[Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 224)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67318-67325]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21no06-17]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 or
Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
(Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the
petition does not provide substantial information indicating that
listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be warranted. Therefore,
we are not initiating a further status review in response to this
petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that
becomes available concerning the status of the Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse or threats to it.
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on November 21,
2006. Comments and information concerning this finding may be submitted
until further notice.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, and material concerning this
finding may be submitted to the Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery
Drive, Spokane, WA 99206. The complete file for this finding is
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Martin, Field Supervisor, Upper
Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above), by
telephone at (509) 891-6839, or by facsimile to (509) 891-6748.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base the finding on
information provided in the petition and supporting information
available in our files at the time of the petition review. To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to make the finding within 90 days
of our receipt of the petition, and publish a notice of the finding
promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the
species.
In making this finding, we evaluated information provided by the
petitioners and contained in our files in accordance with 50 CFR
424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) is limited to a
determination of whether the information in the petition provides
``substantial information'' that the petitioned action may be
warranted.
On October 18, 2004, we received a petition, dated October 14,
2004, from Forest Guardians, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity
Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for
Native Ecosystems, The Larch Company, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance,
Oregon Natural Desert Association, and Western Watersheds Project
(petitioners). The petitioners requested that the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse be listed as threatened or endangered throughout its
historic range in accordance with section 4 of the Act.
We were required to complete a significant number of listing
actions in 2005, pursuant to court orders and judicially approved
settlement agreements, and were unable to address the petition at that
time. On January 18, 2005, we acknowledged receipt of the petition, and
indicated to the petitioners that we would not be able to address the
petition at that time due to other priorities relating to court orders
and settlement agreements. On November 25, 2005, we received a Notice
of Intent to Sue (NOI), dated November 22, 2005, for our failure to
make a 90-day finding on the petition. On April 5, 2006, we received a
formal complaint, which had been filed on March 20, 2006. On May 31,
2006, the U.S. District Court of Idaho granted a Stipulated Settlement
Agreement between us and the petitioners, wherein we agreed to publish
a 90-day finding on the petition
[[Page 67319]]
by November 15, 2006. This finding constitutes our compliance with the
settlement agreement.
Previous Federal Actions
We previously received a petition, dated March 14, 1995, to list
the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout its historic range in the
conterminous United States (Biodiversity Legal Foundation 1995). On
October 26, 1999, we published a positive 90-day finding and initiated
a status review to determine if listing the Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse was warranted (64 FR 57620). On October 11, 2000, we published a
negative 12-month finding that determined the requested action was not
warranted (65 FR 60391).
Species Information
The information summarized in this section is taken from the
petition (cited as Forest Guardians et al. 2004) and our files.
The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of seven recognized
subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that have been described in North
America, based primarily on geographic variation in overall size,
plumage coloration and patterning, and the broadly defined ecosystems
occupied (Connelly et al. 1998, p. 3). The Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse is the smallest subspecies. It has darker gray plumage, more
pronounced spotting on the throat, and narrower markings on the
underside than other subspecies. Historically, the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse's 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 and British Columbia.
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur in a variety of habitats within
the northwestern United States and Canada, including sagebrush-
bunchgrass, meadow-steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian zones (Marks
and Marks 1987, p. 40; Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 326). Various
upland habitats, with a component of denser riparian or mountain shrub
habitat to provide escape cover, are important to the subspecies from
spring to fall (Saab and Marks 1992, p. 171; Giesen and Connelly 1993,
pp. 327-329). The availability of suitable wintering habitat,
containing a dominant component of deciduous trees and shrubs, is also
thought to be a key element to healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
populations (Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 54-57; Giesen and Connelly 1993,
pp. 329-330).
Male sharp-tailed grouse 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 the exact dancing
locations may shift position 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. 2000, p.
3). Due to social structures within a lek and other influences, such as
exposure to predation, leks seldom support more than 25 males (Moyles
and Boag 1981, pp. 1579-1580; Rodgers 1992, p. 104; Connelly et al.
1998, p. 8). The few dominant males at a lek's center account for the
majority of successful mating attempts (Johnsgard 1973, p. 314;
Bradbury and Gibson 1983, pp. 119-120). Male Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse may also display and establish specific dancing sites at leks
during other seasons (Johnsgard 1973, p. 312; Moyles and Boag 1981, p.
1576; Marks and Marks 1987, p. xii; McDonald 1998, pp. 38-39).
Spring-to-fall home range sizes of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
are relatively small, generally less than 2 square kilometers (km\2\)
(1.2 square miles (mi\2\)), and the areas used are usually in the
vicinity of a lek. Females typically nest and rear their broods within
1.6 km (1 mi) of an active lek, although nesting more than 3 km (1.9
mi) from a lek has been recorded (Saab and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170;
Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327). Seasonal movements to wintering
areas from breeding grounds are typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi)
(Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327), although movements of up to 20 km
(12.4 mi) have been recorded (Meints 1991, p. 53). The overall annual
survival rate of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is relatively low, and
ranges from roughly 20 to 50 percent (WDFW 1995, p. 9; Connelly et al.
1998, p. 12).
The area within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of a lek is thought 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, pp. 168-170; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 326-332).
Because of their influence on the subspecies' demographics, leks
(including the surrounding area) can be used as the basis for
describing the hierarchical assemblages of Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse populations. These assemblages range from local populations
(single leks to lek complexes), to regional populations (potentially
interacting local populations occupying small geographic areas, such as
a county), to metapopulations (potentially interacting regional
populations occupying larger geographic areas).
Various historical accounts indicate that the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse was once much more abundant throughout its range where
suitable habitats occurred (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 8-9; Buss and
Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-22). Excessive hunting in
the mid- to late 19th century is thought to have been a major
contributing factor to the extirpation of some local populations and
the initial reduction of the subspecies' range (Hart et al. 1950, p.
60). Beginning in the early 1900s, the conversion of native habitats
for crop production and habitat degradation as a result of heavy
livestock grazing are thought to be the primary factors in further
population declines and range reductions (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-59;
Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, p. 25;
Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp.
28-31; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3).
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have been extirpated from California
(circa 1920), Nevada (circa 1950), and Oregon (circa 1960) (Miller and
Graul 1980, p. 20; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). Past declines in the
subspecies' abundance and distribution have isolated various extant
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
At large geographic scales (e.g., States, ecoregions), the overall
distribution of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse appears to have changed
little since the mid-1900s, and various sources have acknowledged the
difficulty of obtaining accurate population estimates for the
subspecies as a whole (Hart et al. 1950, p. 13; Rogers 1969, p. 42;
Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 18-19; Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 2-3).
However, when smaller geographic areas are considered, a general
pattern of continued range reduction and population decline is apparent
in a number of local and several regional populations from the mid-
1900s to the present (Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; WDFW 1995, pp.
4-6; Ritcey 1995, pp. 2-4; Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 4-8; Mitchell
1995, 1998; Hoffman 1995, 1998; Thier 1998; Chutter 1995). Based on the
results from a 1979 questionnaire distributed to wildlife professionals
throughout the subspecies' range, Miller and Graul (1980, p. 20)
concluded that populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occupied
less than 10 percent of their former range in Idaho, Montana, Utah,
[[Page 67320]]
and Wyoming; 10 to 50 percent in Colorado and Washington; and 80
percent or more in British Columbia.
The following individual State and province discussions represent
the most recent available information on populations by State and
Canadian province. Each discussion initially summarizes information
from our files, as well as the best estimates of recognized experts
during a February 2000 interagency species status review meeting (USFWS
2000), and an independent report that addressed the viability of the
various extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Bart 2000,
pp. 5-10). The State and province discussions also summarize the
current status of each State's hunting regulations relating to
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Finally, the State and province
discussions summarize new information presented in the petition or that
has become available in our files since 2000. For consistency,
estimates of the spring breeding population are reported for each area.
In general, the estimates of fall population sizes, which include
annual reproduction and exclude over-winter mortality, are roughly
double that of spring breeding population estimates.
Colorado. The information in this paragraph is taken from Mumma
(1999) and House (2000). The northwestern region of the State contains
many interacting local populations with multiple leks that together
constitute a distinct metapopulation. This metapopulation totaled
roughly 5,000 birds in the spring breeding population in 2000. The
metapopulation occurs primarily in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco
Counties, and is continuous with local populations in south-central
Wyoming (see following discussion under Wyoming). Mesa County, in west-
central Colorado, may still harbor a remnant local population, but the
last confirmed sightings of birds in this area are from around 1985.
The State of Colorado maintains a fall hunting season in the
northwestern region, with bag and possession limits of 2 and 4 birds,
respectively. During the late 1990s, the annual State harvest estimate
averaged 218 birds.
The petition states that the metapopulation in Moffat, Routt, and
Rio Blanco Counties may have consisted of approximately 6,080 birds in
approximately 2004, based on Hoffman (2002) (pp. 34-35 of the
petition). The petition also states that population estimates for
Colorado (based on the average number of males per lek) fluctuated
widely from 2000 to 2004.
Idaho. Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is
taken from Mallet (2000). The southeastern region of the State contains
many interacting local populations with multiple leks, which constitute
a distinct metapopulation that totaled, as of 2000, roughly 6,000 to
13,000 birds in the spring breeding population. This population occurs
primarily south of Rexburg and east of Rupert, Idaho (Meints 1995,
1998), and is continuous with local populations in northern Utah (see
following discussion under Utah). The upper Snake River region,
including the Sand Creek and Tex Creek areas, harbored, as of 2000,
roughly 600 birds in the spring breeding population (approximately 300
in each area). Birds from these two areas likely interact with one
another and with the larger population in the southeastern region
(Meints 1995, 1998). Washington and Adams Counties, in the west-central
region, harbored, as of 2000, roughly 200 to 300 birds in the spring
breeding population, which supports approximately 7 leks. This area is
isolated from other regional populations. Translocation efforts began
in the Shoshone Basin area of extreme south-central Idaho in 1992, and
resulted in establishment of an isolated local population supporting at
least three leks in 2000. This area may be continuous with a small
population of reintroduced birds in northeastern Nevada (see following
discussion under Nevada).
The State of Idaho maintains a fall hunting season, with bag and
possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, respectively. The available
information indicates that roughly 3,000 birds are harvested annually
from the southeastern and upper Snake River regions.
The petition states that the Shoshone Basin population may have
consisted of 200 to 400 birds in 2004 (pp. 29-31 of the petition). The
petition also states that population estimates for Idaho (based on
average number of males per lek) fluctuated widely from 1999 to 2004.
Montana. Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is
taken from McCarthy (2000). Two small local populations may still occur
in the northwestern region of the State, one in Lincoln County near the
international boundary with British Columbia, and one in Powell County.
The Lincoln County area supported fewer than 20 birds on a single lek
in the 2000 spring breeding population. From 1987 through 1991, and
again in 1996 and 1997, the Lincoln County population was augmented
with birds translocated primarily from central British Columbia (one
effort included birds translocated from southeastern Idaho). The Powell
County area supported fewer than 50 birds on a few leks in the 2000
spring breeding population. Based on the evaluation of a limited number
of specimens, birds in the Powell County population show a greater
morphological affinity to the plains subspecies (T. p. jamesi);
however, these birds show a greater genetic affinity to the Columbian
subspecies (Warheit and Schroeder 2003, p. 5). Therefore, the taxonomic
status of this population remains in question. The two local Montana
populations are isolated from one another and from other regional
populations. During the early 1970s and again in 1980, limited efforts
to reintroduce sharp-tailed grouse to the National Bison Range (roughly
50 km northwest of Missoula) were conducted with birds translocated
from southeastern Idaho. It is unlikely that any of these birds or
their offspring persisted in the area (Wood 1991, p. 6).
The State of Montana does not have an open hunting season for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
The petition states that Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may have
been extirpated in Montana by 2004 (p. 35 of the petition).
Nevada. The information in this paragraph is taken from Morros
(1999) and Crawforth (2000). During the spring of 1999, 54 birds from
the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho were translocated to the Snake
Mountains in Elko County. Census information from 2000 indicated there
were roughly 20 to 40 birds remaining from this initial effort.
No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in
the State of Nevada.
According to a source cited in the petition (Stiver et al. (2002),
cited on p. 32 of the petition), 196 birds were reintroduced between
1999 and 2002. No additional population estimates were provided. This
reintroduced local population may be continuous with reintroduced birds
in south-central Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho).
Oregon. The information in this paragraph is taken from Crawford
and Coggins (2000). From 1991 through 1997, a total of 179 birds were
translocated into Wallowa County in northeastern Oregon. Translocated
birds originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho. Census
information in 2000 indicated that roughly 15 to 30 individuals,
supporting one or a few leks, existed in the spring breeding population
in an area several miles from the initial release site.
[[Page 67321]]
No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in
the State of Oregon.
According to a source cited in the petition (ODFW (2001), cited on
p. 29 of the petition), an additional 33 birds were translocated in
2001, and the estimated population at that time was 80 birds. The
petition, citing personal communication with C. Braun, states that
translocation efforts in Oregon have likely failed and that the
population appears to be extirpated from the State.
Utah. The information in this paragraph is taken from Mitchell
(2000). The northern region of the State contains numerous, interacting
local populations with multiple leks, which constitute a distinct,
interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,000 birds in the spring
breeding population. This population is continuous with the population
in southeastern Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho).
The State of Utah reopened its hunting season in 1998, and, over
the first 3 years, issued 663, 2-bird permits in a limited-entry hunt.
The State harvest estimates for 1998, 1999, and 2000 were 201, 462, and
233 birds, respectively.
The petition states that the Utah population (based on estimates of
average number of males per lek) fluctuates widely from year to year,
and may have declined by 50 percent over the 4-year period from 1998
through 2001 (pp. 33-34 of the petition).
Washington. Except as noted, the information in this paragraph is
taken from Schroeder (2000) and Cawston (2000). Eight local populations
occur in the north-central region of the State; four likely have
multiple leks, and four consist of single or few leks (Schroeder et al.
2000, p. 98). In 2000, the overall estimate was approximately 860
individuals in the spring breeding population; the 2005 estimate was
578 individuals (Schroeder 2005, p. 16). Some minimal interaction may
occur between a few local populations, while others are isolated. The
Washington population is isolated from other regional populations.
Recent genetic analyses indicate that the State population was likely
experiencing inbreeding, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from other
stable populations have been translocated to Washington to address this
potential threat. The genetic analyses indicate that the birds in
Washington may have a different genetic profile than other populations,
and that they may currently be on a different evolutionary trajectory
(Warheit and Schroeder 2001, p. 5) due to these genetic differences and
their isolation from other populations. Because the genetic differences
may result from isolation and inbreeding, translocation efforts are
targeted at preserving any genetic uniqueness while increasing genetic
diversity. During the spring of 1998, 1999, and 2000, translocation
efforts were conducted to augment one of the remnant local populations
in north-central Washington. Translocated birds originated from the
metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and from one of the larger local
populations in Washington. Additional translocation efforts were
undertaken during the spring of 2005 and 2006, to augment three
additional Washington populations (Hays 2006). Current plans call for a
third consecutive year in 2007 to complete these augmentation efforts.
Roughly half of the translocated birds for these efforts originated
from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho, and the rest originated
from the metapopulation in central British Columbia (see following
discussion under British Columbia).
The State of Washington has not had a hunting season for Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse since 1988.
According to the petition (p. 28), the total Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse population in the State of Washington was estimated to be 618
birds in 2002.
Wyoming. The information in this paragraph is taken from Kruse
(1999). Available information indicates that one population exists in
the south-central region of the State that consisted of roughly 100 to
500 birds in the spring breeding population and supported multiple leks
in 2000. The population occurs in Carbon County and is continuous with
the metapopulation in northwestern Colorado (see previous discussion
under Colorado).
No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in
the State of Wyoming.
The petition cites personal communication with T. Wooley (no
affiliation given) that the Wyoming population may have totaled
approximately 600 to 700 birds in 2004 (pp. 31-32 of the petition).
British Columbia, Canada. The information in this paragraph is
taken from M. Chutter, British Columbia Ministry of Environment,
Wildlife Branch (1995). The central region of British Columbia (Fraser
Plateau) contains numerous interacting local populations with multiple
leks, which comprise a distinct interacting metapopulation totaling
roughly 5,000 to 10,000 birds in the spring breeding population. The
area directly south of Cranbrook (southeastern region) may contain one
local population with a single to few leks. This population is isolated
from other regional populations. The area south of Merritt to the
Washington border (south-central region) contains individual birds or
small flocks during the winter, with no breeding behavior (i.e., leks)
apparent.
British Columbia currently prohibits hunting of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse in native grassland habitats (i.e., the southern portion
of the subspecies' Provincial distribution). Accurate harvest estimates
for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout the remainder of the
Province are not available.
The petition cites Leupin's (2002) estimate that the population in
British Columbia may have consisted of approximately 10,100 birds in
2002, based on extrapolations of estimated densities across potentially
suitable habitats (pp. 36-37 of the petition).
Summary of Subspecies' Status
Based on the best available scientific information in 2000, the
rangewide estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's spring
breeding population was approximately 22,500 to 35,500 individuals,
with approximately 18,000 to 25,500 individuals occurring within the
conterminous United States. This total population occupied
approximately 79,500 km2 (31,000 mi2) rangewide,
and approximately 38,500 km2 (15,000 mi2) within
the conterminous United States, in 2000 (Bart 2000, p. 5). Currently,
roughly 95 percent of all Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur within
the 3 remaining metapopulations: In northwestern Colorado and south-
central Wyoming; southeastern Idaho and northern Utah; and central
British Columbia (Bart 2000, p. 8). By comparing information provided
in the petition (pp. 30-37) with data we have in our files, we
determined that the petition indicates that the metapopulation in
northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming may have increased by
roughly 25 percent between 2000 and 2004; the metapopulation in central
British Columbia may have increased by roughly 5 percent during the
same period; and the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and northern
Utah may have increased slightly (no percentage estimate available).
By comparing the available information in our files with
information contained in the 2004 petition, the estimated minimum net
increase in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance between 2000 and
2004 would be roughly 9 percent, both rangewide and within the
conterminous United States, as indicated by the petition (Bart 2000, p.
8; pp. 30-37 of the petition). If we were to assume a
[[Page 67322]]
worst case analysis, i.e., that there was no increase in areas occupied
by the metapopulations, the total area occupied by Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse, both rangewide and within the conterminous United
States, may have decreased by less than 1 percent between 2000 and 2004
due to the possible extirpation of several discrete populations (Bart
2000, p. 8; p. 38 of the petition). These estimates of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse are derived from data provided in the petition, and do
not represent our estimates of trends. We and the petitioners
acknowledge that reliable trends are not determinable from available
data (Bart 2000, p. 8; pp. 31-35, 38 of the petition).
The petition indicates that abundance estimates for several of the
discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse fluctuate widely
between years, and therefore the populations cannot be considered
stable (pp. 31, 34-35 of the petition). However, species of prairie
grouse, with intrinsically high reproductive potential and low
survival, periodically undergo wide fluctuations in numbers (e.g.,
seasonally, yearly), as is demonstrated by spring versus fall
population estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. This
variability in abundance does not necessarily indicate instability in
these species, but rather represents an inherent component of their
life history strategy. Little documentation exists concerning possible
ranges of natural seasonal or yearly variation in Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse populations, so we are unable to provide estimates of
fluctuations due to existing threats. The various survey methodologies
and population indices used throughout the subspecies' range make it
difficult to obtain accurate or consistent population estimates for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 8). In some instances,
apparent fluctuations in population abundance may be an artifact of the
survey methodology used, survey effort expended, or reliance on
variable population estimators. As indicated in the petition (pp. 31-35
of the petition), the available information does not reveal reliable
trends (neither positive nor negative) in abundance for the larger
metapopulations.
Most of the small, isolated populations of Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse, i.e., populations outside the three metapopulations, may be
extirpated within a decade or two due to existing threats and current
management scenarios (Wisdom et al. 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p.
9). These discrete populations represent less than 1 percent of the
area historically occupied, and 4 percent of the current occupied
range. Three regional populations, including the Nespelem population in
Washington, the west-central Idaho population, and the south-central
Idaho and northern Nevada population, were stable in 2000 (Bart 2000,
p. 9).
The metapopulations of the subspecies have persisted for the last
several decades with no discernable downward trend, and the available
information indicates they may now be increasing, along with the
habitats available to them (Bart 2000, p. 8). The available information
indicates that the three metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse are relatively secure, although conclusive data regarding recent
trends in these populations appears to be lacking (Bart 2000, p. 8;
petition pp. 31-35). Given the level of threat to these populations and
ongoing conservation measures (e.g., translocations, habitat protection
and restoration), (Bart 2000, p. 9-10) concluded that, in the near term
(i.e., less than 100 years), the large metapopulations of Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse would likely remain stable or increase in abundance
and area of occupied range. In addition, one small population is likely
to remain stable in west-central Idaho (Bart 2000, p. 10).
According to Bart (2000, pp. 9-10), the three metapopulations will
likely also remain stable in the long term (i.e., 100 years), although
the Utah portion of one of the metapopulations may experience some
decline as a result of predicted future urban expansion in the Salt
Lake City and Ogden metropolitan area. Of the smaller populations, only
the west-central Idaho population is likely to remain stable, while the
long-term outlook for reintroduced populations of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse is uncertain (Bart 2000, p. 10).
Threats Analysis
In our determinations of whether to list a species, subspecies, or
any distinct vertebrate population segment of these taxa under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, we must consider the following five factors: (A)
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above factors, either singly or in
combination.
The information presented in the petition with regard to the five
factors established by the Act and the information in our files as it
relates to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is considered below.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
The petition (pp. 39-40) states that habitat destruction, primarily
due to extensive agricultural development, is one of the main reasons
for the decline of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's rangewide
population, and that agriculture and other activities that result in
habitat destruction (e.g., residential development) are continuing, or
possibly increasing, within the subspecies' historic distribution.
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are negatively impacted by loss of
habitat and associated human disturbances, such as the introduction of
pets, some of which (e.g., dogs) may prey upon or otherwise disturb
local populations, and by potential increases in the abundance and
distribution of certain natural predators, such as coyotes and ravens.
The petition also states that habitat degradation, primarily due to
excessive livestock grazing, contributed to past declines in Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse distribution and abundance, and that grazing and
other activities (e.g., chemical and mechanical treatments, increases
in nonnative invasive vegetation) continue to threaten the subspecies
(pp. 40-43 of the petition). Threats from these activities mainly
result from modifications to existing vegetation communities that make
the sites less suitable, or unsuitable, for use by Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse.
We concur with the petitioners that human influences are primarily
responsible for the destruction and degradation of suitable habitats,
resulting in declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance and
occupied range. However, most large-scale habitat conversions within
the subspecies' historic distribution took place during the early to
mid-1900s (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp.
185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-
4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese
1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3).
Implementation of light or moderate grazing levels, or varied
grazing systems, may maintain or improve forage conditions on range
lands (Mattise et al. 1982, p. 131; Nielsen and Yde 1982, pp. 159-163),
and do not necessarily adversely affect Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
populations. The information provided in the petition
[[Page 67323]]
and in our files does not further address actual grazing levels (e.g.,
livestock numbers, timing, duration) or grazing effects specific to the
discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
We concur with the petitioners that conversion and degradation of
suitable habitats within the subspecies' historic distribution
continues. However, these impacts are occurring at much reduced rates
compared to historic levels (see above). The petition did not provide
any information that further quantifies or qualifies these potential
ongoing impacts, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse populations.
Given the lack of information in the petition that further
quantifies or qualifies habitat impacts, and the fact that the three
metapopulations of the grouse are stable or increasing, we find that
the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that
the destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range
threaten the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition states that excessive hunting likely contributed to
past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse distribution and
abundance, and presents a discussion addressing whether contemporary
hunting pressure may be additive or compensatory to natural mortality.
The petition cautions that, under certain circumstances, excessive
hunting pressure may result in population declines. The petition
summarizes recent hunting seasons, bag limits, and potential adverse
impacts from hunting in several U.S. States and in British Columbia,
Canada. The petition also indicates that certain research activities
(e.g., radio-marking) may make Columbian sharp-tailed grouse more
susceptible to mortality factors (e.g., predation) (pp. 43-44 of the
petition).
We concur with the petitioners that excessive hunting pressure is
partially responsible for past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse abundance and occupied range, and that, under certain
circumstances, contemporary hunting pressure may be additive to natural
mortality. We also concur that various research activities may increase
the risk of mortality to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However,
current estimated harvest rates are not likely to adversely affect the
metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the States with
hunting seasons (Bart 2000, pp. 11-12). In addition, large
metapopulations are not likely to be significantly impacted by various
future research activities (capture, translocation, radio marking,
genetic sampling) (Bart 2000, p. 11).
The petition did not provide any information that further
quantifies or qualifies the potential ongoing impacts of hunting or
research, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse populations. Therefore, we find that the petition has not
presented substantial information to indicate that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threatens
the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that
listing under the Act may be warranted.
C. Disease or Predation
The petition states that some Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
populations may carry heavy ectoparasite loads that could limit already
stressed populations (pp. 44-45 of the petition). The petition also
presents a discussion of the impacts of West Nile virus infection on
greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and indicates that
this rapidly emerging disease may represent a significant threat to
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, especially to the smaller, isolated
populations of the subspecies. The petition indicates that human
activities may have increased the vulnerability of some Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse populations to predation.
No documentation exists that indicates disease or predation have
played a significant role in the population declines and range
reduction of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We agree that West Nile
virus could become a threat to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the
future. However, there is currently no information available that
addresses the potential occurrence, infection rates, or virulence of
West Nile virus in the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, or its potential
effects on extant populations of the subspecies. We also agree that
episodes of disease and altered predation patterns may play a role in
the dynamics of the smaller, isolated populations.
The petition did not provide any information that quantifies or
qualifies the potential impacts of disease or predation, or their
specific effects, on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations.
Therefore, we find that the petition has not presented substantial
information to indicate that disease or predation threatens the
continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that
listing under the Act may be warranted.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The petition asserts that we inappropriately relied on formal State
conservation planning efforts in our previous 12-month finding that
determined the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse did not warrant listing
under the Act (65 FR 60391). The petition also provides summary
assessments of formal State conservation planning efforts in Colorado,
Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, and identifies U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) management designations
for the subspecies (pp. 45-52 of the petition).
Our previous determination was not based on the identified formal
State and local working-group planning efforts; we considered them to
be rudimentary planning efforts at that time (65 FR 60391). In
addition, we specifically did not address these preliminary planning
efforts under factor D, because they are non-regulatory in nature. Bart
(2000, p. 7) indicated that: (1) Implementation of these plans was
uncertain; (2) the plans provided no legally binding commitments; and
(3) the conservation measures prescribed by the plans did not have much
impact on analyses addressing the viability of the various extant
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Other ongoing foreign,
Federal, State, and local management measures contributing to
conservation of the subspecies were identified in our previous status
review. These management measures include habitat maintenance and
enhancement (e.g., that provided through the Federal Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) or through land acquisition and protection
actions), reintroduction and augmentation programs, and State survey
and monitoring initiatives. In accordance with section 4(b)(1) of the
Act, we based our previous 12-month determination on the combined
weight of the five threat factors and conservation benefits realized
through ongoing management measures (65 FR 60391). The additional
information provided in the petition that addresses the preliminary
nature of formal State and local planning efforts does not substantiate
that this is a factor that threatens the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
We concluded above that State hunting regulations appear to be
sufficient to control harvest levels of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
(both legal and illegal) in States where they
[[Page 67324]]
are hunted, and to avoid adverse impacts to the subspecies (see
previous discussion under factor B).
In addition, revegetation and reclamation standards under the CRP
and Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act promote the improvement of
habitat conditions for the subspecies' metapopulations. The petition
(pp. 56-60) indicates that potential benefits provided by the CRP may
be limited, especially considering that ``emergency'' haying and
grazing are allowed on lands enrolled under the program. The new
information referenced in the petition (Table 2, pp. 57-58) indicates
that, on average, less than 10 percent of CRP acreage within the
historic range of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be open to
emergency grazing and haying on an annual basis. The petition also
indicates that the CRP may expire in 2007, which may represent a
significant threat to various Columbian sharp-tailed populations that
have come to rely on these lands. The CRP has been authorized on a
recurrent 10-year time frame since 1987, with subsequent ``sign-ups''
of eligible lands occurring after each reauthorization. While the
available information does not conclusively demonstrate that the
program will be continued in 2007 or beyond, it likewise does not
indicate that it will be terminated or otherwise significantly altered
under future reauthorizations. The available information does not
address the actual extent of haying and grazing activities (e.g.,
livestock numbers, timing, duration) or potential effects to the
subspecies under the haying and grazing provisions, and does not
address other conservation implications of potential future changes to
the CRP.
Further, the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are
stable or improving in status, and there are approximately 22,500 to
35,500 birds. Because the status is stable, it is likely that threat
levels are low enough in the metapopulation areas, such that regulatory
mechanisms are not necessary to prevent declines. We find that the
petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms threatens the continued
existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under
the Act may be warranted.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
The petition presented discussions addressing potential adverse
impacts to the extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from
other influences, including the use of insecticides, reduced genetic
fitness, drought and climate change, prescribed fire and fire
suppression, other human-related disturbances (e.g., fences, increased
noise), dependence on artificial habitats (e.g., lands enrolled under
the CRP), and utility lines and roads (pp. 44-52).
We concur with the petitioners that some of the other threats
identified in the petition (e.g., insecticide use, reduced genetic
fitness, fire management, other human-related disturbances) may impact
local populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, the three
metapopulations and the larger regional populations have persisted in
the presence of these ongoing factors for decades. Because
metapopulations are more resilient to localized impacts, these factors,
either singly or in combination, are not expected to significantly
affect future trends in the overall status of the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 10).
Other possible future threats identified in the petition (e.g.,
climate change, extended drought) have the potential to impact the
three metapopulations and the larger regional populations of Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse. The petition provides speculation (p. 55 of the
petition) that temperature increases in combination with altered
precipitation could cause changes in species composition and habitat.
While a petition does not have to provide conclusive evidence, we find
that substantial evidence requires more than speculation. No additional
information regarding how these potential threats may affect Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse, now or in the future, is contained in our files.
We find that the petition has not presented substantial information
to indicate that other natural or human-caused factors threaten the
continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that
listing under the Act may be warranted.
Significant Portion of the Range
The petition states that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is
absent from 92 to 95 percent of its historic distribution (p. 52 of the
petition), and claims that this area represents a significant portion
of the subspecies' range.
We concur with the petitioners that the Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse currently occupies less than 10 percent of its estimated
historic distribution (Bart 2000, p. 8), and that most of the
subspecies' small, isolated populations may be extirpated within 10 to
20 years due to existing threats and current management scenarios
(Wisdom et al. 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 9). However, range
contractions by themselves do not relegate species to certain
extinction or suggest that the species require protections under the
Act. Nearly all species have experienced range contractions due to
anthropogenic effects. While for many species even small range
contractions are incompatible with recovery, reduction in a species'
range or population numbers does not automatically suggest that the
species is in peril, sometimes even when the reduction appears
significant.
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population core areas, where 95
percent of the grouse have occurred for the last 50 years or more, have
remained relatively constant, with recent slight increases (Bart 2000,
pp. 8-10). Most broad-scale impacts to the Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse (e.g., loss and degradation of suitable habitats, over-hunting)
that led to past declines in the subspecies' abundance and distribution
took place during the late 1800s through the mid-1900s (Hart et al.
1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul
1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p.
38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et
al. 1998, pp. 2-3). The petitioner concludes that lack of proactive
management by State and Federal agencies will allow the species to fade
into extinction (p. 61 of the petition); however, available information
shows that hunting is either regulated or not authorized in all States
with populations, and reintroduction actions are ongoing. The
subspecies remains stable in three metapopulations, and no current data
indicates declining trends. The petition does not provide substantial
information suggesting that the portion of the range where the
subspecies no longer occurs is significant to the long-term persistence
of the subspecies.
In addition, while in general we are concerned with the continued
loss of range and the potential contribution small populations may play
in a species' recovery, the petition does not present substantial
information that the small, islolated populations that may be
extirpated in a few decades constitute a significant portion of the
range. We made this determination based on a combination of factors.
First, the extent of habitat outside the three metapopulations is small
relative to the overall range of the subspecies, roughly 4 percent of
the subspecies' current occupied range. Second, there is no scientific
evidence suggesting that the small, isolated populations of
[[Page 67325]]
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are genetically, behaviorally, or
ecologically unique, or that they contribute individuals to other
geographic areas through emigration. Finally, there is no scientific
evidence suggesting that these habitats are important to the survival
of the species because of any unique contribution to the species'
natural history, e.g., for reasons such as feeding, migration, or
wintering.
Finding
We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition,
and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent
information available in our files. The two main causes for historic
declines of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, (1) loss and degradation of
habitats and (2) over-hunting, occurred in the early 1900s. At present,
these factors occur at much reduced levels, or not at all, within the
areas currently occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations.
The subspecies' metapopulations have persisted for the last several
decades with no discernable downward trend, and recent information
indicates they may now be increasing, along with the habitats available
to them (Bart 2000, p. 9).
After review of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we conclude that substantial information has not been
presented to indicate that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as
a threatened or endangered species may be warranted.
Although we are not commencing a new status review in response to
this petition, we will continue to monitor the subspecies' population
status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions
that might affect the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that
will assist with conservation of the subspecies. If you wish to provide
information regarding the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, you may submit
your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available on
request from the Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section above).
Author
The primary author of this notice is Chris Warren of the Upper
Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: November 13, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-19681 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P