Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the Douglas County Distinct Population Segment of Columbian White-Tailed Deer From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

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

[Federal Register: July 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 142)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 43647-43659]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24jy03-16]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF43

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To
Remove the Douglas County Distinct Population Segment of Columbian
White-Tailed Deer From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
establish two distinct population segments (DPS) of the Columbian
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus): the Douglas County
DPS and the Columbia River DPS; and remove the Douglas County DPS from
the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. We have also determined
that the Douglas County, Oregon, DPS is no longer an endangered or
threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), based on the best available data indicating that
the Douglas County DPS has recovered. This DPS has increased from about
2,500 animals, in 1983, to over 6,000 today. The range of the
population has also increased. This robust population growth, coupled
with habitat acquired and protected for the population, has brought the
Douglas County DPS to the point where a change in status is
appropriate. This recovery has primarily been the result of habitat
acquisition and management for the deer, hunting restrictions, and the
application of local ordinances designed to protect the Douglas County
DPS.
The delisting of the Douglas County DPS will not change the
endangered status of the Columbia River DPS. It remains fully protected
by the Act.

DATES: This rule is effective July 24, 2003.

ADDRESSES: The administrative file for this rule is available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Oregon
Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2600 SE. 98th
Ave., Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cat Brown, Wildlife Biologist at the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 503/
231-6179; facsimile 503/231-6195).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Columbian white-tailed deer is the westernmost representative
of 30 subspecies of white-tailed deer in North and Central America
(Halls 1978; Baker 1984). It resembles other white-tailed deer
subspecies, ranging in size from 39 to 45 kilograms (kg) (85 to 100
pounds (lb)) for females and 52 to 68 kg (115 to 150 lb) for males
(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1995). Generally a red-
brown color in summer, and gray in winter, the subspecies has distinct
white rings around the eyes and a white ring just behind the nose (ODFW
1995). Its tail is relatively long, brown on top with a white fringe,
and white below (Verts and Carraway 1998). The subspecies was formerly
distributed throughout the bottomlands and prairie woodlands of the
lower Columbia, Willamette, and Umpqua River basins in Oregon and
southern Washington (Bailey 1936; Verts and Carraway 1998). Early
accounts suggested this deer was locally common, particularly in
riparian areas along major rivers (Gavin 1978). The decline in
Columbian white-tailed deer numbers was rapid with the arrival and
settlement of pioneers in the fertile river valleys (Gavin 1978).
Conversion of brushy riparian land to agriculture, urbanization,
uncontrolled sport and commercial hunting, and perhaps other factors
apparently caused the extirpation of this deer over most of its range
by the early 1900s (Gavin 1978). By 1940, a population of 500 to 700
animals along the lower Columbia River in Oregon and Washington, and a
disjunct population of 200 to 300 in Douglas County, Oregon, survived
(Crews 1939; Gavin 1984; Verts and Carraway 1998). These two remnant
populations remain geographically separated by about 320 kilometers
(km) (200 miles (mi)), much of which is unsuitable or discontinuous
habitat.
Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas County are most often
associated with riparian habitats, but studies have shown that the deer
uses a variety of lower elevation habitat types. Radio-tagged deer in a
recent study selected riparian habitats more frequently than any other
habitat type, but were also found using all the other habitat types in
the study area (i.e., grassland, grass shrub, oak savannah, oak-
hardwood woodland, oak-hardwood savannah shrub, oak-hardwood conifer,
conifer, and urban/suburban yards) (Ricca 1999). This study found that
the areas of concentrated use within a deer's home range were generally
located within 200 meters (m) (650 feet (ft)) of streams (Ricca 1999),
which confirms earlier work (Smith 1981) suggesting that habitat type
is less important than distance to a stream. Open areas (grasslands and
oak savanna) are used for feeding between dusk and dawn (Ricca 1999).
The diet of Columbian white-tailed deer consists of forbs (broad-leaved
herbaceous plants), shrubs, grasses, and a variety of other foods such
as lichens, mosses, ferns, seeds, and nuts (Lowell Whitney, Oregon
State University, pers. comm. 2001).
Population estimates for the Douglas County DPS have demonstrated a
fairly steady upward trend since management for the population began
(see Table 1).

Table 1.--Revised Annual Trend Counts (Based on Spring Censuses) and Population Estimates (Based on Linear
Regression) With Confidence Intervals (Lower and Upper Population Estimates) for the Douglas County DPS of
Columbian White-Tailed Deer, 1975-2002 (Lindsay Ball, ODFW, in litt. 2002).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95% confidence intervals
Annual trend ---------------------------
Year count (deer/ Population Lower Upper
mile) estimate population population
estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975................................................... 1.7 1158 333 1984
1976................................................... 1.9 1340 468 2212
1977................................................... 1.95 1522 603 2441
1978................................................... 2 1704 738 2670
1979................................................... 2.3 1886 873 2899
1980................................................... 2.3 2068 1008 3128
1981................................................... 2.2 2250 1143 3357
1982................................................... 2.1 2432 1278 3585

[[Page 43648]]

1983................................................... 2.5 2614 1413 3814
1984................................................... 2.7 2796 1548 4043
1985................................................... 2.6 2978 1683 4272
1986................................................... 2.2 3160 1818 4501
1987................................................... 4.1 3342 1953 4730
1988................................................... 5.6 3523 2088 4958
1989................................................... 5 3705 2223 5187
1990................................................... 6.6 3887 2358 5416
1991................................................... 7.7 4069 2493 5645
1992................................................... 5.6 4251 2628 5874
1993................................................... 6.6 4433 2763 6103
1994................................................... 5.3 4615 2898 6331
1995................................................... 4.3 4797 3033 6560
1996................................................... 4.3 4979 3168 6789
1997................................................... 5.5 5161 3303 7018
1998................................................... 4.6 5343 3438 7247
1999................................................... 7.7 5525 3573 7476
2000................................................... 5.4 5707 3708 7705
2001................................................... 6.9 5888 3843 7933
2002................................................... 8.6 6070 3978 8162
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the 1930s, the Columbian white-tailed deer population in Douglas
County was estimated at 200 to 300 individuals within a range of about
79 square kilometers (km\2\) (31 square miles (mi\2\)) (Crews 1939). By
1983, the population had increased to about 2,500 deer (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) 1983). The population has continued to grow
and is currently estimated at over 6,000 deer (Lindsay Ball, ODFW, in
litt. 2002). Along with this increase in numbers, the range also has
expanded to the north and west, and the subspecies now occupies an area
of approximately 800 km\2\ (309 mi\2\) (ODFW 1995). In 2002, the ODFW
estimated that there were 8.6 deer per mile along its standard census
routes, with a sex ratio of 24 adult bucks to 100 adult does, and 34
fawns to 100 does (Lindsay Ball, ODFW, in litt. 2002). A recent 3-year
study of the population found relatively low annual survival rates for
adult deer (74 percent over 3 years), although the results were within
the range of white-tailed deer survival rates in other parts of the
country (Ricca et al. 2002). Fawn survival rates in this study were on
the lower extreme of rates reported for other white-tailed deer
populations (Ricca et al. 2002); the authors of the study suggest that
poor fawn survival may be linked to high deer density in Douglas
County. Annual population surveys indicate that deer density has
doubled in the last 20 years, and the population may be at or near
carrying capacity in portions of its range within Douglas County (Ricca
1999).
The State of Oregon has had a long history of research and active
management of the Douglas County DPS of Columbian white-tailed deer. In
1927, the Oregon State Legislature established a White-tailed Deer
Refuge in Douglas County. Early studies estimated a population of 200
to 300 Columbian white-tailed deer on the refuge, and an approximately
equal number of Columbian black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus
columbiana) (Crews 1939). The State of Oregon (ODFW 1995) subsequently
considered white-tailed deer in Douglas County to be black-tailed deer
or a hybrid between the black-tailed deer and the Columbian white-
tailed deer; the refuge was dissolved in 1952, and regulated hunting
resumed (Gavin 1984). In 1978, Oregon recognized the white-tailed deer
population in Douglas County as the Columbian white-tailed deer, and
prohibited hunting of white-tailed deer in that County (Service 1983).
Since 1978, the ODFW has conducted spring and fall surveys to
estimate population size, recruitment, and sex ratios (ODFW, in litt.
2001). Standard routes for spotlight surveys have been established
along 76.4 km (47.5 mi) of road within the known range of the
population (ODFW, in litt. 2001). The fall deer census counts both
Columbian white-tailed deer and Columbian black-tailed deer throughout
Douglas County, from November 15 through December 15 in most years, on
nights with suitable survey conditions. All deer observed are
classified by species, sex, and age (i.e., fawns, does, or bucks by
antler class). This allows an estimate of fawn production going into
winter (fawns per 100 adults), and in the case of black-tailed deer,
the post hunting season buck survival (bucks per 100 does) (Steve
Denney, ODFW, in litt. 2001).
The spring census is similar to the fall count. On warm, wet nights
in March, the ODFW conducts a spotlight count along the standard road
routes, recording both white-tailed and black-tailed deer. All deer
observed are recorded and classified as either adults or fawns; this
provides an estimate of overwinter fawn survival (fawns per 100 does)
and population trend (expressed as deer per mile) (S. Denney, ODFW, in
litt. 2001).
The State also implements an active research program, in
coordination with us and the Oregon State University, to investigate
deer habitat use and movement of radio-tagged individuals (Ricca 1999;
ODFW 1995; ODFW, in litt. 2001). Since 1998, for example, the ODFW has
been transplanting radio-tagged Columbian white-tailed deer from areas
of high deer densities to Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park in northwestern
Douglas County. The goals of the project have been to boost numbers of
deer in the park, accelerate

[[Page 43649]]

range expansion to the north, to refine capture and transplanting
techniques, and to move deer from areas where damage has been a concern
(S. Denney, ODFW, in litt. 2001).
The Columbian white-tailed deer was listed as endangered by the
State with the passage of the Oregon Endangered Species Act in 1987
(ODFW 1995). In 1995, the ODFW reviewed the status of the Columbian
white-tailed deer in Oregon (both Douglas County and Columbia River
populations) and concluded that the subspecies had recovered (ODFW
1995). At the November 1995 meeting of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission, the Commissioners voted unanimously to remove the Columbian
white-tailed deer from the State of Oregon List of Threatened and
Endangered Species; the subspecies was placed on the State's Sensitive
Species List for continued monitoring (Oregon Fish and Wildlife
Commission 1995). Oregon continues to prohibit hunting of white-tailed
deer in all western Oregon big-game management units (ODFW 2001).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

The Douglas County and Columbia River populations of the Columbian
white-tailed deer meet the requirements for consideration as distinct
population segments as described in our Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments, published in
the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). For a population
to be considered as a distinct vertebrate population segment, two
elements are considered: (1) The discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; and
(2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which
it belongs.
A population may be considered discrete if it is: (1) Separated
from other populations of the same taxon by physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors; or (2) limited by international
governmental boundaries where there are differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms. The Douglas County and Columbia River populations of
Columbian white-tailed deer are discrete because they are
geographically isolated from each other. Historically, this subspecies
ranged from the south end of Puget Sound in Washington south to the
Umpqua River drainage in Oregon (Bailey 1936). At the present time, the
subspecies is found in two locations (along the Columbia River in
Washington and Oregon, and in Douglas County, Oregon), which are
separated by over 320 km (200 mi), much of which is discontinuous or
unsuitable habitat. Columbian white-tailed deer are not migratory and
appear to restrict their movements to relatively small home ranges
(ODFW 1995). Laboratory research has also demonstrated that there may
be a relatively large genetic difference between the Douglas County and
Columbia River populations of Columbian white-tailed deer (Gavin and
May 1988), which indicates a lack of gene flow between the two
populations. As a result, the wide geographic gap in suitable habitat
between the Columbia River and Douglas County populations demonstrates
that this subspecies has two discrete population segments.
The following issues are considered when determining significance:
(1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an unusual or
unique setting for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the segment
would result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3)
evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only
surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
(4) evidence that the population segment differs from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics.
The Douglas County and Columbia River populations are considered
significant under our policy based on two factors. First, the loss of
either of the Douglas County or Columbia River population would result
in a significant gap in the range of the subspecies. The loss of either
population would substantially constrict the current range of the
subspecies. Second, each population has genetic characteristics that
are not found in the other population (Gavin and May 1988). Because the
Douglas County and Columbia River populations of the Columbian white-
tailed deer are discrete and significant, they warrant recognition as
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Act. The following
map illustrates the location of these two DPSs.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 43650]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR24JY03.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Review of the Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan

In accordance with the Act, we appointed a team of experts (the
Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Team (Recovery Team)) to develop a
recovery plan for the Columbian white-tailed deer. We approved the
original Columbian White-tailed Deer Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) in
1977, and the Recovery Team revised the Recovery Plan in 1983 to
include the newly recognized Douglas County population (Service 1983).
Because of the distance between the Columbia River and Douglas
County populations and differences in habitats and threats, the
Recovery Plan addresses the recovery of each population separately. The
Recovery Plan identified the following objectives for the Douglas
County population: (1) To downlist the population to threatened, the
Recovery Plan recommended the maintenance of 1,000 Columbian white-
tailed deer in a viable status on lands within the

[[Page 43651]]

Umpqua Basin of Douglas County, while keeping the relative proportions
of deer habitat within the known range of the subspecies from further
deterioration; and (2) to delist the population, it recommended the
maintenance of a minimum population of 500 animals from the larger
population, to be distributed on 2,226 hectares (ha) (5,500 acres (ac))
of suitable, secure habitat within the Umpqua Basin of Douglas County
on lands owned, controlled, protected, or otherwise dedicated to the
conservation of the species (Service 1983).
The Recovery Plan defined secure habitat as those areas that are
protected from adverse human activities (e.g., heavy, unregulated
grazing by domestic animals, clearing of woody plants) in the
foreseeable future, and that are relatively safe from natural phenomena
that would destroy their value to the subspecies (Service 1983). The
Recovery Plan did not define secure habitat to include only publicly
owned lands; rather, it provided further guidance on secure habitat by
stating that local entities, including planning commissions, county
parks departments, and farm bureaus, could secure habitat through
zoning ordinances, land-use planning, parks and greenbelts, agreements,
memoranda of understanding, and other mechanisms available to local
jurisdictions (Service 1983). The Recovery Plan also recommended that
private conservation organizations be encouraged to secure habitat for
Columbian white-tailed deer through easements, leases, acquisitions,
donations, or trusts (Service 1983).
The Recovery Plan identified a series of tasks that the Recovery
Team recommended to meet the downlisting and delisting objectives for
the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer (Service
1983). These tasks fall into five main categories: (1) Tracking
population status; (2) Ensuring viability of the population through
enforcement of existing laws and regulations; (3) Securing and
protecting habitat to allow the population to increase; (4) Studying
the ecology of the population and assessing the threat of hybridization
with Columbian black-tailed deer; and (5) Encouraging public support
for Columbian white-tailed deer restoration. Nearly all of the tasks
listed in the Recovery Plan (Service 1983) have been accomplished. We
provide a summary of recovery tasks, along with the status of their
implementation, below.
1. Tracking population status. Tasks in this first category have
been fully implemented. The ODFW, with our funding, has surveyed the
population yearly since 1978. Data collected include spring and fall
trend counts, estimates of overall population size, recruitment, and
sex ratios. Surveys indicate that the population has grown from about
2,500 animals in 1982 to about 6,000 in 2002 (Service 1983; Lindsay
Ball, ODFW, in litt. 2002). The Recovery Plan included a model to
estimate the minimum population size necessary to avoid extinction;
using this model, the Recovery Team concluded that a population of 500
deer in Douglas County could be considered safe from the potentially
deleterious effects of inbreeding (Service 1983). The most recent
estimate of the overall population of the Douglas County DPS is over
6,000 deer (ODFW, in litt. 2001).
2. Ensuring viability of the population through enforcement of
existing laws and regulations. Tasks concerning enforcement of existing
laws to protect the Columbian white-tailed deer have been fully
implemented. It is currently illegal to take Columbian white-tailed
deer under State law (ODFW 2001), and as proscribed in section 9 of the
Act. Our biologists have coordinated with our agency's Law Enforcement
Special Agents and our National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory
in Ashland, Oregon, to refer illegal take cases to the Oregon State
Police, which has successfully prosecuted a number of Columbian white-
tailed deer poaching cases (Sgt. Joe Myhre, Oregon State Police, pers.
comm. 2001). See additional discussion under Factor D, below, for more
detail. We have also engaged in section 7 consultations with Federal
agencies for those actions which were determined to have the potential
to affect Columbian white-tailed deer.
3. Securing and protecting habitat to allow the population to
increase. Since 1978, over 2,830 ha (7,000 ac) have come into public
ownership and are being managed in a manner that is compatible with the
needs of Columbian white-tailed deer (see full description of these
parcels in Factor A, below). This acreage includes the North Bank
Habitat Management Area (NBHMA), managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park. Smaller parcels
owned by Douglas County and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) also provide
secure refugia for deer. In addition, Douglas County has used its
authorities to conserve the Columbian white-tailed deer. The Douglas
County Comprehensive Plan (Douglas County Planning Department (DCPD)
2000a), county zoning ordinances (DCPD 2000b), and the Douglas County
Deer Habitat Protection Program (DCPD 1995), also have been essential
in protecting open space and rural agricultural landscapes used by the
deer.
The Recovery Plan recommended that we and the ODFW develop a long-
term management plan for the Douglas County population of Columbian
white-tailed deer (Service 1983). Although a single, population wide
plan has not been prepared, this task has been accomplished, in part,
through site-specific management plans for the NBHMA (BLM 2001),
Douglas County's Habitat Protection Program for the Columbian white-
tailed deer (DCPD 1995), and Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park (Douglas
County Parks Department 2001a).
4. Studying the ecology of the population and assessing the threat
of hybridization with Columbian black-tailed deer. Several tasks in the
Recovery Plan recommended research on the ecology of the population. A
substantial amount of research has been conducted by the ODFW and the
Oregon State University (Smith 1981; ODFW 1995; Ricca 1999; Whitney
2001). The BLM used information from these studies to develop the NBHMA
management plan, the largest property managed for the deer. Laboratory
studies and field observations have been used to gauge the extent of
hybridization between Columbian white-tailed deer and Columbian black-
tailed deer in Douglas County (Gavin and May 1988; Kistner and Denney
1991; ODFW 1995); none of these studies has indicated that
hybridization is a threat to the population.
5. Encouraging public support for Columbian white-tailed deer
restoration. The final set of tasks in the Recovery Plan deals with
providing the public with information about the Columbian white-tailed
deer restoration program. This task continues to be implemented by our
biologists and the ODFW. The ODFW has produced informational materials
on the deer population in Douglas County for the public and landowners.
Our staff and the ODFW also provide information and recommendations to
private landowners who have Columbian white-tailed deer on their
property.
Recovery plans are intended to guide and measure recovery. The Act
provides for delisting whenever the best available information
indicates that a species, subspecies, or distinct population segment is
no longer endangered or threatened. The Douglas County DPS population
is robust and expanding, and substantial habitat has been protected by
Federal acquisition and Douglas County's zoning and open space
regulations. The recovery plan calls for

[[Page 43652]]

500 deer on 5,500 acres of secure habitat. There are currently over
6,000 deer and over 7,000 acres of secure public lands managed to
benefit the deer, plus zoning and other regulations and plans
protecting additional habitat. It is not feasible, absent considerable
expense, to demonstrate that 500 specific deer live entirely within
secure lands managed for their benefit, as most deer move between
public and private lands. However, the overall population increase and
amount of secure habitat, as discussed previously, indicate that these
recovery goals have been met. Accordingly, as discussed below in the
listing factor analysis, we believe that the improved status of the
Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas County justifies its removal
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We have reached
this conclusion with the concurrence of the Recovery Team (Recovery
Team, in litt. 2001).

Previous Federal Action

On March 11, 1967, the Columbian white-tailed deer was listed in
the Federal Register as an endangered species under the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966 (32 FR 4001). At that time, the
subspecies was believed to occur only along the Columbia River, whereas
the population in Douglas County was believed to be hybridized with the
Columbian black-tailed deer (ODFW 1995). On March 8, 1969, we again
published in the Federal Register (34 FR 5034) a list of fish and
wildlife species threatened with extinction under the Endangered
Species Conservation Act of 1969. This list again included the
Columbian white-tailed deer. On August 25, 1970, we published a
proposed list of endangered species, which included the Columbian
white-tailed deer, in the Federal Register (35 FR 13519) as part of new
regulations implementing the Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1969. This rule became final on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047). Species
listed as endangered on the above-mentioned lists were automatically
included in the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife when the
Endangered Species Act was enacted in 1973. In 1978, the State of
Oregon determined that white-tailed deer in the Roseburg area belonged
to the Columbian subspecies (ODFW 1995). This determination resulted in
that population being considered as endangered, together with the
Columbia River population.
On May 11, 1999, we published a proposed rule to remove the Douglas
County DPS of the Columbian white-tailed deer from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; in the same notice, we also
proposed to establish two distinct vertebrate population segments of
the subspecies (the Douglas County and Columbia River populations) (64
FR 25263). We accepted public comments until July 12, 1999. We reopened
the public comment period on November 3, 1999, to allow peer review of
the proposed rule (64 FR 59729) until November 18, 1999. We opened the
public comment period again from December 29, 1999, through January 13,
2000, in order to provide three peer reviewers an opportunity to review
previous public comments, and to accept any new public comments on the
proposed rule (64 FR 72992).
In response to significant new information, on June 21, 2002, we
published a supplemental proposed rule to establish the Douglas County
DPS and the Columbia River DPS, and to remove the Douglas County DPS
from the Federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (67 FR
42217). We accepted public comments until August 20, 2002. During the
public comment period we also solicited and received independent peer
review of the supplemental proposed rule. We held a public hearing on
the supplemental proposal to delist the Douglas County DPS on July 30,
2002, in Roseburg, Oregon.

Summary of Comments on the Supplemental Proposed Rule

We summarized and responded to comments on the 1999 proposed rule
and subsequent comment period reopenings in the supplemental proposed
rule published in June 2002. We will not repeat those comments and our
responses here. In the June 21, 2002, supplemental proposed rule and
associated notifications, we requested all interested parties to submit
factual reports or information that might contribute to the development
of a final rule. We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies,
county governments, scientific organizations, and other interested
parties and asked them to comment. We also requested peer review from
three independent scientists. We published newspaper notices in the
Roseburg, Oregon, News-Review, and in The Oregonian, of Portland,
Oregon, on June 21, 2002, which invited general public comment. We
received 16 written comments, including those of 1 Federal agency, the
State of Oregon, 3 county and municipal governments, 3 peer reviewers,
and 8 individuals or groups; at the public hearing, we received 7 oral
comments. Of the comments received, 22 supported and 1 opposed the
proposed action.
Comments received during the comment period are addressed in the
following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into three
general issues.
Issue 1: We received seven comments concerning the post-delisting
monitoring plan. Commenters recommended continuation of the ODFW's
population trend surveys, and also suggested that the monitoring plan
include tracking of predation and disease occurrence in the Douglas
County DPS, as well as an assessment of habitat quality on managed
parcels. Commenters also recommended that the post-delisting monitoring
period extend beyond the minimum requirement of 5 years, saying that 10
years may be more appropriate.
Our Response: Section 4(g) of the Act requires us to implement a
system, in cooperation with the State, to monitor the status of
delisted recovered species for a minimum of 5 years. We are working
closely with the State to develop and implement an effective post-
delisting monitoring plan for the Douglas County DPS. The monitoring
program will include spring and fall census counts, analysis of key
population parameters, tracking of disease levels, and an assessment of
habitat protection efforts. The duration of the post-delisting
monitoring plan has not yet been determined, but will not be less than
5 years post delisting, as required by the Act. See the Monitoring
section of this final rule, below, for more information.
Issue 2: We received five comments regarding the need for a
translocation program. Two of the commenters suggested using a trap-
and-transplant program to alleviate the effects of overcrowding in
portions of the Douglas County DPS's range. One commenter requested
that we postpone delisting until a third population (in addition to the
Douglas County and Columbia River populations) had been established via
translocation from the Douglas County DPS in the Willamette Valley. Two
of the peer reviewers offered views on translocation. One advised that
translocation is appropriate for establishing new populations, but
would not be a useful method to achieve density reduction in the
existing population; the other reviewer stressed that the fate of
translocated deer should be followed to determine the efficacy of such
a program.
Our Response: Translocation is likely to be an important component
of the management of the Douglas County DPS after delisting. In order
to augment the Douglas County DPS in the northern portion of its
current range, the State

[[Page 43653]]

will likely continue to use trap-and-transplant operations, which may
also be a useful tool to manage specific problem deer. Establishing a
third population in the Willamette Valley before delisting the Douglas
County DPS, is not necessary. A review of the threats to the Douglas
County DPS (see the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species section,
below) shows that it no longer requires the protection of the Act;
therefore, delisting the Douglas County DPS is warranted.
Issue 3: In its comments, the ODFW provided recommendations on
additional research projects for the Douglas County DPS. Among the
research projects the State would like to see carried out: Additional
genetic studies to elucidate affinities among the Douglas County DPS,
the Columbia River DPS, and the Idaho white-tailed deer; a new habitat
mapping program for the Douglas County DPS; and new research on
parasite and disease levels and their effects on the Douglas County
DPS.
Our Response: Continued research is likely to be needed for future
management of the Douglas County DPS and is appropriate for the State
to lead, because the State will assume management responsibility for
the population after delisting.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations promulgated to implement the
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing species from listed
status. We may determine a species to be an endangered or threatened
species because of one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act; we must consider these same five factors in
delisting species. We may delist a species according to section
424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate
that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following
reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) The species has recovered and
is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) The original
scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in
error.
After a thorough review of all available information, we have
determined that the Douglas County DPS is no longer endangered or
threatened with extinction. A substantial recovery has taken place
since its listing in 1978, and none of the five factors addressed in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act currently threatens the continued existence
of the subspecies in Douglas County. These factors, and their relevance
to the Douglas County DPS, are discussed below.
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of habitat or range. The Recovery Team recognized
conversion of habitat to rural residential homesites and intensive
livestock grazing as the prime threats to Columbian white-tailed deer
habitat in Douglas County (Service 1983). A large area of habitat used
by the deer has been protected, which has contributed to the Douglas
County DPS's recovery. Since 1978, over 2,830 ha (7,000 ac) have come
into public ownership within the range of the Douglas County DPS. This
acreage includes the BLM's NBHMA and Douglas County's Mildred Kanipe
Memorial Park. In addition, several smaller parcels owned by the county
and private landowners provide important refuge or hiding cover for
deer.
The largest publicly owned parcel that provides habitat for deer is
the NBHMA. The NBHMA, formerly the Dunning Ranch, was previously
managed as a working cattle ranch. It was acquired by the BLM in 1994
through a land exchange (BLM 1998) specifically to secure habitat for
the deer since it lies within the Douglas County DPS's core habitat.
The NBHMA is located east of Roseburg in the North Umpqua River Basin
and is characterized by four distinct habitat types: Grasslands and oak
savannah (29 percent); hardwood/conifer forest (52 percent); oak
woodlands (17 percent); and other habitat such as rock outcrops,
riparian areas, and wetlands (2 percent) (BLM 1998). As many as 348
Columbian white-tailed deer have been estimated to occur on the NBHMA
(S. Denney, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001). No active management occurred at
the NBHMA in the period between its acquisition in 1994 and the
completion of a management plan in 2001; this lack of management has
resulted in a decline in habitat quality (BLM 2000). Thatch (rank
vegetation) has built up in grassland areas, and invasion of
undesirable shrub species, cedar encroachment in meadow areas, and
conifer seedling establishment in oak woodlands have contributed to the
decline in habitat quality by inhibiting forb production for deer
forage, and by reducing the availability of preferred cover (BLM 1998).
Even with this decline in habitat quality, the site continues to
provide habitat for over 300 deer in the core of the Douglas County
DPS's range. The delay in initiation of management activities resulted
from the need to develop and approve a management plan for the parcel.
A final management plan was approved in June 2001 (BLM 2001).
Management objectives identified in the final NBHMA management plan
include: (1) Increased availability, palatability, and nutritional
quality of deer forage and browse; (2) maintenance of mature oak,
shrub, and herbaceous vegetation components; (3) control of noxious
weeds; and (4) development of water sources (BLM 2001). Livestock
grazing, prescribed burning, thinning, and timber management are some
of the management tools that will be used to achieve these objectives
(BLM 2001); these activities will be scheduled to avoid sensitive
periods (such as fawning and nursing) for the deer (Service 2001).
Livestock grazing and prescribed burning will be used to increase
the abundance of desirable forage plants, and thinning in oak woodlands
and removal of encroaching conifers will provide more preferred open
canopy hiding cover for the deer (BLM 2001; Service 2001). Heavy
unregulated livestock grazing can be considered a threat to the
Columbian white-tailed deer (Service 1983); the BLM recognizes that
livestock grazing as a tool to improve deer habitat will have to be
managed carefully on the NBHMA (BLM 2001). Poorly managed grazing can
lead to the introduction or spread of non-native plant species, soil
erosion and compaction, and reduction of desirable deer forage plants.
However, the BLM will use livestock grazing as a tool to reduce thatch
and annual grasses in favor of native perennial vegetation that the
deer prefer, particularly in areas that are inaccessible to equipment
used for mowing or seed drilling (BLM 2001). In the final management
plan for the NBHMA, the BLM has stated that it will manage cattle herd
dynamics, seasonal rotation, and stocking rates to enhance habitat for
the deer (BLM 2001).
The final management plan also calls for development of water
guzzlers (small mechanized watering trough), development of springs,
pond construction, stream rehabilitation, and wetland enhancement to
increase the use of habitats that are lightly used by the deer at
present due to limited water availability (BLM 2001). This, in
conjunction with forage and habitat improvement, should increase the
carrying capacity of the NBHMA for Columbian white-tailed deer and
would likely result in a better distribution of animals across the
management area (Service 2001).
Implementation of the NBHMA final management plan will improve
habitat quality for the deer (Service 2001). In

[[Page 43654]]

October 2001, the BLM began implementing the management plan by
conducting a controlled burn to remove thatch on 162 ha (400 ac);
subsequent monitoring shows that the burn was successful, and new
forage plants have sprung up in the burn zone (Ralph Klein, BLM, pers.
comm. 2001). In 2002, the BLM implemented several habitat improvements,
including prescribed burning, mowing, water developments, stream
restoration, interior fence removal, and noxious weed control (District
Manager, BLM, in litt. 2002). We will continue to track the
implementation of the NBHMA management plan through annual monitoring
reports from the BLM, and as part of the post-delisting monitoring
program.
The management plan also provides for a range of recreational
opportunities within the NBHMA (nonmotorized trail use, hunting, and a
boat ramp) (BLM 2001). In our Biological Opinion on the management
plan, we concluded that these activities are compatible with management
for Columbian white-tailed deer and other special status species,
because the potential increase in public use that may result is not
anticipated to negatively impact the deer, and the large amount of
escape cover and forage areas available will provide an ample amount of
refuge where disturbance may be avoided (Service 2001).
Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park, managed by the DCPD, is the second
largest parcel of publicly owned land (445 ha) (1,100 ac) within the
range of the Douglas County DPS; it lies about 16 km (10 mi) north of
the NBHMA. Ms. Kanipe left the ranch to Douglas County in her will and
directed the County to manage it as a wildlife refuge and working ranch
(Kanipe 1983). Park activities, including recreation (equestrian and
hiking trails), timber harvest, farming, and grazing are guided by the
provisions in Ms. Kanipe's will, a new management plan, and the Douglas
County Farm Lease program (Kanipe 1983; Douglas County Parks Department
2001a; Douglas County Parks Department 2001b). Ms. Kanipe's will states
that the ranch is to be used for park purposes and includes a number of
conditions relating to its management as a park: (1) No hunting or
trapping is allowed; (2) all animals, birds, and fish are protected as
in a refuge, provided that the county, for park purposes, may plant and
permit fishing in the ranch ponds; (3) trapping and hunting of
predatory animals is allowed in the event that they become a nuisance
and harmful to domestic and wild animals both within the park and on
adjoining lands; (4) the County may establish a limited picnic ground
and associated parking facilities, but no motorized vehicles are
permitted within the park except as may be required for park
construction and maintenance; (5) pasture lands are to be cared for and
continued in grass, and equestrian trails shall be permitted; and (6)
no timber shall be cut or harvested except as may be necessary, and
even then, only upon a sustained yield basis with all revenue from
timber cutting used by the county in capital improvements upon the park
(Kanipe 1983). The current farm lease at the park allows the lessee to
graze sheep and cattle at the ranch. The terms of the lease include
provisions to maintain pasture quality, minimize soil erosion,
eradicate noxious non-native plants, and protect native wildlife and
watercourses (Douglas County Parks Department 2001b). The annual farm
lease provisions are reviewed and approved by the ODFW biologists (M.
Black, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001).
Douglas County has prepared Coordinated Resource Management Plan
Recommendations for Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park; a Steering Committee
has been established, which includes representatives from our staff,
local environmental and recreation groups, the Douglas County Parks
Advisory Board, and individuals with forestry and range expertise
(Douglas County Parks Department 2001a). The management plan covers a
wide range of issues, including recreation, wildlife, grazing, timber
management, and riparian conservation (Douglas County Parks Department
2001a).
Since 1998, the ODFW has conducted three translocations of marked
Columbian white-tailed deer to the park. Of the 18 deer transplanted to
the park, 7 are known to have died. Of those that died, one was an
accidental death, two were killed by vehicles, one is suspected to have
died of natural causes, two were likely the result of predation, and
one was most likely an illegal kill (M. Black, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001;
S. Denney, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001). The survivors have remained in or
near the park, and at least two radio collared does have been observed
with fawns (S. Denney, ODFW, in litt. 2001). In 2001, 25 deer were
counted in the park (S. Denney, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001).
Between the years of 1996 and 2002, the ODFW implemented 23
enhancement projects to improve habitat for Columbian white-tailed deer
on private property in Douglas County; most of the projects focused on
improving riparian habitat conditions (Lindsay Ball, ODFW, in litt.
2002). These projects resulted in over 66 acres of stream-side habitat
improvements for deer.
One parcel on private property provides protection for Columbian
white-tailed deer habitat in perpetuity. In 1992, TNC purchased the
Oerding Preserve at Popcorn Swale, a 14-ha (35-ac) site which is
managed primarily for the endangered rough popcorn flower
(Plagiobothrys hirtus) (Service 2000). The management objective at the
preserve is to restore the native wet prairie (TNC 2001), but the
preserve also provides some suitable foraging habitat for deer. Surveys
have detected about 20 Columbian white-tailed deer on the parcel (S.
Denney, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001).
Douglas County has implemented land-use plans and zoning ordinances
that apply to private lands to protect habitat and assist in deer
recovery (DCPD 2000a). These protective measures include retention of
existing land uses that maintain essential habitat components. Minimum
lot sizes for farm use and timberlands, as well as building setbacks
along riparian zones, have been established to ensure maintenance of
habitat and travel corridors (ODFW 1995; DCPD 2000a).
Douglas County's Columbian White-tailed Deer Habitat Protection
Program was established in 1980 (DCPD 2000a). The County, in
conjunction with the ODFW and us, identified the range of habitat with
the greatest density of Columbian white-tailed deer, and 29,743 ha
(73,495 ac) were designated as Essential Habitat Areas (DCPD 1995).
Potential conflicting uses within the Essential Habitat Areas were
identified as: (1) Residential development in native riparian habitat;
(2) additional livestock development in lowland river valleys; and (3)
brush clearing, aimed at creating and improving pastures for livestock,
that removes cover for deer (DCPD 2000a). To address these concerns,
96.5 percent (28,553 ha) (70,555 ac) of the resource lands
(agricultural or farm/forest) within the Essential Habitat Area are
subject to a minimum parcel size of 32 ha (80 ac); any land division
requests of less than 30 ha (75 ac) must be reviewed by the ODFW (DCPD
2000a). Land zoned as nonresource lands within the Essential Habitat
Area (3.5 percent) is limited to single family dwellings, and rural
residential development is limited to 0.8 ha (2 ac) and 2 ha (5 ac)
lots (DCPD 1995; DCPD 2000a). Another component of Douglas County's
program to preserve habitat for the subspecies is a 30-m (100-ft)
structural development setback from streams to preserve riparian
corridors within the Essential Habitat Area (DCPD 2000a).

[[Page 43655]]

Douglas County's application of zoning to protect Columbian white-
tailed deer has been an essential factor in the Douglas County DPS's
recovery. The county has succeeded in limiting development and
maintaining low human densities in the core of the deer population's
range. The maintenance of open space on private lands significantly
enhances the value of small publicly owned parcels used by the deer,
such as Whistler's Bend County Park. Whistler's Bend County Park is
directly south of the NBHMA, across the North Umpqua River. The park is
71 ha (175 ac) in size and has a population of about 100 Columbian
white-tailed deer (S. Denney, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001). The park is
managed for human recreation needs (DCPD 2000a), but also provides
hiding cover for deer, which make forays onto adjacent private lands to
forage in the pastures and suburban yards surrounding the park (S.
Denney, ODFW, pers. comm. 2001). Small parcels such as this park
function as important refugia for deer that meet many of their foraging
requirements on adjacent private lands (Recovery Team, in litt. 2001).
Since management actions began, the Douglas County DPS population
has increased, and its range has expanded. In the 1930s, the Columbian
white-tailed deer population in Douglas County was estimated at fewer
than 300 individuals within a range of about 79 km \2\ (31 mi \2\)
(Crews 1939). By 1983, the population had increased to about 2,500 deer
(Service 1983). The population has continued to grow and is currently
estimated at over 6,000 deer (Lindsay Ball, ODFW, in litt. 2002). Along
with this increase in numbers, the range also has expanded to the north
and west, and the subspecies now occupies an area of approximately 800
km \2\ (309 mi \2\) (ODFW 1995).
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. The white-tailed deer is a popular big-game
animal. Past overutilization was considered a threat to the Douglas
County DPS, and was one of the several factors leading to its listing
as endangered.
Currently, the State of Oregon does not permit any hunting of
white-tailed deer in western Oregon (ODFW 2001), and measures have been
taken to reduce accidental shooting of white-tailed deer. For example,
at present, black-tailed deer hunting is allowed on the NBHMA, but is
limited by special permit only, usually 25 permits or fewer, and is
limited to 1 or 2 weekends of the general deer season. Pre-hunt
training on deer identification is mandatory to prevent the accidental
shooting of white-tailed deer. This has resulted in hunting having no
significant impacts to the Douglas County DPS population in this area
(Service 2001).
Recreational hunting and the possession of loaded firearms are not
permitted in Douglas County parks, with the exception of limited
waterfowl hunting in some reservoir parks. Therefore, deer hunting is
prohibited at Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park and at Whistler's Bend
County Park (J. Powers, pers. comm. 2001). Ms. Kanipe's will also
states that no hunting or trapping is to be allowed in the park (Kanipe
1983). TNC also prohibits hunting on the Oerding Preserve in order to
maintain a refugia for Columbian white-tailed deer (TNC 2001).
With the delisting of the Douglas County DPS, the Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Commission, with input from the ODFW, will be responsible for
determining whether a sport hunting season is justified. State
guidelines direct the ODFW to manage wildlife populations to assure
population health for present and future generations of Oregonians to
enjoy (ODFW, in litt. 2001). Initially, the ODFW intends to focus its
efforts on expanding the range of the Columbian white-tailed deer with
a trap and relocation program (ODFW, in litt. 2001). A recreational
hunt could be considered as another tool to reduce population densities
and improve herd health in selected areas (ODFW, in litt. 2001). The
population currently numbers more than 6,000 deer, a number considered
large enough to withstand some level of regulated harvest (ODFW, in
litt. 2001).
Poaching, or illegal hunting, of Columbian white-tailed deer has
been documented in the Douglas County DPS (Ricca 1999; ODFW, in litt.
2001). During a recent 3-year study, 3 deer, out of 64 marked, were
believed to have been taken by poachers (Ricca 1999). The Oregon State
Police actively prosecutes poachers in Douglas County; cooperation
among the Oregon State Police, the ODFW, our local biologists, and our
National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory has resulted in many
successful cases. In each of the past 3 years, the Oregon State Police
has successfully prosecuted three to five poaching cases. Nine of these
illegal kills were proved to be intentional poaching, whereas four were
cases of misidentification (i.e., confusion with legally hunted black-
tailed deer) (Sgt. J. Myhre, pers. comm. 2001). This low level of
illegal hunting is not considered a threat to the survival of the
population (ODFW 1995).
Other than sport hunting, we do not anticipate an appreciable
demand for Columbian white-tailed deer for commercial or recreational
purposes. There may be a small demand for deer for research. Scientific
studies, permitted under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, have resulted
in the take of as many as 40 deer during 1 year from the Douglas County
DPS (Kistner and Denney 1991). These permitted takings have not had
measurable impacts on population trends in the Douglas County DPS. Once
the Douglas County DPS is delisted, the ODFW will administer scientific
taking permits based on the merits of the proposed research and with
consideration of the effects to the population (ODFW, in litt. 2001).
We believe that ample protections are in place under State law and
regulations, and thus overutilization is unlikely to be a threat to the
population in the future. Our proposed monitoring plan (see the
Monitoring section, below) will track the status of the Douglas County
DPS for at least 5 years following delisting, which would alert us to
any new threat of overutilization.
C. Disease or predation. No known epizootic (epidemic in animals)
diseases have affected the Douglas County DPS, although several studies
have documented the incidence of bacterial and parasitic infections.
For example, in a recent study, disease was determined to have
contributed to the deaths of adult deer in poor nutritional condition.
Of 29 adult deer that died during a 3-year study, 28 percent died of a
combination of disease and emaciation (Ricca 1999; Ricca et al. 2002).
Necropsies revealed pneumonia, lungworms, and high levels of
ectoparasite infestation; none of these diseases would have been likely
to kill an otherwise healthy adult deer, but in combination with a poor
nutritional state (as evidenced by emaciation), these diseases were
likely a factor in the cause of death (Ricca 1999; Ricca et al. 2002).
Diseases noted in fawn necropsies also included pneumonia and
occasional instances of bacterial or viral infections (Ricca 1999). An
earlier study by the ODFW found moderate to high levels of internal and
external parasites on adult deer and fawns, with low levels of viral
diseases communicable to livestock (Kistner and Denney 1991).
High internal parasite loads have been considered an indication of
high deer densities (ODFW, in litt. 2001), and recent research has
found evidence that some Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas County
are suffering poor health resulting from high density (Ricca 1999).
Delisting the Douglas

[[Page 43656]]

County DPS would allow more management flexibility, such as hazing to
disperse the deer to reduce or prevent large deer concentrations, or a
regulated harvest, which could reduce the density of deer, resulting in
improved herd health.
Deer hair-loss syndrome has been a concern in the Columbia River
DPS, but has not been prevalent in the Douglas County DPS. This
syndrome appears to be caused by a combination of internal and external
parasites; internal parasites such as Dictyocaulus viviparus and
Parelaphostrongylus spp. invade the lungs of infected deer, resulting
in a low-grade pneumonia (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW) 1999; Biederbeck 2002). The pneumonia infection may suppress the
deer's immune system, making infected deer more susceptible to external
parasites. The disease is not necessarily fatal, but hair loss can
result in death due to hypothermia in winter (WDFW 1999; Biederbeck
2002). Spotlight surveys by the ODFW noted 2 deer, out of 329 counted,
with obvious hair loss problems (ODFW, in litt. 2001). Two marked deer
on the NBHMA are known to have died with hair loss; an infected fawn
was noted, but is not known to have died from the disease (ODFW, in
litt. 2001). Deer hair-loss syndrome is not currently considered to be
a threat to the Douglas County DPS, but the post-delisting monitoring
program will include tracking the incidence of this disease.
In August 2001, a probable case of adenovirus, a viral disease, was
identified through laboratory analysis in a Columbian white-tailed deer
fawn in Douglas County. It is likely that the fawn contracted the
disease while being held in a rehabilitation facility. This would be
the first known incidence of this disease in white-tailed deer (Dr.
Beth Valentine, Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Oregon State
University, in litt. 2001; Dr. Terry Hensley, D.V.M., U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Veterinary Services, pers. comm. 2001). Adenovirus
infection is potentially fatal to young deer, which may succumb to
respiratory failure, hemorrhagic syndromes, or acute diarrhea and
dehydration caused by the disease (Dr. T. Hensley, pers. comm. 2001).
The disease has been previously detected in mule deer (Odocoileus
hemionus) in northern California. An outbreak in the 1990s caused
widespread mortality, but appears to have had no long-term effect on
the population in California (Tapscott 1998). Therefore, we have
determined that adenovirus is not a significant threat to the Douglas
DPS. However, since its existence had been confirmed in the Douglas
County DPS, the post-delisting monitoring program will include tracking
the incidence of this disease.
Predation is known to be a leading cause of death in white-tailed
deer populations (Halls 1978). Ricca et al. (2002) studied survival of
Columbian white-tailed deer fawns, and found that predation was the
most frequent known cause of death for fawns in his study. Bobcats
(Lynx rufus) were the dominant predator, and researchers found some
evidence of predation by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and domestic dogs
(Ricca et al. 2002). Coyotes (Canis latrans) are frequent predators of
white-tailed deer elsewhere (Halls 1978), but recent research (Ricca et
al. 2002) found no evidence of fawns killed by coyotes in Douglas
County. The apparent absence of coyote predation may be due in part to
the Wildlife Services predator control program at the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
Douglas County contracts with APHIS, Wildlife Services, to conduct
predator control. The program focuses mainly on coyotes, but also
responds to fox, bobcat, and cougar (Puma concolor) complaints (Stan
Thomas, District Supervisor, APHIS, Wildlife Services, pers. comm.
2001). The purpose of the program is to protect sheep and cattle
ranching operations in the area, but it may also provide incidental
benefits to the Douglas County DPS by reducing the number of potential
predators on fawns. In summary, disease and predation are not
considered threats to the Douglas County DPS.
D. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The lack of
adequate Federal, State, or local regulatory mechanisms for protecting
habitat and controlling take was largely responsible for the decline of
the deer. Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas County have recovered
because Federal, State, and local governments have exercised their
authorities to protect the subspecies and its habitat.
For example, the State of Oregon currently prohibits hunting of all
white-tailed deer in western Oregon (described in Factor B, above).
Delisting would provide the State with the flexibility to allow some
regulated harvest to reduce population density if necessary to improve
herd health.
Douglas County also provides important regulatory protection for
Columbian white-tailed deer habitat on private lands through its
Comprehensive Plan and Deer Habitat Protection Program (DCPD 1995;
2000a). The Comprehensive Plan addresses Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals. Goal 5 requires local governments to conserve open space and
protect natural and scenic resources for future generations; Douglas
County's Columbian White-Tailed Deer Habitat Protection Program, which
is described in more detail under Factor A, was established in 1980
under Goal 5 (DCPD 2000a). Statewide planning Goals 3 and 4 provide
guidelines to maintain the rural landscape in Douglas County by
protecting agriculture, timber, and transitional (farm/forest) lands.
These goals were also incorporated into Douglas County's Columbian
White-tailed Deer Habitat Protection Program, and also provide a
measure of protection for deer habitat (DCPD 2000a). Douglas County's
zoning and planning ordinances and county park designations are
recognized in the Recovery Plan as valid methods to secure habitat, and
will provide continuing regulatory protection of Columbian white-tailed
deer habitat unless changed through a public process.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. There are a number of other threats to the survival of
individual Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas County. These include
road kill, hybridization with black-tailed deer, emaciation, conflicts
with private landowners, and fire.
Road kill is one of the major sources of mortality for white-tailed
deer in the United States (Halls 1978). Ricca et al. (2002) concluded
that road kill was the second most frequent cause of death in his
study; they determined that five deer (17 percent of marked adult deer)
over a period of 3 years were killed by vehicle collisions. Apparently,
the incidence of road kill is fairly constant. Almost 20 years earlier,
Smith (1981) found car collisions to be the second most frequent cause
of death for deer in Douglas County. Although road kill is a major
source of mortality for the Douglas County DPS, it has not been a
limiting factor for population growth (D. Jackson, ODFW, pers. comm.
2001).
Hybridization between Columbian white-tailed deer and Columbian
black-tailed deer has long been suspected to occur, and probable
hybrids have been observed in Douglas County for many years (ODFW
1995). Biologists from the ODFW have noted evidence of hybridization
(i.e., deer with physical characteristics of both white-tailed and
black-tailed deer), but concluded that the rate of cross-breeding is
not a threat to the continued existence of the Douglas County DPS
(Kistner and Denney 1991). Gavin and May (1988) conducted laboratory
analyses of muscle samples from Columbian white-tailed

[[Page 43657]]

deer and Columbian black-tailed deer in Douglas County and found no
evidence of hybridization between the two subspecies.
Emaciation, which may be the result of poor forage quality, was
determined to be the leading cause of death in a recent study. During 3
years of research on marked deer, Ricca (1999) found that 28 percent of
the deer that died during the study were emaciated and diseased (see
disease discussion in Factor B, above). This finding is also consistent
with an earlier study (Smith 1981). High deer density may result in
poor habitat quality through overuse of habitat resources (Ricca 1999).
Management actions to reduce deer density or increase habitat quality
could reduce the incidence of emaciation. Active habitat management
(prescribed burning) to improve forage quality has begun at the
NBHMA[reg]. Klein, pers comm., 2001; District Manager, BLM, in litt.
2002).
With growth of the deer population, deer-human conflicts have
increased. From 1996 to 2000, the ODFW recorded 249 complaints from
private property owners with deer depredation problems (ODFW, in litt.
2001). Resident suburban deer can cause serious damage to croplands,
gardens, and ornamental plantings. Conflict ensues because under the
Act it is illegal to ``take'' listed deer, which includes such actions
as hazing or harassing to disperse the deer, even where serious
continued damage is occurring. Delisting the Douglas County DPS allows
more flexibility in development and implementation of a management plan
to control and enhance deer populations, while fostering better
relationships with landowners and more effective long-term
conservation.
Fire has historically played a large part in shaping habitat for
Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas County. Although fire may have
negative short-term impacts on habitat, deer distribution, and numbers,
the long-term effects can be beneficial by removing decadent brush,
promoting the growth of nutritious vegetation, and maintaining the oak/
grassland habitat that the deer prefer (Halls 1978; BLM 2000).
Columbian white-tailed deer evolved with the occurrence of fire in the
ecosystem, and prescribed burning is one of the key management
prescriptions for restoring and maintaining habitat quality for the
deer at the NBHMA (BLM 2000; Service 2001). The occurrence of a large-
scale devastating wildfire is unlikely. The growing human population of
Douglas County demands active fire suppression on public and private
lands which, will likely convey some protection for the deer.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available concerning the past, present, and future threats
faced by the Douglas County DPS. On the basis of this evaluation, we
conclude the threats that caused the Douglas County population of
Columbian white-tailed deer to decline no longer pose a risk to the
continued survival of the DPS, and its removal from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is appropriate. The population is
robust, and protection of abundant habitat used by the deer in Douglas
County justifies delisting the DPS. During the public comment period on
the supplemental proposed rule, we asked for review from three
independent peer reviewers. All three peer reviewers agreed that the
data support our decision to delist.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), we have determined that this
rule relieves an existing restriction and good cause exists to make the
effective date of this rule immediate. Delay in implementation of this
delisting would cost government agencies staff time and monies on
conducting formal section 7 consultation on actions that may affect a
species no longer in need of the protection under the Act. Relieving
the existing restriction associated with this listed species will
enable Federal agencies to minimize any further delays in project
planning and implementation for actions that may affect the Douglas
County DPS of Columbian white-tailed deer.

Effects of the Rule

Promulgation of this final rule will affect the protection afforded
to the Douglas County DPS under the Act. Taking, interstate commerce,
import, and export of deer from the Douglas County DPS are no longer
prohibited under the Act. In addition, with the removal of the Douglas
County DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Federal
agencies are no longer required to consult with us under section 7 of
the Act to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by
them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the deer in
Douglas County, Oregon.
Harvest and permitted scientific take will be regulated by the
State of Oregon, and will be considered in the context of potential
effects to population stability (ODFW, in litt. 2001). Biological data
such as sex ratios, age, reproductive status, and health status (i.e.,
parasitism and bacterial infections) from individual deer taken through
legal harvest or the issuance of special permits will be available to
inform future management. Delisting the Douglas County DPS is expected
to have positive effects in terms of management flexibility to State
and local governments. Deer densities in selected areas may be reduced
by management actions. Individual deer could be controlled by hazing,
and targeted individuals could be removed where repeated severe damage
to agricultural crops, gardens, or ornamental plantings was documented.
Thus, delisting will allow managers greater flexibility to take actions
to reduce overcrowding in selected areas, which could result in a
healthier deer population.
The delisting of the Douglas County DPS of Columbian white-tailed
deer will not change the endangered status of the Columbia River DPS of
this subspecies. It remains fully protected by the Act.

Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this
requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of any
delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures
provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency
listing.
A monitoring plan is being developed for the Douglas County DPS.
The plan will be designed to detect changes in the status of the
population, and will be comprised of three components: (1) Monitoring
population size and other key population parameters; (2) tracking the
incidence of disease in the herd; and (3) periodic assessment of
habitat protection efforts in the Douglas County DPS's range.
The three components of the plan will likely be addressed as
follows: (1) We will work with the ODFW to continue spring and fall
population surveys; data from these surveys will allow us to assess key
population parameters including population size, trend, recruitment,
and distribution. (2) Data on the incidence of disease will be gathered
to follow trends in contagious diseases in the herd, particularly those
diseases that have a potential to become epizootic (e.g., adenovirus
and deer hair loss syndrome). Additional research into potential
epizootic diseases may be conducted, when warranted, in cooperation
with other agencies during the monitoring period. (3) Habitat
protection efforts will be assessed in a

[[Page 43658]]

coordinated periodic review of the various management plans (i.e.,
NBHMA, Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park, and Douglas County's Deer Habitat
Protection Program). Data from the three components of the monitoring
program will be evaluated by our experts, the ODFW, and the Recovery
Team, as appropriate.
If at any time during the monitoring period we detect a significant
change in the population, we will evaluate and change the monitoring
methods, if appropriate, and/or consider relisting the DPS, if
warranted. At the end of the monitoring period, we will decide if
relisting, continued monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is
appropriate. If warranted (e.g., data show a significant decline or
increased threats), we will consider continuing monitoring beyond the
specified period and may modify the monitoring program based on an
evaluation of the results of the initial monitoring program.
The monitoring plan is being developed with the assistance of our
technical staff and the ODFW, and will be peer reviewed. When a draft
of the monitoring plan is complete, we will publish a notice of its
availability in the Federal Register inviting public comment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320,
which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), require that interested members of the public and
affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on agency information
collection and recordkeeping activities (5 CFR 1320.8(d)). The OMB
regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information as
the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of identical
questions posed to, or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements imposed on 10 or more persons. Furthermore, 5
CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more persons'' refers to the
persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency
within any 12-month period.
This rule does not include any collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
information needed to monitor the status of the Columbian white-tailed
deer will be collected primarily by Service, ODFW, and the BLM. We do
not anticipate a need to request data or other information from the
public, other than the ODFW, to satisfy monitoring information needs.
If it becomes necessary to collect information from 10 or more
individuals, groups, or organizations per year, we will first obtain
information collection approval from OMB.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this designation
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section, above).

Author

The primary author of this final rule is Cat Brown, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section, above).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

? For the reasons set out above, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

? 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

? 2. We amend section 17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``deer,
Columbian white-tailed, Odocoileus virginianus leucurus, under
``Mammals'' in the table ``List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife'', to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------ population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals

* * * * * * *
Deer, Columbian white-tailed.... Odocoileus U.S.A. (WA, OR).... Columbia River E 1,738 NA NA
virginianus (Clark, Cowlitz,
leucurus. Pacific, Skamania,
and Wahkiakum
Counties, WA, and
Clatsop, Columbia,
and Multnomah
Counties, OR).

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 43659]]

Dated: July 1, 2003.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 03-17756 Filed 7-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the Douglas County Distinct Population Segment of Columbian White-Tailed Deer From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

Local Navigation