[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25613-25616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08848]



[[Page 25613]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0052; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BH21


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status 
for the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment of Greater Sage-Grouse 
With Section 4(d) Rule and Designation of Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the comment periods.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 
that we are reopening the comment periods on our October 28, 2013, 
proposed rules to list the Bi-State distinct population segment (DPS) 
of greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (hereafter Bi-State 
DPS) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (Act) with a 
section 4(d) rule and to designate critical habitat for the Bi-State 
DPS. The District Court for the Northern District of California vacated 
our March 31, 2020, withdrawal of the October 28, 2013, proposed 
listing rule, and that action serves to reinstate the proposed listing 
rule. We will initiate a new status review to determine whether the Bi-
State DPS meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act. We request new information to inform this status review. 
Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be 
fully considered in preparing the final determination.

DATES: The comment periods are reopened on the proposed rules that 
published October 28, 2013 (at 78 FR 64358 and 78 FR 64328). So that we 
can fully consider your comments in our final determination, submit 
your comments on or before June 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: 
    Document availability: Documents associated with the proposed rule 
to list the Bi-State DPS and a related proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat for the DPS are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under these dockets: FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072, FWS-R8-
ES-2013-0042, FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106, and FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107, as 
described below in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION under Information 
Requested.
    Written comments: The docket for this reopened comment period is 
FWS-R8-ES-2023-0052. You may submit written comments by one of the 
following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2023-0052. 
Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search 
panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, 
click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may 
submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2023-0052, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Justin Barrett, Deputy Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno Fish and Wildlife 
Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Suite 234, Reno, NV 89502; telephone 
775-861-6300; or facsimile 775-861-6301. Individuals in the United 
States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech 
disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On October 28, 2013, we published a proposed rule to list the Bi-
State DPS in California and Nevada as a threatened species under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (``Act''; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), with a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (78 FR 64358). We 
concurrently published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for the Bi-State DPS (78 FR 64328). On April 23, 2015, we published a 
withdrawal of the proposed rule to list the Bi-State DPS as a 
threatened species, including withdrawal of the section 4(d) and 
proposed critical habitat rules (80 FR 22828). That decision was based 
on our conclusion that the threats to the Bi-State DPS as identified in 
the proposed listing rule were no longer as significant as believed at 
the time of publication of the proposed rule and that conservation 
plans were ameliorating threats to the species. Thus, we concluded that 
the Bi-State DPS did not meet the definition of a threatened or 
endangered species throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.
    On March 9, 2016, Desert Survivors, the Center for Biological 
Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watershed Project filed 
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California. The suit challenged the withdrawal of the proposal to list 
the Bi-State DPS. On May 5, 2018, the court issued a decision. As the 
result of the court order, the April 23, 2015 (80 FR 22828), withdrawal 
was vacated and remanded to the Service for further consideration 
consistent with the order, and on April 12, 2019, we reopened the 
comment periods on the 2013 proposed listing and critical habitat rules 
(84 FR 14909).
    After review of the public comments received and other information, 
on March 31, 2020, we published another withdrawal of the proposed rule 
to list the Bi-State DPS as a threatened species, including withdrawal 
of the proposed section 4(d) and critical habitat rules (85 FR 18054). 
That decision was again based on our conclusion that the threats to the 
Bi-State DPS as identified in the 2013 proposed listing rule were no 
longer as significant as believed at the time of publication of the 
2013 proposed rule and that conservation plans were ameliorating 
threats to the species. Thus, we concluded that the Bi-State DPS did 
not meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
    On September 29, 2020, Desert Survivors, the Center for Biological 
Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, and Western Watershed Project filed 
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California. The suit again challenged the withdrawal of the proposal to 
list the Bi-State DPS. On May 16, 2022, the court issued a decision. As 
the result of the court order, the March 31, 2020 (85 FR 18054), 
withdrawal was vacated and remanded to the Service for further 
consideration consistent with the order.

Current Situation

    The court's action returns the rulemaking process to the proposed 
rule stage, and the status of the Bi-State DPS has reverted to that of 
a species proposed for listing for the purposes of consultation under 
section 7 of the Act. The court's action also reinstates the

[[Page 25614]]

proposed section 4(d) rule and the proposed critical habitat rule for 
the Bi-State DPS (78 FR 64358 and 64328; October 28, 2013). Therefore, 
this document notifies the public that we are reopening the comment 
periods on the 2013 proposed rules to list the Bi-State DPS as 
threatened with a section 4(d) rule and designate critical habitat. We 
also announce that we will be initiating an entirely new species status 
assessment (SSA) of the Bi-State DPS. The SSA will inform the decision 
of whether the Bi-State DPS meets the definition of an endangered or 
threatened species under the Act, or whether the species is not 
warranted for listing. We are targeting making a new listing 
determination through publication in the Federal Register by May 2024, 
which could include withdrawal, re-proposal, or a final listing status 
and critical habitat determination. We will accept written comments and 
information during this reopened comment period on our proposed rules 
to list the Bi-State DPS as threatened with a section 4(d) rule and 
designate critical habitat that were published in the Federal Register 
on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 64358 and 64328; October 28, 2013). Any 
listing determination we make must be made based on the best available 
information. To inform this status review, we request new information 
regarding the Bi-State DPS that has become available since the 
publication of the 2013 proposed rules.

Species Information

    Please refer to the March 31, 2020, withdrawal of our proposed 
listing rule (85 FR 18054) and the 2020 Species Report (Service 2020, 
entire; available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106) for information about the Bi-State DPS 
taxonomy, habitat (sagebrush ecosystem), seasonal habitat selection, 
life-history characteristics, home range, life expectancy and survival 
rates, historical and current range distribution, population estimates 
and lek (sage-grouse breeding complex) counts, population trends, and 
land ownership information. Please also refer to our March 23, 2010, 
12-month petition finding (75 FR 13910) for the greater sage-grouse for 
a detailed evaluation of the Bi-State DPS under our DPS policy, which 
published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). For 
a detailed summary of previous open comment periods, please see our 
2015 and 2020 withdrawals of the proposed listing rules (80 FR 22828, 
April 23, 2015; 85 FR 18054, March 31, 2020).

Information Requested

    We will accept written comments and information during this 
reopened comment period on our proposed rules to list the Bi-State DPS 
as threatened with a section 4(d) rule and designate critical habitat 
that were published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2013 (78 FR 
64358 and 78 FR 64328). We will consider information and 
recommendations from all interested parties. We are particularly 
interested in comments concerning:
    (1) The Bi-State DPS's biology, range, and population trends, 
including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional leks or populations of this 
species;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the Bi-State DPS, 
its habitat, or both.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species.
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to this species.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of the Bi-State DPS.
    (4) Information on regulations that may be necessary and advisable 
to provide for the conservation of the Bi-State DPS and that we can 
consider in developing a section 4(d) rule for the species. In 
particular, information concerning the extent to which we should 
include any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether 
we should consider any additional exceptions from the prohibitions in 
the 4(d) rule.
    (5) Whether we should add a provision to the proposed 4(d) rule 
that covers incidental take of the Bi-State DPS in accordance with 
agricultural or conservation activities consistent with the Act.
    (6) Information on effectiveness of ongoing conservation measures 
and management actions.
    (7) Information on current habitat conditions including but not 
limited to quality of upland and meadow or riparian sites, presence and 
abundance of annual invasive grasses and weeds or other increasing 
plants (e.g., conifer trees), and recovery of previously burned sites. 
This information may include larger landscape-scale assessments or 
smaller site-specific investigations.
    (8) Specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Bi-State DPS.
    (b) Any additional areas occurring within the range of the species 
in western Nevada and eastern California that should be included in the 
critical habitat designation because they (i) are occupied at the time 
of listing and contain the physical or biological features that are 
essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations, or (ii) are unoccupied at the time 
of listing and are essential for the conservation of the species.
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing 
for the potential effects of climate change.
    (d) To evaluate the potential to include areas not occupied at the 
time of listing, we particularly seek comments regarding whether 
occupied areas are adequate for the conservation of the species. 
Additionally, please provide specific information regarding whether or 
not unoccupied areas would, with reasonable certainty, contribute to 
the conservation of the species and contain at least one physical or 
biological feature essential to the conservation of the species. We 
also seek comments or information regarding whether areas not occupied 
at the time of listing qualify as critical habitat for the species.
    (9) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (10) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation, and the related benefits of including or excluding 
specific areas.
    (11) Information on the extent to which the description of probable 
economic impacts in the draft economic analysis (available on the 
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-
2013-0042) is a reasonable estimate of the likely economic impacts and 
any additional information regarding probable

[[Page 25615]]

economic impacts that we should consider.
    (12) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical 
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding 
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. If you think we should exclude any 
additional areas, please provide information supporting a benefit of 
exclusion.
    (13) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    Prior information regarding this rulemaking action may be found in 
these dockets on https://www.regulations.gov:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Rulemaking
          Docket No.            actions reflected  Information available
                                  in the docket        in the docket
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0072...........   Proposed   A
                                 listing rule (78   Hierarchical
                                 FR 64358,          Integrated
                                 October 28,        Population Model for
                                 2013).             Greater Sage-Grouse
                                 First      in the Bi-State
                                 withdrawal of      Distinct Population
                                 the 2013           Segment, California
                                 proposed listing   and Nevada, 2014.
                                 and critical       Species
                                 habitat rules      Status Assessment
                                 (80 FR 22828,      Maps by Population
                                 April 23, 2015).   Management Units,
                                                    January 2013.
                                                    Species
                                                    Status Assessment Bi-
                                                    State Distinct
                                                    Population Segment
                                                    of Greater Sage-
                                                    Grouse, 2013.
                                                    Bi-State
                                                    Action Plan, March
                                                    2012.
                                                    Greater Sage-
                                                    Grouse Conservation
                                                    Objectives Team
                                                    Report, February
                                                    2013.
                                                    Commitment
                                                    letters from
                                                    Federal, State, and
                                                    local partners.
                                                    Policy for
                                                    Evaluation of
                                                    Conservation Efforts
                                                    When Making Listing
                                                    Decisions (PECE)
                                                    Evaluation for the
                                                    Bi-State Distinct
                                                    Population Segment
                                                    of Greater Sage-
                                                    Grouse 2012 Bi-State
                                                    Action Plan.
                                                    Conference
                                                    Report for the
                                                    Natural Resources
                                                    Conservation Service
                                                    Sage-grouse
                                                    Initiative, 2010.
FWS-R8-ES-2013-0042...........   Proposed   Draft
                                 critical habitat   Economic Analysis
                                 rule (78 FR        for the Bi-State DPS
                                 64328, October     of Greater Sage-
                                 28, 2013).         Grouse, 2014.
                                 First      References
                                 withdrawal of      cited for proposed
                                 the 2013           critical habitat
                                 proposed listing   designation.
                                 and critical
                                 habitat rules
                                 (80 FR 22828,
                                 April 23, 2015).
FWS-R8-ES-2018-0106...........              Species
                                 Reopening of the   Report for the Bi-
                                 comment period     State Distinct
                                 on the 2013        Population Segment
                                 proposed listing   of Greater Sage-
                                 rule (84 FR        Grouse, January
                                 14909, April 12,   2020.
                                 2019).             References
                                 Second     cited in proposed
                                 withdrawal of      rule withdrawal.
                                 the 2013
                                 proposed listing
                                 and critical
                                 habitat rules
                                 (85 FR 18054,
                                 March 31, 2020).
FWS-R8-ES-2018-0107...........              References
                                 Reopening of the   cited in proposed
                                 comment period     rule withdrawal.
                                 on the 2013
                                 proposed
                                 critical habitat
                                 rule (84 FR
                                 14909, April 12,
                                 2019).
                                 Second
                                 withdrawal of
                                 the 2013
                                 proposed listing
                                 and critical
                                 habitat rules
                                 (85 FR 18054,
                                 March 31, 2020).
FWS-R8-ES-2023-0052 (This is    
 the docket number for this      Reopening of the
 document, and comments should   comment periods
 be submitted to this docket.).  on the 2013
                                 proposed listing
                                 rule (78 FR
                                 64358, October
                                 28, 2013) and
                                 proposed
                                 critical habitat
                                 rule (78 FR
                                 64328, October
                                 28, 2013).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Comments

    Please do not resubmit comments or information already provided on 
the proposed rules (78 FR 64358 and 64328; October 28, 2013) during the 
initial comment periods in 2013 or any of the subsequent comment 
periods (in 2014, as the result of several extensions and reopenings of 
the comment periods, and in 2019). Any such comments are incorporated 
as part of the public record of this rulemaking proceeding, and we will 
fully consider them in the preparation of our determination. Please 
note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the 
action under consideration without providing supporting information, 
although noted, do not provide substantial information necessary to 
support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a 
threatened species must be made solely on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    Comments and materials we receive will be available for public 
inspection on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-
0052. If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire comment--including any personal identifying information--will be 
posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that 
includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top 
of your document that we withhold this information from public review. 
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will 
post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species is 
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species 
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a 
threatened species. For critical habitat, our final designation may not 
include all areas proposed, may include some additional areas that meet 
the definition of critical habitat, or may exclude some areas if we 
find the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion and 
exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species. In 
addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the 
exceptions to those prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule if we 
conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new information 
received. For example, we may expand the prohibitions to include 
prohibiting additional activities if we conclude that those additional 
activities are not compatible with conservation of the species. 
Conversely,

[[Page 25616]]

we may establish additional exceptions to the prohibitions in the final 
rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate or are 
compatible with the conservation and recovery of the species.

Authors

    The primary author of this document is the Reno Fish and Wildlife 
Office in Reno, Nevada, in coordination with the Pacific Southwest 
Regional Office in Sacramento, California.

Authority

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) is the authority for this action.

Wendi Weber,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-08848 Filed 4-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P