1628 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

85FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry

Analysis Division, Trends in Telephone Service,

Table 19.3 (March 2000).

86 47 CFR 101 et seq. (formerly, part 21 of the

Commission’s Rules).

87Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the

Commission’s rules can use Private OperationalFixed Microwave services. See 47 CFR parts 80 and

90. Stations in this service are called operationalfixed to distinguish them from common carrier and

public fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the

operational-fixed station, and only for

communications related to the licensee’s

commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

88Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by

part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules. See

47 CFR 74 et seq. Available to licensees of broadcast

stations and to broadcast and cable network

entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are

used for relaying broadcast television signals from

the studio to the transmitter, or between two points

such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The

service also includes mobile TV pickups, which

relay signals from a remote location back to the

studio.

89 13 CFR 121.201, SIC 4812.

90The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 22.99.

91BETRS is defined in Sections 22.757 and

22.759 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 22.757

and 22.759.

92 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4812.

93 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 94 47 U.S.C. 224.

to the most recent Trends in Telephone

Service data, 808 carriers reported that

they were engaged in the provision of

either cellular service, Personal

Communications Service (PCS), or

Specialized Mobile Radio Telephone

(SMR) service, which are placed

together in the data.85 We do not have

data specifying the number of these

carriers that are not independently

owned and operated or have more than

1,500 employees, and thus are unable at

this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of cellular service

carriers that would qualify as small

business concerns under the SBA’s

definition. Consequently, we estimate

that there are 808 or fewer small cellular

service carriers that may be affected by

any regulations adopted pursuant to this

proceeding.

42. Fixed Microwave Services.

Microwave services include common

carrier,86 private-operational fixed,87

and broadcast auxiliary radio services.88

At present, there are approximately

22,015 common carrier fixed licensees

and 61,670 private operational-fixed

licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio

licensees in the microwave services.

The Commission has not yet defined a

small business with respect to

microwave services. For purposes of

this IRFA, we will utilize the SBA’s

definition applicable to radiotelephone

companies—i.e., an entity with no more

than 1,500 persons.89 We estimate, for

this purpose, that all of the Fixed

Microwave licensees (excluding

broadcast auxiliary licensees) would

qualify as small entities under the SBA

definition for radiotelephone

companies.

43. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The

Commission has not adopted a

definition of small entity specific to the

Rural Radiotelephone Service.90 A

significant subset of the Rural

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic

Exchange Telephone Radio Systems

(BETRS).9191 We will use the SBA’s

definition applicable to radiotelephone

companies, i.e., an entity employing no

more than 1,500 persons.92 There are

approximately 1,000 licensees in the

Rural Radiotelephone Service, and we

estimate that almost all of them qualify

as small entities under the SBA’s

definition.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

44. The Competitive Networks

FNPRM Rulemaking proposes no

additional reporting, recordkeeping or

other compliance measures. We note

supra, however, that the Competitive

Networks FNPRM seeks comment on

termination or phase out of exclusivity

and preferential provisions in contracts

between telecommunications providers

and MTEs.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities and

Significant Alternatives Considered.

45. The RFA requires an agency to

describe any significant alternatives that

it has considered in reaching its

proposed approach, which may include

the following four alternatives (among

others): (1) The establishment of

differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into

account the resources available to small

entities; (2) the clarification,

consolidation, or simplification of

compliance or reporting requirements

under the rule for small entities; (3) the

use of performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) an exemption from

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,

for small entities.93

46. In this Competitive Networks

FNPRM, we seek comment on proposals

that are intended to promote

competition in local communications

markets by ensuring that competing

telecommunications providers are able

to serve customers in MTEs.

Specifically, we seek comment on the

following proposals: (1) Whether we

should require building owners, who

allow access to their premises to any

telecommunications provider, to make

comparable access available to all

providers on a nondiscriminatory basis;

(2) whether we should prohibit local

exchange carriers from serving buildings

that do not afford nondiscriminatory

access to all telecommunications service

providers; (3) whether we should forbid

telecommunications service providers,

under some or all circumstances, from

entering into exclusive contracts with

residential building owners; (4) whether

we should prohibit carriers from

enforcing exclusive access provisions in

existing contracts in either commercial

or residential MTEs; (5) whether we

should phase out exclusive access

provisions by establishing a future

termination date for such provisions; (6)

whether we should phase out exclusive

access provisions for carriers that

qualify as small entities and the timing

of any such phase out; (7) whether, and

to what extent, preferential agreements

between building owners and LECs

should be regulated by the Commission;

(8) whether the Commission’s rules

governing access to cable home run

wiring for multichannel video program

distribution should be extended to

benefit providers of telecommunications

services; and (9) the extent to which

utility rights-of-way within MTEs are

subject to access by telecommunications

carriers (except incumbent LECs) and

cable companies pursuant to Section

224 of the Act.94 We anticipate that the

proposals, if enacted in whole or in part,

would benefit consumers,

telecommunications carriers and

building owners, including small

entities.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

47. None.

Federal Communications Commission.

Shirley S. Suggs,

Chief, Publications Group.

[FR Doc. 01–579 Filed 1–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AH68

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the

Dolly Varden as Threatened in

Washington Due to Similarity of

Appearance to Bull Trout

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1629

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to

list the Dolly Varden (Salvelinus

malma) as threatened under the

‘‘Similarity of Appearance’’ provisions

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended. In Washington, the Dolly

Varden, an anadromous char and a

member of the family Salmonidae,

occurs in several river drainages within

the Coastal-Puget Sound distinct

population segment of the bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus), which is listed

as a threatened species under the Act.

Because of the close resemblance in

appearance between bull trout and

Dolly Varden, law enforcement

personnel have substantial difficulty in

differentiating between the two species.

The determination of threatened status

due to similarity of appearance for Dolly

Varden will extend to this species the

prohibitions against take that apply to

bull trout, and will substantially

facilitate law enforcement actions to

protect bull trout. Actions that result in

take of Dolly Varden may include

capture as a result of fishing and actions

that degrade or destroy habitat.

DATES: Comments from all interested

parties must be received by March 12,

2001. Public hearing requests must be

received by February 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment,

you may submit your comments and

materials concerning this proposal by

any one of several methods:

(1) You may submit written comments

to Gerry Jackson, Manager, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Western

Washington Office, 510 Desmond Drive

SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington

98503.

(2) You may send comments by e-mail

to dolly_varden@fws.gov. Please submit

these comments as an ASCII file and

avoid the use of special characters and

any form of encryption. Please also

include ‘‘Attn: [RIN 1018–AH68]’’ and

your name and return address in your

e-mail message. If you do not receive a

confirmation from the system that we

have received your e-mail message,

contact us directly by calling our

Western Washington Office at phone

number 360–753–9440. Please note that

the e-mail address

‘‘dolly_varden@fws.gov’’ will be closed

out at the termination of the public

comment period.

(3) You may hand-deliver comments

to our Western Washington Office at 510

Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey,

Washington.

Comments and materials received, as

well as supporting documentation used

in the preparation of this proposed rule,

will be available for public inspection,

by appointment, during normal business

hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gerry Jackson, Manager, Western

Washington Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (telephone 360/753–9440;

facsimile 360/753–9008).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(e) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended

(16 U.S.C., 1531 et seq., and

implementing regulations (50 CFR

17.50–17.52), authorize the treatment of

a species (subspecies or population

segment) as endangered or threatened if

(a) The species so closely resembles in

appearance a listed endangered or

threatened species that law enforcement

personnel would have substantial

difficulty in attempting to differentiate

between the listed and unlisted species;

(b) the effect of this substantial

difficulty is an additional threat to an

endangered or threatened species; and

(c) such treatment of an unlisted species

will substantially facilitate the

enforcement and further the purposes of

the Act. Listing a species as endangered

or threatened under the similarity-ofappearance provisions of the Act

extends the take prohibitions of section

9 to cover the species. A designation of

endangered or threatened due to

similarity of appearance under section

4(e) of the Act, however, does not

extend other protections of the Act,

such as the consultation requirements

for Federal agencies under section 7 and

the recovery planning provisions under

section 4(f), that apply to species that

are listed as endangered or threatened

under section 4(a).

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus),

members of the family Salmonidae, are

char (trout in the genus Salvelinus) that

are native to the Pacific Northwest and

western Canada. On November 1, 1999,

we added the bull trout to the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

(50 CFR 17.11) as a threatened species

throughout its range in the coterminous

United States (64 FR 58910). This

determination was based on our finding

that the Coastal-Puget Sound and St.

Mary-Belly River distinct population

segments of bull trout are threatened,

coupled with our earlier findings of

threatened status for the Klamath River,

Columbia River, and Jarbidge River

distinct population segments (63 FR

31647; 64 FR 17110).

Bull trout and Dolly Varden

(Salvelinus malma) occur together only

within the area occupied by the CoastalPuget Sound bull trout distinct

population segment. This area of

overlap includes western Washington

(west of the Cascades) and the Olympic

Peninsula (64 FR 58910). Although

these two species of ‘‘native char’’ were

previously considered a single species,

the bull trout and the Dolly Varden are

now formally recognized as two

separate species (Cavender 1978; Robins

et al. 1980; Bond 1992). Specific

distinctions between bull trout and

Dolly Varden are based on

morphometrics (measurements),

meristic variation (variation in

characters that can be counted),

osteological characteristics (bone

structure), and distributional evidence

(Cavender 1978). Currently, genetic

analyses can distinguish between the

two species (Crane et al. 1994; Baxter et

al. 1997; Leary and Allendorf 1997).

Bull trout and Dolly Varden, however,

are virtually impossible to differentiate

visually, and misidentifications occur

even using an established morphometric

field identification procedure. In a study

of the errors in, and problems with

species identification, bull trout were

misidentified as Dolly Varden 48

percent of the time, and the error rate

was 2.5 percent for Dolly Varden

misidentified as bull trout (Haas and

McPhail 2000). Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) currently

manages the two species together as

‘‘native char.’’ Consequently, we

delineated 34 subpopulations of ‘‘native

char’’ (bull trout, Dolly Varden, or both

species) within the Coastal-Puget Sound

distinct population segment (64 FR

58910).

Fifteen of the thirty-four

subpopulations had been analyzed

when the bull trout was listed as

threatened. Bull trout likely occur in the

majority of the remaining 19

subpopulations. Genetic analyses

determined that three of the tested

‘‘native char’’ subpopulations within the

Coastal-Puget Sound distinct population

segment contained only Dolly Varden

(64 FR 58910). Because of the limited

sample sizes used in the analyses,

however, and evidence that bull trout

and Dolly Varden frequently co-occur,

we considered it premature to conclude

that bull trout do not exist in these

subpopulations. The proposal to list the

Dolly Varden due to similarity of

appearance to bull trout includes all 34

‘‘native char’’ subpopulations described

in the bull trout rule (64 FR 58910).

We did not include the similarity-ofappearance designation for Dolly

Varden in the listing for bull trout based

on WDFW’s management strategies for

these two species. We considered that,

for fisheries regulations, WDFW

manages the two species together as

1630 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules

‘‘native char.’’ For conservation

management, WDFW has combined the

two species into common inventory

stock units (spawning populations) that

represent composites of both bull trout

and Dolly Varden char within specific

areas (WDFW 1998). After further

consideration, however, we have

determined that law enforcement

personnel will have substantial

difficulty in attempting to differentiate

between bull trout and Dolly Varden

because of their close resemblance in

appearance. The effect of such a close

resemblance between the two species

will be an additional threat to bull trout

because of the difficulty in prosecuting

cases of illegal take of bull trout.

Designating Dolly Varden as

threatened due to similarity of

appearance will extend take

prohibitions to this species in the 34

‘‘native char’’ subpopulations in the

Coastal-Puget Sound area. The term

‘‘take’’ as defined in section 3 of the Act

means to ‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt,

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or

collect, or to attempt to engage in any

such conduct.’’ In the definition of take,

the term ‘‘harass’’ is defined (50 CFR

17.3) as ‘‘an intentional or negligent act

or omission which creates the

likelihood of injury to wildlife by

annoying it to such an extent as to

significantly disrupt normal behavioral

patterns which include, but are not

limited to, breeding, feeding, or

sheltering.’’ The term ‘‘harm’’ is further

defined (50 CFR 17.3) as meaning, in the

definition of take, an act which actually

kills or injures wildlife. Such actions

may include ‘‘significant habitat

modification or degradation where it

actually kills or injures wildlife by

significantly impairing essential

behavioral patterns, including breeding,

feeding, or sheltering.’’ Because Dolly

Varden and bull trout cannot easily be

distinguished visually, take prohibitions

against any actions that may result in

harm or harassment to bull trout will

also apply to Dolly Varden where

individuals cannot readily be identified

as to species. Such actions may include

not only capture as a result of fishing,

but any actions that might result in

habitat degradation or destruction.

Special Rule

In the final listing for bull trout, we

included a special rule, as provided by

section 4(d) of the Act, exempting

certain activities from the take

prohibition. This special rule exempts

from the take prohibition fishing

activities authorized under State,

National Park Service, or Native

American Tribal laws and regulations

and take for educational purposes,

scientific purposes, the enhancement of

propagation or survival of the species,

zoological exhibition, and other

conservation purposes consistent with

the Act (64 FR 58910). We propose to

extend the same take prohibitions to

Dolly Varden as are in place to protect

bull trout and, if this proposed rule is

made final, this special regulation will

also apply to the Dolly Varden in the 34

‘‘native char’’ populations in the

Coastal-Puget Sound area.

Actions that would and would not

likely be considered a violation of

section 9 that apply to bull trout were

included in the final rule to list the bull

trout (64 FR 58910). These also would

apply to Dolly Varden in the 34 ‘‘native

char’’ subpopulations in the CoastalPuget Sound area if this rule is made

final. Actions that, without a permit or

other authorization from us, are likely to

be considered a violation of section 9

include:

(1) Take of Dolly Varden without a

permit or other incidental take

authorization from us. Take includes

harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting,

shooting, wounding, killing, trapping,

capturing, or collecting, or attempting

any of these actions, except in

accordance with applicable State,

National Park Service, and Tribal fish

and wildlife conservation laws and

regulations;

(2) Possessing, selling, delivering,

carrying, transporting, or shipping

illegally taken Dolly Varden;

(3) Unauthorized interstate and

foreign commerce (commerce across

State and international boundaries) and

import/export of Dolly Varden;

(4) International introduction of

nonnative fish species that compete or

hybridize with Dolly Varden;

(5) Destruction or alteration of Dolly

Varden habitat by dredging,

channelization, diversion, instream

vehicle operation or rock removal,

grading of unimproved roads,

stormwater and contaminant runoff

from roads, failing road culverts, and

road culverts that block fish migration

or other activities that result in the

destruction or significant degradation of

cover, channel stability, substrate

composition, turbidity, temperature,

and migratory corridors used for

foraging, cover, migration, and

spawning;

(6) Discharges or dumping of toxic

chemicals, silt, or other pollutants into

waters supporting Dolly Varden that

result in death or injury of this species;

and

(7) Destruction or alteration of

riparian or lakeshore habitat and

adjoining uplands of waters supporting

Dolly Varden by timber harvest, grazing,

mining, hydropower development, road

construction, or other developmental

activities that result in destruction or

significant degradation of cover,

channel stability, substrate composition,

temperature, and migratory corridors

used by these species for foraging,

cover, migration, and spawning.

We will review other activities not

identified above on a case-by-case basis

to determine if a violation of section 9

of the Act may be likely to result from

such activity. We do not consider this

list to be exhaustive and provide it as

information to the public.

The designation of Dolly Varden as

threatened due to similarity of

appearance will substantially facilitate

law enforcement protection of bull trout

and further the purposes of the Act.

Therefore, we are proposing to list the

Dolly Varden as threatened under

section 4(e), ‘‘Similarity of Appearance’’

provisions, of the Act.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we are soliciting comments

or suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. Any final regulation

concerning the listing of this species

will take into consideration the

comments and any additional

information received by us, and such

communications may lead to a final

regulation that differs from this

proposal.

Our practice is to make comments,

including names and home addresses of

respondents, available for public review

during regular business hours.

Individual respondents may request that

we withhold their home address from

the rulemaking record, which we will

honor to the extent allowable by law.

There also may be circumstances in

which we would withhold from the

rulemaking record a respondent’s

identity, as allowable by law. If you

wish us to withhold your name and/or

address, you must state this

prominently at the beginning of your

comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

The Act provides for a public hearing

on this proposal, if requested. Requests

must be received within 45 days of the

date of publication of the proposal in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 9, 2001 / Proposed Rules 1631

the Federal Register. Such requests

must be made in writing and addressed

to Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Western Washington Office,

510 Desmond Dr. SE., Suite 102, Lacey,

Washington 98503.

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite your

comments on how to make this rule

easier to understand including answers

to the following: (1) Are the

requirements of the rule clear? (2) Is the

discussion of the rule in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the rule? What else could we do to make

the rule easier to understand?

Send any comments that would help

us improve the readability of this

proposed rule to the Office of

Regulatory Affairs, Department of the

Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street,

NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may

also e-mail the comments to this

address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new

collections of information other than

those already approved under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of

Management and Budget clearance

number 1018–0094. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. For

additional information concerning

permit and associated requirements for

endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an

Environmental Assessment or

Environmental Impact Statement, as

defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted

pursuant to Section 4 of the Act. We

published a notice outlining our reasons

for this determination in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR

49244).

References Cited

Baxter, J.S., E.B. Taylor, R.H. Devlin, J.

Hagen, and J.D. McPhail. 1997. Evidence

for natural hybridization between Dolly

Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout

(Salvelinus confluentus) in a northcentral

British Columbia watershed. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

54:421–429.

Bond, C.E. 1992. Notes on the nomenclature

and distribution of the bull trout and the

effects of human activity on the species.

Pages 1–4 in Howell, P.J. and D.V.

Buchanan, editors. Proceedings of the

Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop.

Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries

Society.

Cavender, T.M. 1978. Taxonomy and

distribution of the bull trout, Salvelinus

confluentus (Suckley) from the American

Northwest. California Fish and Game

3:139–174.

Crane, P.A., L.W. Seeb, and J.E. Seeb. 1994.

Genetic relationships among Salvelinus

species inferred from allozyme data.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 51(Suppl. 1):182–197.

Haas, G.R., and J.D. McPhail. 2000. Errors

and problems with species identification:

general comments and the specific test case

of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and

Dolly Varden (S. malma). British Columbia

Ministry of Fishes, Research Section,

University of British Columbia, Vancouver,

Canada. 26 pp.

Leary, R.F., and F.W. Allendorf. 1997.

Genetic confirmation of sympatric bull

trout and Dolly Varden in Western

Washington. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 126:715–720.

Robins, C.R., R.M. Bailey, C.E. Bond, J.R.

Brooker, E.H. Lachner, R.N. Lea, and W.B.

Scott. 1980. A list of common and

scientific names of fishes from the United

States and Canada. American Fisheries

Society Special Publication 12, Bethesda,

Maryland. Pages 19, 73.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

1998. 1998 Washington salmonid stock

inventory. Bull trout and Dolly Varden

appendix. Washington Dept. of Fish and

Wildlife, Olympia. 437 pp.

Author

The primary author of this document

is Dr. L. Karolee Owens (see ADDRESSES

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we hereby propose to

amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter

I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. Law.

99–625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise

noted.

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

‘‘FISHES,’’ to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife to read as

follows:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Veterbrate population

where endangered

or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

*******

FISHES

*******

Dolly Varden

(char).

Salvelinus

malma.

U.S.A. (OR,

WA, AK),

Canada, E.

Asia.

Coastal-Puget Sound (U.S.A–

WA) all Pacific Coast drainages north of Columbia R.

T(S/A) NA 17.44(w)

*******

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.