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

1634 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

95825. The petition, finding, and

supporting data and comments will be

available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dwight Harvey or Stephanie Brady at

the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section above), or at

916/414–6600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species

Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we

make a finding on whether a petition to

list, delist, or reclassify a species

presents substantial scientific or

commercial information indicating that

the petitioned action may be warranted.

To the maximum extent practicable, this

finding is to be made within 90 days of

the receipt of the petition, and the

finding is to be published promptly in

the Federal Register. If the finding is

that substantial information was

presented, we are also required to

promptly commence a review of the

status of the involved species. The Act

requires that we make this finding

within 12 months of the receipt of the

petition.

On February 17, 2000, we announced

a 90-day finding for a petition to list the

yellow-billed cuckoo under the Act (65

FR 8104). In addition, the petition asked

that since the yellow-billed cuckoo is

endangered in a significant portion of

it’s range (i.e., the western United

States) and that this range represents the

range of a valid subspecies, the western

yellow-billed cuckoo, they would

concur with a decision to list only this

subspecies. In that finding, we found

that the petition presented substantial

information indicating that the listing of

the western yellow-billed cuckoo

subspecies (Coccyzus americanus

occidentalis) may be warranted,

although the taxonomy of this

subspecies is unclear.

At this time, we continue to seek

additional data, information or

comments on yellow-billed cuckoos in

the western U.S. from the public, other

concerned government agencies, the

scientific community, industry or any

other interested persons. We are also

interested in information from

throughout the potential breeding range

in Canada, Mexico and the

overwintering range in Central and

South America.

Public Comments Solicited

Of particular interest is information

regarding:

1. Subspecies taxonomy and

geographic variation in the species, in

the form of genetic, behavioral,

physiological, morphological, and/or

ecological data which might be used to

evaluate subspecies and the distinctness

of population segments;

2. Historic and current distribution in

your area, region, or state, indicating

breeding or wintering range;

3. Historic and current population

estimates and/or trends in your area,

region, or state. If known please indicate

whether the population is increasing,

stable, or decreasing, and the sources of

this information;

4. Any ongoing research or

monitoring efforts in your area, region,

or state;

5. Summarize any threats in your

area, and specifically address the

following categories:

(a) Present or threatened destruction,

modification, or curtailment of habitat;

(b) Overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes;

(c) Disease or predation;

(d) Inadequate regulatory

mechanisms;

(e) Other natural or manmade factors

affecting the species’ continued

existence;

6. Seasonal habitat requirements and

habitat conditions in your area or region

or state;

7. Relative abundance of cuckoos on

private vs. public lands in your area,

region or state;

8. Past, current and planned

conservation efforts in your area, region,

or state that may be beneficial to the

species;

9. Any banding information that has

not been sent to the Bird Banding

Laboratory in Patuxent, Maryland.

Authority: The authority for 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 Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–506 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[I.D. 010201D]

New England Fishery Management

Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Public meetings.

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery

Management Council (Council) will

hold several public meetings, including

a 3-day Council meeting, on January 23,

24, and 25, 2001, to consider actions

affecting New England fisheries in the

exclusive economic zone (EEZ). During

this period, the Council’s Enforcement,

Red Crab and Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)

Committees also will meet

independently from and report back to

the Council.

DATES: Both the Enforcement and Red

Crab Committees will meet on Tuesday,

January 23, at 9 a.m. The Council

meeting will be held on Tuesday,

January 23, 2001, beginning at 1:00

p.m., and on Wednesday and Thursday,

January 24 and 25, at 8:30 a.m. The

Magnuson-Stevens Act Committee will

meet on Wednesday, January 24, at 6

p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the Sheraton Ferncroft Hotel, 50

Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA, 01923;

telephone (978) 777-2500. Requests for

special accommodations should be

addressed to the New England Fishery

Management Council, 50 Water Street,

Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950;

telephone (978) 465-0492.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

J. Howard, Executive Director, New

England Fishery Management Council

(978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Tuesday, January 23, 2001

Enforcement Committee Meeting

The committee intends to initiate a

review of enforcement activities since

the implementation of Amendment 5 to

the Northeast Multispecies Fishery

Management Plan (FMP). The

information will be used in documents

supporting Amendment 13 to the FMP.

The committee also will finalize

recommendations for Sea Scallop

Framework Adjustment 14 and discuss

issues related to measuring the cod-end

mesh in fishing nets.

Red Crab Committee Meeting

The committee intends to discuss

recent events in the red crab fishery and

develop recommendations to the

Council on issues related to potential

overfishing of the red crab resource.

Council Meeting

After introductions, the meeting will

begin with a report from the Council’s