Jump to main content.

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as Threatened

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 


[Federal Register: October 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60391-60396]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11oc00-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding for a petition to list Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
(Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) throughout its known historic
range in the 48 contiguous United States under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. We have reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, other published and unpublished information
submitted to us during the public comment period following the 90-day
petition finding, consulted with recognized prairie grouse experts, and
coordinated with other Federal, State, and tribal resource agencies
within the historic range of the subspecies. On the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information available, we find that listing
the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as a threatened species throughout
its historic range in the contiguous United States is not warranted at
this time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made September 27,
2000. Comments and information may be submitted until further notice is
given by a document published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, and material concerning the
petition finding may be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Upper
Columbia River Basin Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington, 99206. The 12-month
petition finding, supporting data, and comments are available for
public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the
above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Warren at the above address or
telephone (509) 893-8020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires, to the maximum extent
practicable, that we make a finding within 12 months of the date of
receipt of a petition containing substantial information on whether the
petitioned action is: (a) not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)
warranted but precluded from an immediate proposal by other pending
proposals of higher priority. Upon making a 12-month finding, we must
promptly publish such notice in the Federal Register.
    On March 16, 1995, we received a petition from the Biodiversity
Legal Foundation, Boulder, Colorado, dated March 14, 1995. The
petitioner requested that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse be listed
as a threatened species throughout its known historic range in the 48
contiguous United States and that critical habitat be designated for
the species as soon as its biological needs are sufficiently well
known. The petition also recommended a review of the species' status in
British Columbia, Canada.
    We added the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse to our candidate species
list on January 6, 1989, as a Category 2 species (54 FR 560). Category
2 species were those for which we possessed information indicating that
a proposal to list as endangered or threatened was possibly
appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological vulnerability
and threats were not available to support a proposed rule. On February
28, 1996, we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as
candidates for listing under the Act (61 FR 7596).
    Due to a backlog of listing actions and funding constraints in our
listing program, we have implemented our Listing Priority Guidance
during the course of listing actions for the subject petition. The
guidance, first adopted on

[[Page 60392]]

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), was updated on May 16, 1996 (61 FR
24722), December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475), May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502), and,
most recently, on October 22, 1999 (64 FR 57114). The guidance is a
biologically based method of prioritizing listing actions to provide
the greatest conservation benefit to imperiled species in the most
expeditious manner. On October 26, 1999, we determined that the
petition presented substantial information and that the petition action
may be warranted. We published an announcement of our administrative
finding (64 FR 57620). At that time, we initiated a status review of
the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in accordance with our Listing
Priority Guidance.

Species Information

    The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of seven recognized
subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that have been described in North
America (AOU 1957, Aldrich 1963, Johnsgard 1973, Miller and Graul 1980,
Connelly et al. 1998). Compared to the other subspecies, Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse are the smallest and have darker gray plumage, more
pronounced spotting on the throat, and narrower markings on the
underside. Historically, 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 and extreme southeastern British Columbia.
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse rely on a variety of good quality
native habitats within the sagebrush-bunchgrass, meadow-steppe,
mountain shrub, and riparian zones of the northwestern United States
(Giesen and Connelly 1993). Various upland habitats, with a component
of more dense riparian or mountain shrub habitat to provide escape
cover, are important to the subspecies from spring to fall (Saab and
Marks 1992, Giesen and Connelly 1993). Suitable wintering habitat, that
consists largely of deciduous trees and shrubs, is also thought to be a
key element to healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations
(Marshall and Jensen 1937, Hart et al. 1950, Marks and Marks 1987,
Giesen and Connelly 1993).
    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, where males and females may switch sites within and
between seasons, are defined as lek complexes (Schroeder et al., pers.
comm. 2000). Individual leks can consist of several to over 30
displaying males, under good conditions 15 to 25 males per lek are
common (Meints, Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1995 and
1998; Schroeder, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), pers.
comm. 1995, 1998, and 2000). Due to social structures within a lek and
other potential influences, such as exposure to predation, leks seldom
support more than 25 males (Moyles and Boag 1981, Rodgers 1992,
Connelly et al. 1998). The few dominant males at a lek's center account
for the majority of successful mating attempts (Leopold et al. 1981,
Moyles and Boag 1981).
    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 within a few
km (mi) 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, Giesen and
Connelly 1993). Seasonal movements to wintering areas from breeding
grounds are typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi) (Giesen and Connelly
1993), although movements of up to 20 km (12.4 mi) have been recorded
(Meints 1991). The annual survival rate of sharp-tailed grouse is
relatively low, and ranges from roughly 20 to 50 percent (WDFW 1995,
Connelly et al. 1998).
    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, Giesen and Connelly 1993). Because of their influence on
the species' demographics, leks (including the surrounding area) can be
viewed as the principal units describing the arrangement of sharp-
tailed grouse populations. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 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 historic accounts indicate that Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse were once much more abundant throughout their range where
suitable habitats occurred (Hart et al. 1950, Buss and Dziedzic 1955,
Gruell circa 1960, WDFW 1995). Excessive hunting in the mid to late
19th century is thought to have been a major contributing factor to the
early extirpation of local populations and the initial reduction of the
subspecies' range (Hart et al. 1950). However, since the turn of the
century, the conversion of native habitats for crop production and
their 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, Buss and Dziedzic 1955, Miller and Graul
1980, Marks and Marks 1987, Braun et al. 1994, WDFW 1995, McDonald and
Reese 1998, Connelly et al. 1998). Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have
been extirpated from California, Nevada, and Oregon (Miller and Graul
1980, Connelly et al. 1998). Past declines in the subspecies' overall
abundance and extent of occupied range have isolated various
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from one another since the
mid-1900's (cf Hart et al. 1950).
    When large geographic areas are considered (e.g., states and
provinces), the overall distribution of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
appears to have changed little since the mid-1900's, and various
sources have acknowledged the difficulty of obtaining accurate
population estimates for the subspecies (Hart et al. 1950, Rogers 1969,
Miller and Graul 1980, Schroeder et al., pers. comm. 2000). However,
when smaller geographic areas are considered (e.g., local populations,
regional populations), a general pattern of continued range reduction
and population decline is apparent from the mid-1900's to the present
(Miller and Graul 1980; WDFW 1995; Ritcey 1995; Schroeder et al., pers.
comm. 2000; Mitchell, Utah Dept. of Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1995
and 1998; Hoffman, Colorado Dept. of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 1995
and 1998; Thier, Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, pers.
comm. 1998; Chutter, B.C. Min. of Env., Wildlife Branch, pers. comm.
1995). Based on a questionnaire distributed to wildlife professionals
in 1979 throughout the species' range, Miller and Graul (1980) state
that populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occupy less than 10
percent of their former range in Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, 10
to 50 percent in Colorado and Washington, and 80 percent or more in
British Columbia.
    Most current population estimates have been derived from spring
breeding population censuses collected by state and Federal agencies
over the last two

[[Page 60393]]

decades. In general, estimates of fall population sizes are roughly
double that of the spring breeding population. Most of the following
discussions of distribution and abundance of Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse by State and province are based on published and unpublished
agency reports furnished after submission of the petition in March
1995, and during the public comment period for the status review,
initiated in October 26, 1999. These reports are cited below, as
appropriate. In addition, the following information is based on the
best estimates of recognized experts (SRTIM 2000), and an independent
report solicited by the Service that addresses the viability of the
various extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Bart 2000).
This report was prepared using and summarizing data submitted by State
and Bureau of Land Management offices and on maps of historic and
current distributions of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse prepared by
Schroeder (2000) using information obtained from State and Federal
biologists working on this species.
    Based on the best available information, the current minimum to
maximum breeding population estimate for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
is approximately 51,000 to 52,000 (mean = 51,500) individuals within
the U.S., and 56,000 to 61,500 (mean = 58,700) individuals within the
total range. These populations occupy approximately 38,400 km\2\
(23,800 mi\2\) within the U.S. and 79,300 km\2\ (49,200 mi\2\)
rangewide. Over 93 percent of all Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur
within the three metapopulations in northwest Colorado/south-central
Wyoming (roughly 4,800 birds), southeastern Idaho/northern Utah
(roughly 40,000 birds in Idaho and 5,100 in Utah), and central British
Columbia (4,700 to 9,600). These three metapopulations are reported to
be either stable or increasing (state reports summarized in Bart 2000).
Rangewide, these three metapopulations including the stable population
within British Columbia, stable and/or increasing populations occupy
approximately 68,000 km\2\ (42,200 mi\2\) which is over 85 percent of
the occupied range (79,300 km\2\) (49,200 mi\2\).
    Colorado (Mumma, in litt. 1999; Bart 2000; House, in litt. 2000)--
There are two subpopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in
Colorado. The northwest region contains numerous interacting local
populations with multiple leks, which likely constitute a distinct,
interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 4,700 birds in the spring
breeding population (9 percent of the current rangewide spring breeding
population within the United States (U.S.)) and occupies about 8,700
km\2\ (5,400 mi\2\) (23 percent of the current range within the U.S.).
This population occurs primarily in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco
Counties, and is continuous with local populations in south-central
Wyoming (see below). Current trend data indicate the population is
likely stable and increasing. Mesa County, in the west-central region,
may still harbor a remnant local population. If this population still
exists, it is isolated from other regional populations. The last
confirmed sightings of birds in this area are from circa 1985. The
spring breeding population is estimated to currently be comprised of up
to 50 birds (less than 1 percent of the rangewide population within the
U.S.) and inhabit about 1,600 km\2\ (990 mi\2\) (approximately 4
percent of the currently occupied U.S. range).
    Idaho (Meints, pers. comm., 1995, 1998; Bart 2000; Mallet, in litt.
2000)--There are three subpopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
occupying the state of Idaho. The southeastern region contains
numerous, interacting local populations with multiple leks, which
likely constitute a distinct, interacting metapopulation totaling
roughly 40,000 birds in the spring breeding population (78 percent of
the rangewide population within the U.S.). The population occupies
approximately 14,800 km\2\ (9,200 mi\2\) (39 percent of the current
range within the U.S.). This population is likely stable and
increasing. It occurs primarily south of Rexburg and east of Rupert,
Idaho, and is continuous with local populations in northern Utah (see
below). The upper Snake River region, including the Sand Creek and Tex
Creek areas, harbors 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. This population is reported to be stable.
Washington and Adams Counties, in the west-central region, harbor
roughly 200 to 300 birds in the spring breeding population (less than 1
percent of the total U.S. population), which supports approximately 7
leks over about 1,690 km\2\ (1,050 mi\2\) (4 percent of the current
range within the U.S.). The population is reported to be stable,
although the area is isolated from other regional populations.
Translocation efforts conducted in extreme south-central Idaho
beginning in 1992 have resulted in an isolated local population (200 to
400 birds in the spring breeding population; less than 1 percent of
U.S. total), supporting at least 3 leks over 175 km\2\ (110mi\2\) (less
than 1 percent of the total range within the U.S.). This area is
contiguous with a small population of reintroduced birds in
northeastern Nevada (see below). Translocated birds originated from the
population in southeastern Idaho.
    Montana (Wood 1991; Wood 1992; Bart 2000; McCarthy, in litt.
2000)--Two small local populations occur in the northwestern region of
this state, one in Lincoln County near the international boundary with
British Columbia, the other to the southeast in Powell County. The
Lincoln County area supports fewer than 30 birds in the spring breeding
population on a single lek, while the Powell County area supports fewer
than 50 birds in the spring breeding population on a few leks. 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 taxonomic status of the Powell County
population is in question. Based on evaluation of a limited number of
specimens, these birds may show a greater morphological affinity to the
plains subspecies. These two local 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 (30 mi) 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. Both of these populations are probably still declining, but
comprise less than 1 percent of the total U.S. subpopulation.
    Nevada (Morros 1999; Crawforth, in litt. 2000)--One introduced
population currently exists in Nevada. During the spring of 1999, 54
birds were translocated to the Snake Range in Elko County. Translocated
birds originated from the population in southeastern Idaho. The most
recent census information indicates there are roughly 20 to 40 birds
remaining from this initial effort. Additional translocation efforts
are planned through 2003, with a goal of releasing approximately 50
birds per year from the same source population. This reintroduced local
population is likely continuous with reintroduced birds in south-
central Idaho (see above).
    Oregon (Crawford and Snyder 1992, Bart 2000, Crawford and Coggins
2000)--One introduced population currently exists in Oregon. From 1991

[[Page 60394]]

through 1997, a total of 179 birds had been translocated into Wallowa
County in northeastern Oregon from the population in southeastern
Idaho. As the result of these reintroduction efforts, an isolated local
population may have been established. Recent census information
indicates there are roughly 15 to 30 individuals in the spring breeding
population, supporting one or few leks, and the population is likely
declining.
    Utah (Bart 2000; Mitchell, in litt. 2000)--One subpopulation
currently exists in northern Utah. It contains numerous, interacting
local populations with multiple leks, which likely constitute a
distinct, interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,100 birds in
the spring breeding population (10 percent of the U.S. subpopulation).
This population is continuous with the population in southeastern Idaho
(see above) and is reported to be stable and increasing, currently
occupying roughly 3,600 km2 (2,200 mi2) (9
percent of the range within the U.S.) .
    Washington (Schroeder, in litt. 2000; Cawston, in litt. 2000;
Schroeder et al., pers. comm. 2000)--Eight local populations occur in
north-central Washington; 3 likely have multiple leks, while 5 consist
of single or few leks. The overall estimate for the State is
approximately 900 individuals in the spring breeding population. Some
minimal interaction may occur between a few local populations, while
others are isolated. The region is isolated from other regional
populations and comprises approximately 1,700 km2 (1,100
mi2) (4 percent of the range within the U.S.). During the
spring of 1998, and again in 1999, translocation efforts were conducted
to augment one of the remnant, local populations in north-central
Washington. Translocated birds originated from the population in
southeastern Idaho. The Nespelem population is reported to be stable,
but the remainder of the populations are likely declining.
    Wyoming (Oedekoven 1985; Kruse, in litt. 1999; Bart 2000)--The most
recent census information for Wyoming indicates there is one population
in the south-central region of the state, consisting of roughly 100 to
500 birds in the spring breeding population (less than 1 percent of the
U.S. subpopulation) and supporting multiple leks over 2,500
km2 (1,600 mi2) (6 percent of the range within
the U.S.). The population occurs in Carbon County and is continuous
with the population in northwestern Colorado (see above). This
population is reported to be stable.
    British Columbia, Canada (Ritcey 1995; Chutter, pers. comm. 1995;
Bart 2000)--The central region of British Columbia (Fraser Plateau)
contains numerous, interacting local populations with multiple leks,
which likely constitute a distinct, interacting metapopulation totaling
roughly 4,700 to 9,600 birds in the spring breeding population
(averaging 12 percent of the rangewide subpopulation) over an area of
approximately 41,000 km2 (25,000 mi2) (51 percent
of the current rangewide area). This metapopulation is reported to be
stable. The available information indicates that the more northerly
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in British Columbia may
show a greater morphological and behavioral affinity to the northern
subspecies (Tympanuchus phasianellus caurus). The area directly south
of Cranbrook (southeastern region) may contain one local population
with 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.
    Section 4(a) of the Act describes five threat factors that we must
consider to determine whether any species is a threatened or endangered
species for purposes of the Act. Any one or combination of the five
threat factors may indicate the appropriateness of a warranted 12-month
administrative finding. Section 4(b) of the Act requires that we also
give consideration in our determination of a species' status to efforts
being made by any state or foreign nation to protect such species.
Below, the available information is considered with regard to the five
threat factors established by the Act and any ongoing conservation
measures for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.

(1) Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range

    Large portions of native habitats historically used by Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse have been converted for crop production and
impacted by other influences, including rural and suburban development,
dam construction, minerals exploitation, chaining, herbicide spraying,
and fire (Miller and Graul 1980; Wood 1991; Giesen and Connelly 1993;
Schroeder, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998; Mitchell, pers. comm. 1995 and
1998; Chutter, pers. comm. 1995). In addition, past grazing practices
over large portions of historic Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range
have impacted native habitats (Hart et al. 1950, Miller and Graul 1980,
Kessler and Bosch 1982, Wood 1992, Giesen and Connelly 1993). Intensive
grazing pressure can be especially detrimental to nesting and wintering
habitats potentially used by sharp-tailed grouse, primarily due to
impacts on cover and food resources. However, much of the area
currently occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is not subject to
intensive grazing pressure (SRTIM 2000, see below).
    Most of the area currently occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse is privately owned (Bart 2000), and a large proportion of these
lands are withdrawn from crop production and planted to native and non-
native cover under the Federal Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (USDA
1998). Except under extraordinary circumstances, CRP lands are not
subject to grazing and likely have increased forb and insect abundance
from spring to fall, which increases the value of these lands to
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse females who make substantial use of CRP
areas during nesting and brood-rearing (C. Warren, FWS, Spokane, in
litt. 2000). CRP lands, and probably substantial amounts of adjacent
``native'' habitat (including important wintering habitat in some
regions), are essentially free of pesticide and herbicide applications
and grazing pressure (Warren, in litt. 2000). Accordingly, these CRP
areas have become very important Columbian sharp-tailed grouse large
metapopulations in Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming (SRTIM 2000, Bart
2000).
    A majority of CRP that are 10-year contracts for lands in States
supporting Columbian sharp-tailed grouse were renewed after 1997,
resulting in 92 to 99 percent of these lands being relatively secure
until the years 2008 through 2010 (Warren, in litt. 2000). Between the
fall of 1997 and the fall of 1998, the total amount of CRP land
available to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse increased within all of the
counties harboring the subspecies' metapopulations within the United
States, including 25, 7, and 1 percent increases in Utah, Colorado, and
Idaho, respectively. Lands under CRP contract as of the year 2000 show
1 to 7 percent acreage increases over those in 1998 (Warren, in litt.
2000).
    The potential net changes that may occur under the CRP or if CRP
contracts expire, vary considerably by county within the five States
where CRP is shown to be important to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
Presently, it is unclear what effects these changes may have on the
subspecies' populations. If CRP lands that are important to the

[[Page 60395]]

smaller populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse revert back to
crop production or are significantly altered, adverse impacts to these
populations will occur and that will increase the risk of extirpation
of these smaller populations (Bart 2000). However, the larger
metapopulations are likely capable of adjusting to these potential
impacts and would not be adversely effected. This is because smaller
subpopulations within the region could supply a source for
recolonization of modified sites, or alternate areas of suitable
habitat would be developed under new CRP contracts to allow the
affected local populations to adjust to the changes.
    Reclaimed mining lands have also become important to the
conservation of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in northwestern Colorado
(Mumma, in litt. 1999). These areas fall under the requirements of the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act (CMLRA). There is currently little
information available regarding the ultimate fate of these areas upon
termination of the reclamation bonds. However, it is not assured that
they will be converted by development or subject to intensive grazing
pressure following bond release. In addition, as with CRP contracts, it
is likely that newly reclaimed areas will become available to Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse in Colorado as current and future mining operations
are completed.

(2) Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

    Currently, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are hunted in the fall in
Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and British Columbia. Fall population sizes are
roughly double that of the estimated spring breeding populations.
Colorado maintains a fall hunting season in 1998 and 1999 in the
northwest region, with bag and possession limits of two and four birds,
respectively. Over the last four years, the annual state harvest
estimate has averaged 218 birds, which is 2 percent of a fall
population of approximately 9,500 birds. Idaho also maintains a fall
hunting season in 1998 and 1999, with bag and possession limits of two
and four birds, respectively. The latest available information
indicates that a total of roughly 3,000 birds are harvested annually
from the southeastern and upper Snake River regions, which is
approximately 4 percent of the fall population of about 80,000 birds.
Utah reopened its hunting season in 1998 and 1999. Over the past 2
years, Utah has issued 663 2-bird permits in a limited-entry hunt. The
State harvest estimates for 1998 and 1999 were 201 birds (less than 2
percent) and 462 birds (less than 5 percent), respectively, of an
approximate fall population of 10,200 birds. In British Columbia, it is
estimated that up to 5,000 birds (35 percent of an average fall
population of 14,300 birds) are harvested during some hunting seasons,
however, this estimate is not based on rigorous surveys and is subject
to wide year-to-year variation.
    For relatively large, stable populations of upland birds under
managed conditions, hunting is not likely to have an additive effect
over natural mortality because the percentage of the population that is
eliminated through hunting mortality is minimal and compensated through
the normal population processes of reproduction and immigration (Braun
et al. 1994, SRTIM 2000). Depending on the status of the hunted
population and hunter access patterns, some local areas may act as
population sinks and be adversely impacted by the additional mortality.
However, the estimated harvest rates are not likely to adversely effect
the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the States with
hunting seasons (Bart 2000).
    Several reintroduction efforts have taken place or are planned for
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. The relatively small, isolated
populations would be adversely impacted by the removal of source birds
for these projects, as may have occurred in British Columbia (Chutter,
pers. comm. 1995). In addition, birds translocated from disparate parts
of their range may not thrive or survive in the release area (Wood
1991; Thier, pers. comm. 1998). It is also unclear what effects the
translocation of birds to disparate parts of their range may have on
the genetic integrity of the augmented populations. Saab and Marks
(1992) indicate that the conservation of all potential sources of
genetic variation should be a critical concern given the fragmented,
isolated nature of some of the subspecies' populations. Radio-marked
birds may also be more susceptible to predation and other mortality
factors (Marks and Marks 1987). The small and fragmented populations of
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse would be at increased risk of extirpation
from these potential threats. However, as with the potential impacts to
the habitats used by the subspecies (above), the large metapopulations
are not likely to be adversely affected by these management activities
(Bart 2000).

(3) Disease or Predation

    There are apparently no documented severe episodes of disease or
predation that have played a significant role in the population
declines and range reduction of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Episodes
of disease or altered predation patterns may play an important role in
the dynamics of the smaller, isolated populations and, as above, they
are at increased risk of extirpation from these potential threats.
However, these threats are currently of minor concern for the
subspecies' metapopulations.

(4) Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In the majority of the subspecies' current range regulatory
mechanisms and conservation measures are apparently adequate for
maintaining viable populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
    State hunting regulations appear to be sufficient to control the
legal take of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse where they are hunted, and
to avoid adverse impacts to these populations (above). In addition, the
revegetation and reclamation standards under the CRP and CMLRA,
respectively, promote the improvement of habitat conditions for the
subspecies' metapopulations, and the CRP restricts livestock grazing on
contract lands except under extraordinary circumstances.

(5) Other Natural or Human-Caused Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence

    The fragmented, isolated nature of some local populations of
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may place them at increased risk of
extirpation (Bart 2000). Random environmental and human-influenced
events could cause significant mortality to, or disruption of, local
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse with single or few leks.
Such events could include drought, fire, inclement weather, accidents,
cultivation practices, recreational activities, altered predator
dynamics, or disease epidemics (Hart et al. 1950; Rogers 1969; WDFW
1995; Mitchell, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998). If the affected population
is also isolated, there is little chance of reestablishment to the area
and further range reduction is likely to occur.
    There is also concern regarding the lack of sufficient data with
respect to the genetic integrity of the subspecies' various populations
(Saab and Marks 1992). The deleterious effects of inbreeding and
genetic drift may pose long-term threats to the smaller, isolated
populations. The breeding dynamics of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and
their relatively short life spans and sedentary habits may exacerbate
these potential influences. Conservation or reestablishment of such
populations

[[Page 60396]]

may require intensive management efforts (Toepfer et al. 1990).
    The factors discussed above are not considered to be threats to the
subspecies because the large, stable metapopulations that occur in
Colorado, Idaho, and Utah, representing roughly 97 percent of the
subspecies within the U.S., would likely not be affected.
    In summary, the available information indicates that the
subspecies' metapopulations are relatively secure. These large
metapopulations have persisted for the last several decades with no
discernable downward trend, and recent information indicates that they
may currently be increasing, as are the habitats available to them
(SRTIM 2000). However, most of the small, isolated populations of
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse will likely be extirpated within a few
decades due to existing threats and current management scenarios (Bart
2000).

Conservation Measures

    An inter-agency (Federal and State) team is currently preparing a
conservation assessment for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in Idaho
(Ulliman et al. 1998). Upon its completion, the conservation strategy
developed in Idaho may be used as a general model for conservation
actions in other States and British Columbia.
    The Colorado Division of Wildlife helped form and participates on
the Northwest Colorado Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Work Group (Mumma,
in litt. 1999). The work group includes interested parties representing
resource industries, sportsmen's and conservation groups, and State and
Federal resource agencies. The work group is currently developing a
formal conservation plan, and is committed to improving conditions for
the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population in the northwest region of
the State.
    The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has prepared a
management plan for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occurring within the
State (WDFW 1995), and has recently listed Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse as a State threatened species (WDFW 1998a). Washington currently
has a program to acquire lands for the protection and active management
of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (WDFW 1998b). Restoration and
enhancement of native habitats to improve conditions for existing (and
potential) populations are planned for these areas (Schroeder, pers.
comm. 1995 and 1998).
    Reintroduction efforts for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have taken
place in Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada (SRTIM 2000).
Many early reintroduction efforts conducted for prairie grouse
(including sharp-tailed grouse) failed to produce self-sustaining
populations or to increase the size or distribution of augmented
populations (Toepfer et al. 1990). Several recent efforts have shown
greater potential to be effective as the techniques for reintroductions
have improved (Toepfer et al. 1990; Crawforth, in litt. 2000;
Schroeder, pers. comm. 1995 and 1998; Meints, pers. comm. 1995 and
1998). However, most of these improvements have been concerned with
keeping translocated birds in the immediate vicinity of the release
sites during the breeding season. While some reintroduced birds have
established leks and reproduced in the release area over a number of
years, none of these populations can yet be considered secure (Bart
2000). Continuing reintroduction efforts are planned for Idaho, Nevada,
Washington, and Oregon; and various reintroduction efforts are being
considered for California, Colorado, and Montana (SRTIM 2000).
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations in British Columbia may
be expanding on the periphery of their current range where logging
activity has created suitable open, grassland habitat. While this is
not an active enhancement effort, the beneficial effects of these
activities are believed to last up to approximately 15 years (Ritcey
1995; Chutter, pers. comm. 1995).

Conclusion

    We have reviewed the petition, literature cited in the petition,
other pertinent literature and information available in our files, and
consulted with biologists and researchers familiar with Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse. After reviewing the best scientific and commercial
information available, and considering the information's significance
with regard to the five listing factors established by the Act and
ongoing conservation measures, we find that listing the Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse as a threatened species throughout its known
historic range in the 48 contiguous United States, as petitioned is not
warranted.
    In making this finding, we recognize that there have been declines
in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations primarily attributed to
the loss and degradation of important shrub steppe, grassland, and
riparian habitats. These impacts are likely due to a combination of
factors including crop production, over-grazing by livestock, altered
fire frequencies, rural and suburban development, dam construction,
herbicide spraying, recreation, and other factors. The Service's status
review of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse range wide has raised
concern regarding the status of many of the small populations such that
a further status review focusing on these populations will be
initiated. However, the available information does not indicate that
the large metapopulations of the subspecies are at increased risk of
extirpation. We also recognize that various State and Federal agencies
throughout the subspecies' historic distribution are actively managing
the populations to try and improve their overall status and/or
attempting to restore them to currently unoccupied habitats. If
information becomes available indicating that listing as endangered or
threatened is appropriate, we would propose to list the Columbia sharp-
tailed grouse. Furthermore, we retain the option of recognizing a
population segment for listing should information become available
indicating that such an action is appropriate and warranted.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available on
request from the Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office, (See
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Chris Warren, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington
99206.

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

    Dated: September 27, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-25447 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.