1632 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Dated: December 13, 2000.

Kenneth L. Smith,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–500 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Reopening of Comment

Period for Status Review Addressing

the Washington Population of Western

Sage Grouse

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Status Review; notice of

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),

the United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) provides notice of the

reopening of the comment period for the

status review addressing the

Washington population of western sage

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus

phaios). Reopening of the comment

period will allow further opportunity

for all interested parties to submit

additional information and written

comments to be considered by the

Service for this status review (see DATES

and ADDRESSES).

DATES: Written materials from interested

parties must be received by February 16,

2001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written

comments, reports, map products, and

other information concerning this status

review to the Field Supervisor, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Office, 11103 East Montgomery Drive,

Spokane, Washington 99206.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Warren at the address listed

above, or by telephone at (509) 893–

8020, or by facsimile at (509) 891–6748.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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 now recognizes 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 birds

throughout the remainder of the species’

range, western sage grouse have reduced

white markings and darker grayishbrown feathering, resulting in a more

dusky overall appearance. The above

nomenclature and recognized ranges for

these taxa have been adopted by the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

in this notice, and will be used for

subsequent work concerning this status

review.

Greater sage grouse are the largest

North American grouse species.

Historically, greater sage grouse were

believed to occur in 12 states and 3

Canadian provinces (after Schroeder et

al. 1999); their range extending 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. Currently, greater sage grouse

occur in 11 states and 2 Canadian

provinces, having been extirpated from

Nebraska and British Columbia (after

Braun 1998). The historic distribution of

western sage grouse extended from

southern British Columbia southward

through eastern Washington and

Oregon, except in extreme southeastern

Oregon near the Idaho/Nevada borders

(Aldrich 1963). Currently, western sage

grouse occur in southeastern Oregon

and central Washington (Johnsgard

1973, Drut 1994, WDFW 1995).

Range wide, the distribution of greater

sage grouse has declined in a number of

areas, most notably along the periphery

of their historic range. In addition, there

is general consensus in the literature

that there have been considerable

declines from historic abundance levels,

and much of the overall decline

occurred from the late 1800s to the mid

1900s (Hornaday 1916, Crawford and

Lutz 1985, Drut 1994, WDFW 1995,

Coggins and Crawford 1996, Braun

1998, Schroeder et al. 1999, among

others). The available information

indicates that the current range-wide

population estimate for greater sage

grouse is between roughly 100,000 and

500,000 individuals. Based on rough

historic estimates, greater sage grouse

abundance may have declined by over

69 percent from historic levels.

Until the early 1900s, western sage

grouse were distributed throughout

central and eastern Oregon in sagebrush

dominated areas until the early 1900s.

By 1920, western sage grouse

populations in Oregon had decreased

and were considered scarce except for

areas in south-central Oregon

(Gabrielson and Jewett 1940, Drut 1994).

The distribution of western sage grouse

in Oregon declined by approximately 50

percent from 1900 to 1940 (Crawford

and Lutz 1985), and further declines in

distribution and abundance likely

continued into the mid-1980s (Crawford

and Lutz 1985). Presently, Malheur,

Harney, and Lake Counties harbor the

bulk of western sage grouse in Oregon

(roughly 24,000 to 58,000 birds), with

the remaining portion (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 to the Cascade foothills, east

to the Spokane River, and south to the

Oregon border (Yocom 1956). Western

sage grouse have been extirpated from 7

counties in Washington and currently

occupy approximately 10 percent of

their historic range in the state; the two

remaining subpopulations total roughly

1,000 birds (WSGWG 1998). One

subpopulation occurs primarily on

private and state owned lands in

Douglas County (approximately 650

birds), the other occurs at the Yakima

Training Center (YTC), administered by

the Army, in Kittitas and Yakima

Counties (approximately 350 birds).

These two subpopulations are

geographically isolated from the Oregon

population (WDFW 1995, Livingston

1998) and nearly isolated from one

another (WSGWG 1998).

The May 28, 1999, petition addressing

the listing of western sage grouse under

the Act requested that the subspecies be

listed as threatened or endangered in

Washington, yet the Service does not

base listing decisions on political

subdivisions beyond that of

international boundaries. However, the

Service has developed policy that

addresses the recognition of distinct

population segments (DPS) of vertebrate

species and subspecies for consideration

under the Act (61 FR 4722). The DPS

policy was developed to address the

measures prescribed by the Act and its

Congressional guidance. 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 the protective measures

of the Act. Under the DPS policy, two

elements are used to assess whether a

population under consideration for

listing may be recognized as a DPS. The

two elements are: (1) A population

segment’s discreteness from the

remainder of the taxon; and (2) the

population segment’s significance to the

taxon to which it belongs.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1633

The Service’s 90-day finding for the

subject petition (65 FR 51578) found

that the western sage grouse population

in Washington may represent a DPS for

the following reasons: (1) It is discrete

from other populations of the

subspecies; (2) the population

represents the only western (or greater)

sage grouse occurring within the

Columbia Plateau Ecological Reporting

Unit (ERU) (after Quigley and Arbelbide

1997), which represents approximately

one half of the historic range of western

sage grouse; (3) the life history attributes

of western sage grouse in Washington

may demonstrate persistence of the

subspecies (and species) in an

ecological setting unusual or unique for

the taxon; and (4) the loss of this

population segment may result in a

significant gap in the range of the taxon.

Currently, there is not enough

information to determine if the

population of western sage grouse in

Washington may exhibit a significantly

different genetic makeup compared to

the remainder of the taxon.

Since the early 1900s, large portions

of the shrub steppe ecosystem in

Washington have been converted for

dryland and irrigated crop production

(Daubenmire 1988, WDFW 1995).

Dobler (1994) estimated that

approximately 60 percent of the original

shrub steppe habitat in Washington had

been converted for other, primarily

agricultural, uses. While at much

reduced levels, shrub steppe habitat

continues to be converted for crop

production. Cassidy (1997) considered

major portions of Washington’s shrub

steppe ecosystem as the least protected

biogeographic zones in the state.

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 portions of the

Columbia Plateau that support western

sage grouse. In this region, excessive

grazing removes herbaceous growth and

residual cover of native grasses and

forbs, and can increase the canopy cover

and density of sagebrush and

undesirable invasive species

(Daubenmire 1988, WDFW 1995,

Livingston 1998). These impacts may be

especially critical to the reproductive

success of western sage grouse during

the spring nesting and brood rearing

periods (Crawford 1997, Connelly and

Braun 1997, Schroeder et al. 1999).

Lands under the Federal Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) have become

important to the subpopulation of

western sage grouse in north-central

Washington (Schroeder, Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers.

comm. September 1999). However, CRP

contracts extend for only 10 years, and

new standards for CRP lands may be

implemented that require replanting of

significant acreage under existing

contracts (USDA 1998). Presently, it is

unclear what effects these changes have

had, or will have, on the northern

subpopulation of western sage grouse in

Washington.

Large-scale military training exercises

occur at the YTC, and are scheduled at

roughly 18 to 24 month intervals (USDD

1989, Livingston 1998). Modeling

exercises indicate that sagebrush cover

at YTC would decline due to large-scale

training scenarios if conducted on a

biannual basis (Cadwell et al. 1996).

The Army conducts aggressive

revegetation efforts for sagebrush and

native grasses at the YTC (Livingston

1998) and has eliminated season-long

grazing on the installation (USDD 1996).

However, 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 Washington because, at

increased frequencies, it can remove

sagebrush from the vegetation

assemblage (WDFW 1995). Fire may be

especially damaging at the YTC where

military training activities provide

multiple ignition sources, vegetative

cover is relatively continuous, and

invasive species may provide fine fuels

that can carry a fire. Livingston (1998)

indicates that a single, large range fire

within the identified western sage

grouse protection areas could jeopardize

the species’ persistence at the

installation.

The fragmented, isolated nature of the

population of western sage grouse that

occurs in Washington is a concern for

the conservation of the species in the

northwestern extension of its historic

range. Preliminary viability analyses

conducted by the WSGWG (1998)

indicates that neither subpopulation is

likely viable at current levels over the

long-term (approximately 100 years).

The Service published a notice in the

Federal Register on August 24, 2000,

that a range-wide status review of the

Washington population of western sage

grouse was being conducted (65 FR

51578). The original comment period for

this status review closed October 23,

2000. The Service will now accept

information concerning this status

review through February 16, 2000. The

Service will also solicit the opinions of

appropriate specialists regarding the

data, assumptions, and supportive

information presented for this status

review, per the Interagency Cooperative

Policy for Peer Review in Endangered

Species Act Activities (59 FR 34270).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein, as well as others, is available

upon request from the Upper Columbia

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author: The primary author of this

notice is Chris Warren of the Upper

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane,

Washington 99206 [Telephone: (509)

893–8020].

Authority: The authority of this action is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

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

Dated: January 3, 2001.

Rowan W. Gould

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Fish and

Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–507 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Re-opening of the Public

Comment Period for Status Review of

the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo in the

Western United States

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Status Review; notice of the reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: On February 17, 2000, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we),

announced a 90-day finding on a

petition to list the yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus) as endangered,

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

(Act) of 1973, as amended (65 FR 8104).

We found that the petition presented

substantial information indicating that

the listing of the yellow-billed cuckoo

may be warranted. At that time, we

initiated a status review for the yellowbilled cuckoo and announced that a 12-

month finding would be prepared at the

conclusion of the review.

DATES: Comments and materials related

to this petition may be submitted on or

before February 8, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, or questions concerning this

petition finding and status review

should be submitted to the Field

Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and

Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way,

Room W–2605, Sacramento, California