a backlog of listing decisions

and funding constraints, a proposed rule

to list the Columbia Basin DPS of

western sage grouse will be developed

in accordance with our October 22,

1999, (or subsequent) LPG (64

FR57114). Under the LPG, we prioritize

our listing activities based upon the

magnitude of threats to a listable entity,

followed by the immediacy of the

threats, and, finally, by the taxonomy of

an entity (i.e., monotypic genus,

followed by species, then subspecies /

DPS). The two subpopulations of the

Columbia Basin DPS are subject to

different threats of varying magnitude.

However, we conclude that the overall

magnitude of threats to the Columbia

Basin DPS of western sage grouse is

moderate, and that the overall

immediacy of these threats is imminent.

Under our listing and recovery priority

guidance (48 FR 43098), a DPS for

which threats are moderate and

imminent is assigned a Listing Priority

Number of 9.

We intend that any proposed listing

action for the Columbia Basin DPS of

western sage grouse will be as accurate

and effective as possible. Therefore, we

will continue to accept additional

information and comments from other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

finding.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited

herein is available upon request from

the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

This document was prepared by Chris

Warren, Upper Columbia Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act, as amended

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

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11356 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 635

[Docket No. 010319074–1104–02; I.D.

022201B]

RIN 0648–AP13

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species

(HMS) Fisheries; Pelagic Longline

Management

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

SUMMARY: NMFS withdraws its proposal

to extend the closure of the Charleston

Bump area to pelagic longline fishing