[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57620-57623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-27851]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-day Finding on
a Petition to List the Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse as Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Service announces a 90-day finding for a petition to list
the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus
columbianus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We
find that the petition presents substantial scientific and commercial
information indicating that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
may be warranted.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 14,
1999. Send comments and information to us on or before December 27,
1999, concerning this petition finding. We may not consider comments
received after the above date in making a decision for the 12-month
finding.
ADDRESSES: You may submit data, information, comments, or questions
concerning this petition to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington
99206. The
[[Page 57621]]
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: Christopher D. Warren, at the above
address or call 509-891-6839.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (Act), 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 as threatened or
endangered presents substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We base the
finding on all the information available to us at the time the finding
is made. To the maximum extent practicable, we make the finding within
90 days of receipt of the petition, and promptly publish the finding in
the Federal Register. If we find that substantial information was
presented, we must promptly commence a status review of the species.
The processing of this administrative petition finding conforms
with our current listing priority guidance (LPG) which was published,
after opportunity for public comment, on May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502).
Because of budgetary constraints and the lasting effects of a
congressionally imposed listing moratorium from April 1995 to April
1996, we processed petitions and other listing actions according to the
listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on December
5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). The guidance clarified the order in which we
processed listing actions during fiscal year 1997. The guidance gives
highest priority (Tier 1) to processing emergency rules to add species
to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists);
second priority (Tier 2) to processing final determinations on
proposals to add species to the Lists, processing new proposals to add
species to the Lists, processing administrative findings on petitions
(to add species to the Lists, delist species, or reclassify listed
species), and processing a limited number of proposed or final rules to
delist or reclassify species; and third priority (Tier 3) to processing
proposed or final rules designating critical habitat. Processing of
this petition is a Tier 2 action.
A petition, dated March 14, 1995, was submitted by the Biodiversity
Legal Foundation, Boulder, Colorado, and was received by us on March
16, 1995. The petitioner requested that the Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) be listed as a threatened
species throughout its historic range in the contiguous United States,
and requested that critical habitat be designated for the species as
soon as its biological needs are sufficiently well known. The
petitioner also recommended a review of the species' status in British
Columbia, Canada.
Based on our review of the petition and the scientific and
commercial information it presents, and other information available to
us at this time, we have made a 90-day finding that the petition to
list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse presents substantial scientific
and commercial information indicating that listing of the species may
be warranted.
The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse was identified as a category 2
species in notices of review published in the Federal Register on
January 6, 1989 (54 FR 560). At that time, a category 2 species was one
that was being considered for possible addition to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife but for which conclusive data on
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a
proposed rule. Designation of category 2 status was discontinued in the
February 28, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7956). The Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse is not currently a candidate species. A candidate species
is defined as a species for which we have on file sufficient
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance
of a proposed rule.
The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of six recognized
subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that occur in North America (Miller
and Graul 1980). Historically, the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range
extended westward from the continental divide in Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming, and Colorado to northeastern California and eastern Oregon and
Washington; southward to northern Nevada and central Utah; and
northward through central British Columbia.
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse were once more abundant throughout
their range where suitable habitats occurred (Hart et al.1950; Buss and
Dziedzic 1955; Gruell circa 1960; Washington Division of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) 1995). Excessive hunting in the mid- to late-19th
century is thought to be a major contributing factor to the early
extirpation of local populations and the initial reduction of the
subspecies' range (Hart et al. 1950). Since the turn of the century,
the conversion of native habitats to crop production and their
degradation as a result of livestock grazing are thought to be the
primary factors in further population declines and range reduction
(Hart et al. 1950; Buss and Dziedzic 1955; Miller and Graul 1980; Marks
and Marks 1987; Braun et al. 1994; WDFW 1995; McDonald and Reese 1998).
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse were extirpated from California in the
1920s, Nevada in the 1950s, and Oregon in the 1960s (Miller and Graul
1980). On April 4, 1998, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
listed the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as a threatened species in the
State of Washington.
Sharp-tailed grouse males employ elaborate courtship displays in
the spring to attract females to central ``dancing grounds,'' called
leks. Established leks may be used for many years, although their exact
locations may shift over time and smaller satellite leks often form in
the vicinity of historic leks. Interacting clusters of leks in a local
area are defined as lek complexes (Schroeder et al. in press). Females
typically nest and rear their broods within 1.6 kilometer (km) (1.0
mile (mi)) of an active lek (Saab and Marks 1992; Giesen and Connelly
1993). Spring-to-fall home range sizes of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
are relatively small, generally less than 2.0 square km (0.8 square
mi), and the areas used are usually within a few kilometers of a lek.
Seasonal movements to wintering areas from breeding grounds are
typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi) (Giesen and Connelly 1993).
The area within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of a lek is believed to be critical
to the management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and this area should
contain, or provide access to, suitable wintering habitats (Saab and
Marks 1992; Giesen and Connelly 1993). Because of their importance,
leks (including their surrounding area) may be viewed as the principal
units affecting the demographics of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
Assemblages of the subspecies range from local populations (single leks
to lek complexes), to metapopulations (a larger population made up of
smaller, local breeding populations that have some genetic and
ecological interactions among them).
Based on a questionnaire distributed to recognized experts in 1979,
respondents reported that Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occupied less
than 10 percent of their former range in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and
Wyoming; 10-50 percent in Colorado and Washington; and 80 percent or
more in
[[Page 57622]]
British Columbia. The range-wide population estimate for the subspecies
in 1979 was approximately 60,000-170,000 individuals, with roughly 60-
80 percent occurring in British Columbia (Miller and Graul 1980). A
current estimate is approximately 34,000-70,000 individuals, with
roughly 50-70 percent occurring in Idaho. Current estimates are based
on information provided by recognized experts throughout the range of
the subspecies (Chutter, British Columbia Ministry of Environment,
Wildlife Branch, pers. comm. 1995; Hoffman, Colorado Division of
Wildlife, pers. comm. 1995; Mathews, Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife, pers. comm. 1998; Meints, Idaho Department of Fish and Game,
pers. comm. 1995; Mitchell, Utah Department of Natural Resources, pers.
comm. 1995; Sands, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, pers. comm. 1998;
Schroeder, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, pers. comm.
1998; Thier, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, pers.
comm. 1998).
Three metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse currently
likely exist--one in northwestern Colorado/south-central Wyoming
totaling approximately 6,000-8,000 birds, one in southeastern Idaho/
northern Utah totaling approximately 20,000-50,000 birds, and one in
central British Columbia totaling 4,500-10,000 birds. To varying
degrees, other population centers are comprised of both interacting and
isolated local populations. These populations include approximately 600
birds in south-central Idaho/northeastern Nevada, a small population of
about 50 birds in northeastern Oregon, approximately 700 birds occur in
scattered small populations in north-central Washington, and two small
populations with about 50 birds each in Montana.
Conversion of native habitats important to Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse to crop production continues and are at risk from other
activities including rural and suburban development, dam construction,
mineral exploitation, chaining, herbicide spraying, and fire (Miller
and Graul 1980; Wood 1991; Giesen and Connelly 1993). In addition,
grazing practices within portions of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
range have degraded, or continue to degrade, native habitats (Hart et
al. 1950; Miller and Graul 1980; Wood 1992; Giesen and Connelly 1993).
Most of the areas that are currently or may potentially be used by
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur on privately owned lands. Some
large portions of these privately owned lands have withdrawn from crop
production and planted native and non-native cover under the Federal
Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), established in 1985 (USDA 1998). CRP lands have become important
to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and
Washington (Hoffman, pers. comm. 1998; Mathews, pers. comm. 1998;
Meints, pers. comm. 1995; Mitchell, pers. comm. 1995; Schroeder, pers.
comm. 1995). A number of CRP contracts have expired since 1995, and
more are scheduled to expire from now through 2002. While new contracts
for CRP lands continue to be accepted and some expired contracts have
been renewed, it is unclear what effects these changes have had, or
will have, on Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. If CRP lands
important to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are put back into crop
production, adverse impacts to the subspecies' populations will likely
occur.
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are currently hunted in Colorado
(Hoffman, pers. comm. 1998), Idaho (Meints, pers. comm. 1995), and
British Columbia (Chutter, pers. comm. 1995). Considering the most
recent estimates, annual harvest rates in Idaho range from
approximately 10-30 percent (approximately 6,500 birds) of the total
population during the hunting season in Idaho (Meints, pers. comm.
1995). Reliable estimates of harvest rates in Colorado are not
available but are likely less than 10 percent of the total estimated
population (Hoffman, pers. comm. 1998). Harvest rates in British
Columbia may approach 50 percent in some years (Chutter, pers. comm
1995; Ritcey 1995). There may be localized negative impacts to small
populations occupying relatively small sites. Also, both incidental and
illegal take of the subspecies may occur, especially in areas hunted
extensively for other upland game species (Hart et al. 1950; Miller and
Graul 1980). However, for relatively large, stable populations of
upland birds under managed conditions, hunting is not likely to have an
additive effect over natural mortality (Braun et al. 1994). In 1994,
the State of Wyoming banned hunting of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
based on estimates indicating that populations of this subspecies were
declining.
Reintroduction efforts for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occurred
in Washington (Schroeder, pers. comm. 1998), Montana (Their, pers.
comm. 1998), Oregon (Mathews, pers. comm. 1998), and Idaho (Meints,
pers. comm. 1995). Additional reintroduction efforts are planned for
California, Oregon, and Washington (Meints, pers. comm. 1995; Sands,
pers. comm. 1995; Schroeder, pers. comm. 1998). Past reintroduction
efforts have failed to produce self-sustaining populations or increase
the size or distribution of augmented populations (Toepfer et al.
1990). However, recent efforts indicate greater potential for success
as reintroduction techniques have improved (Toepfer et al. 1990;
Meints, pers. comm. 1998).
The fragmented and isolated nature of many populations of Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse are a concern for the subspecies throughout
portions of its range. Naturally occurring impacts and human influences
may pose additional threats to these isolated populations. Such events
may include drought, fire, inclement weather, accidents, cultivation
practices, and recreation activities (Hart et al. 1950; Rogers 1969;
WDFW 1995; Mitchell, pers. comm. 1995).
The lack of sufficient data with respect to the genetic integrity
of the subspecies' populations is also a concern (Saab and Marks 1992).
The deleterious effects of inbreeding and the changes in gene
frequencies may pose long-term threats to small, isolated populations,
and a reduction in fitness in the hybrid progeny, or later descendants,
of crosses between members of different populations may be a concern
for reintroduction efforts.
The larger populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse made up of
smaller, local breeding populations that have the same genetic and
ecological interactions among them are at relatively low risk to single
or even multiple altering events. This is because other population
segments within the affected area may provide specimens to recolonize
impacted sites, or alternate areas of suitable habitat may exist to
allow emigration of affected populations to adjust to the events.
However, isolated, local and regional populations could be at risk from
naturally occurring random events or human-influenced events.
Conservation or reestablishment of these populations may require
intensive management efforts (Toepfer et al. 1990).
We have reviewed the petition, literature cited in the petition,
other available literature and information, and consulted with
biologists and researchers familiar with the Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse. Based on the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petition presents substantial information
to indicate that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout
its
[[Page 57623]]
historic range in the contiguous United States may be warranted.
In making this finding, we recognize that there have been declines
in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations because of habitat loss
and degradation. The loss and degradation of habitat is due to any one
or a combination of factors including crop production, livestock
grazing, rural and suburban development, dam construction, herbicide
spraying, fire, recreation, and other factors. The petition presented
evidence that isolated local and regional populations of this
subspecies are at risk. We also recognize that many states in which
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur are attempting to restore the birds
by relocating birds to unoccupied habitats and/or actively managing for
them to improve their overall population status.
When making a positive 90-day finding on a petition, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. In
the case of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, we are requesting
information on the status of the species throughout its range in the
contiguous United States and Canada. We solicit information regarding
occurrence and distribution of the species; threats to its continued
existence; and any additional comments and suggestions from the public,
other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community,
industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Of particular interest is information
regarding: (1) Population status and trends; (2) Extent of
fragmentation and isolation of population segments; (3) Significance of
discrete population segments; and, (4) Ongoing management measures that
may be important with regard to the conservation of Columbia sharp-
tailed grouse.
In regard to the petitioner's request that critical habitat be
designated for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, the designation of
critical habitat is not a petitionable action under the Act. If our 12-
month finding indicates that the petitioned action to list the
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is warranted, then any subsequent
proposed rule will address any designation of critical habitat.
After consideration of additional information submitted during the
indicated time period (see DATES section), we will prepare a 12-month
finding as to whether listing of the species is warranted.
References Cited
Braun, C.E., K.M. Giesen, R.W. Hoffman, T.E. Remington, and W.D.
Snyder. 1994. Upland Bird Management Analysis Guide, 1994-1998. Div.
Report No. 19, Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1-39 pp.
Buss, I.O. and E.S. Dziedzic. 1955. Relation of Cultivation to the
Disappearance of the Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse from Southeastern
Washington. Condor. 57:185-187.
Giesen, K.M. and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Guidelines for Management of
Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Habitats. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:325-
333.
Gruell, G. circa 1960. Various unpublished interviews with long-time
residents conducted by Wildlife Management Biologist George Gruell,
on file.
Hart, C.M., O.S. Lee, and J.B. Low. 1950. The Sharp-tailed Grouse in
Utah--Its Life History, Status, and Management. Pub. no. 3, Utah
State Dept. of Fish and Game.
Marks, J.S. and V.S. Marks. 1987. Habitat selection by Columbian
Sharp-tailed Grouse in West-central Idaho. Bureau of Land Management
Report, Boise, Idaho. 115 pp.
McDonald, M.W. and K.P. Reese. 1998. Landscape Changes Within the
Historical Distribution of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in Eastern
Washington: Is There Hope? Northwest Bioscience 72:34-41.
Miller, G.C. and W.D. Graul. 1980. Status of Sharp-tailed Grouse in
North America. Pages 18-28 in P.A. Bohs and F.L. Knopf, eds., Proc.
of the Prairie Grouse Symp., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater.
Ritcey, R. 1995. Status of the Sharp-tailed Grouse in British
Columbia. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks--Wildlife
Branch, Victoria, B.C. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-70. 40 pp.
Rogers, G.E. 1969. The Sharp-tailed Grouse in Colorado. Tech. Publ.
no. 23, Colorado Div. of Game, Fish, and Parks. 94 pp.
Saab, V.A. and J.S. Marks. 1992. Summer Habitat Use by Columbian
Sharp-tailed Grouse in Western Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist.
52:166-173.
Schroeder, M.A., D. Hays, J. Pierce, and S. Judd. In press.
Distribution and Status of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in
Washington. Draft on file. 8 pp.
Toepfer, J.E., R.L. Eng, and R.K. Anderson. 1990. Translocating
Prairie Grouse: What Have We Learned? Trans. 55th N.A. Wildl. and
Nat. Res. Conf. 569-579 pp.
USDA. 1998. The Conservation Reserve Program: 16th Signup. January
29, 1998 Report by the Farm Service Agency. 249 pp.
WDFW. 1995. Washington State Management Plan for Columbian Sharp-
tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus): draft. Game
Div., Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 94 pp.
Wood, M.A. 1991. Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Mitigation
Implementation Plan for Western Montana. Report by the Montana Dept.
of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks. 24 pp.
______. 1992. Northwest Montana Wildlife Mitigation Program--Habitat
Protection Project. Report by the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife,
and Parks. 14 pp.
Author: The primary author of this notice is Christopher D. Warren,
Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) .
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record keeping requirements, and Transportation.
Dated: October 14, 1999.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-27851 Filed 10-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
