Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as Threatened or Endangered, 67318-67325 [E6-19681]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67318-67325]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-19681]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 
a Petition To List the Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse as Threatened or 
Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
90-day finding on a petition to list the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
(Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) as threatened or endangered 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We find that the 
petition does not provide substantial information indicating that 
listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be warranted. Therefore, 
we are not initiating a further status review in response to this 
petition. We ask the public to submit to us any new information that 
becomes available concerning the status of the Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse or threats to it.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on November 21, 
2006. Comments and information concerning this finding may be submitted 
until further notice.

ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, and material concerning this 
finding may be submitted to the Supervisor, Upper Columbia Fish and 
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11103 East Montgomery 
Drive, Spokane, WA 99206. The complete file for this finding is 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Martin, Field Supervisor, Upper 
Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above), by 
telephone at (509) 891-6839, or by facsimile to (509) 891-6748.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that we make a finding 
on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents 
substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the 
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base the finding on 
information provided in the petition and supporting information 
available in our files at the time of the petition review. To the 
maximum extent practicable, we are to make the finding within 90 days 
of our receipt of the petition, and publish a notice of the finding 
promptly in the Federal Register.
    Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that 
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe 
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 
424.14(b)). If we find that substantial information was presented, we 
are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the 
species.
    In making this finding, we evaluated information provided by the 
petitioners and contained in our files in accordance with 50 CFR 
424.14(b). Our process of coming to a 90-day finding under section 
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 50 CFR 424.14(b) is limited to a 
determination of whether the information in the petition provides 
``substantial information'' that the petitioned action may be 
warranted.
    On October 18, 2004, we received a petition, dated October 14, 
2004, from Forest Guardians, American Lands Alliance, Biodiversity 
Conservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for 
Native Ecosystems, The Larch Company, Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, 
Oregon Natural Desert Association, and Western Watersheds Project 
(petitioners). The petitioners requested that the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse be listed as threatened or endangered throughout its 
historic range in accordance with section 4 of the Act.
    We were required to complete a significant number of listing 
actions in 2005, pursuant to court orders and judicially approved 
settlement agreements, and were unable to address the petition at that 
time. On January 18, 2005, we acknowledged receipt of the petition, and 
indicated to the petitioners that we would not be able to address the 
petition at that time due to other priorities relating to court orders 
and settlement agreements. On November 25, 2005, we received a Notice 
of Intent to Sue (NOI), dated November 22, 2005, for our failure to 
make a 90-day finding on the petition. On April 5, 2006, we received a 
formal complaint, which had been filed on March 20, 2006. On May 31, 
2006, the U.S. District Court of Idaho granted a Stipulated Settlement 
Agreement between us and the petitioners, wherein we agreed to publish 
a 90-day finding on the petition

[[Page 67319]]

by November 15, 2006. This finding constitutes our compliance with the 
settlement agreement.

Previous Federal Actions

    We previously received a petition, dated March 14, 1995, to list 
the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout its historic range in the 
conterminous United States (Biodiversity Legal Foundation 1995). On 
October 26, 1999, we published a positive 90-day finding and initiated 
a status review to determine if listing the Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse was warranted (64 FR 57620). On October 11, 2000, we published a 
negative 12-month finding that determined the requested action was not 
warranted (65 FR 60391).

Species Information

    The information summarized in this section is taken from the 
petition (cited as Forest Guardians et al. 2004) and our files.
    The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is one of seven recognized 
subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse that have been described in North 
America, based primarily on geographic variation in overall size, 
plumage coloration and patterning, and the broadly defined ecosystems 
occupied (Connelly et al. 1998, p. 3). The Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse is the smallest subspecies. It has darker gray plumage, more 
pronounced spotting on the throat, and narrower markings on the 
underside than other subspecies. Historically, the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse's range extended westward from the continental divide in 
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado to northeastern California and 
eastern Oregon and Washington; southward to northern Nevada and central 
Utah; and northward through central and British Columbia.
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur in a variety of habitats within 
the northwestern United States and Canada, including sagebrush-
bunchgrass, meadow-steppe, mountain shrub, and riparian zones (Marks 
and Marks 1987, p. 40; Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 326). Various 
upland habitats, with a component of denser riparian or mountain shrub 
habitat to provide escape cover, are important to the subspecies from 
spring to fall (Saab and Marks 1992, p. 171; Giesen and Connelly 1993, 
pp. 327-329). The availability of suitable wintering habitat, 
containing a dominant component of deciduous trees and shrubs, is also 
thought to be a key element to healthy Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
populations (Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 54-57; Giesen and Connelly 1993, 
pp. 329-330).
    Male sharp-tailed grouse employ elaborate courtship displays in the 
spring to attract females to central dancing grounds, called leks. 
Established leks may be used for many years, although the exact dancing 
locations may shift position over time and smaller satellite leks often 
form in the vicinity of historic leks. Interacting clusters of leks in 
a local area are defined as lek complexes (Schroeder et al. 2000, p. 
3). Due to social structures within a lek and other influences, such as 
exposure to predation, leks seldom support more than 25 males (Moyles 
and Boag 1981, pp. 1579-1580; Rodgers 1992, p. 104; Connelly et al. 
1998, p. 8). The few dominant males at a lek's center account for the 
majority of successful mating attempts (Johnsgard 1973, p. 314; 
Bradbury and Gibson 1983, pp. 119-120). Male Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse may also display and establish specific dancing sites at leks 
during other seasons (Johnsgard 1973, p. 312; Moyles and Boag 1981, p. 
1576; Marks and Marks 1987, p. xii; McDonald 1998, pp. 38-39).
    Spring-to-fall home range sizes of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
are relatively small, generally less than 2 square kilometers (km\2\) 
(1.2 square miles (mi\2\)), and the areas used are usually in the 
vicinity of a lek. Females typically nest and rear their broods within 
1.6 km (1 mi) of an active lek, although nesting more than 3 km (1.9 
mi) from a lek has been recorded (Saab and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170; 
Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327). Seasonal movements to wintering 
areas from breeding grounds are typically less than 5 km (3.1 mi) 
(Giesen and Connelly 1993, p. 327), although movements of up to 20 km 
(12.4 mi) have been recorded (Meints 1991, p. 53). The overall annual 
survival rate of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is relatively low, and 
ranges from roughly 20 to 50 percent (WDFW 1995, p. 9; Connelly et al. 
1998, p. 12).
    The area within 2.5 km (1.6 mi) of a lek is thought to be critical 
to the management of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, and this area 
should contain, or provide access to, suitable wintering habitats (Saab 
and Marks 1992, pp. 168-170; Giesen and Connelly 1993, pp. 326-332). 
Because of their influence on the subspecies' demographics, leks 
(including the surrounding area) can be used as the basis for 
describing the hierarchical assemblages of Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse populations. These assemblages range from local populations 
(single leks to lek complexes), to regional populations (potentially 
interacting local populations occupying small geographic areas, such as 
a county), to metapopulations (potentially interacting regional 
populations occupying larger geographic areas).
    Various historical accounts indicate that the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse was once much more abundant throughout its range where 
suitable habitats occurred (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 8-9; Buss and 
Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-22). Excessive hunting in 
the mid- to late 19th century is thought to have been a major 
contributing factor to the extirpation of some local populations and 
the initial reduction of the subspecies' range (Hart et al. 1950, p. 
60). Beginning in the early 1900s, the conversion of native habitats 
for crop production and habitat degradation as a result of heavy 
livestock grazing are thought to be the primary factors in further 
population declines and range reductions (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-59; 
Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, p. 25; 
Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 
28-31; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). 
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have been extirpated from California 
(circa 1920), Nevada (circa 1950), and Oregon (circa 1960) (Miller and 
Graul 1980, p. 20; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3). Past declines in the 
subspecies' abundance and distribution have isolated various extant 
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
    At large geographic scales (e.g., States, ecoregions), the overall 
distribution of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse appears to have changed 
little since the mid-1900s, and various sources have acknowledged the 
difficulty of obtaining accurate population estimates for the 
subspecies as a whole (Hart et al. 1950, p. 13; Rogers 1969, p. 42; 
Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 18-19; Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 2-3). 
However, when smaller geographic areas are considered, a general 
pattern of continued range reduction and population decline is apparent 
in a number of local and several regional populations from the mid-
1900s to the present (Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; WDFW 1995, pp. 
4-6; Ritcey 1995, pp. 2-4; Schroeder et al. 2000, pp. 4-8; Mitchell 
1995, 1998; Hoffman 1995, 1998; Thier 1998; Chutter 1995). Based on the 
results from a 1979 questionnaire distributed to wildlife professionals 
throughout the subspecies' range, Miller and Graul (1980, p. 20) 
concluded that populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occupied 
less than 10 percent of their former range in Idaho, Montana, Utah,

[[Page 67320]]

and Wyoming; 10 to 50 percent in Colorado and Washington; and 80 
percent or more in British Columbia.
    The following individual State and province discussions represent 
the most recent available information on populations by State and 
Canadian province. Each discussion initially summarizes information 
from our files, as well as the best estimates of recognized experts 
during a February 2000 interagency species status review meeting (USFWS 
2000), and an independent report that addressed the viability of the 
various extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations (Bart 2000, 
pp. 5-10). The State and province discussions also summarize the 
current status of each State's hunting regulations relating to 
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Finally, the State and province 
discussions summarize new information presented in the petition or that 
has become available in our files since 2000. For consistency, 
estimates of the spring breeding population are reported for each area. 
In general, the estimates of fall population sizes, which include 
annual reproduction and exclude over-winter mortality, are roughly 
double that of spring breeding population estimates.
    Colorado. The information in this paragraph is taken from Mumma 
(1999) and House (2000). The northwestern region of the State contains 
many interacting local populations with multiple leks that together 
constitute a distinct metapopulation. This metapopulation totaled 
roughly 5,000 birds in the spring breeding population in 2000. The 
metapopulation occurs primarily in Moffat, Routt, and Rio Blanco 
Counties, and is continuous with local populations in south-central 
Wyoming (see following discussion under Wyoming). Mesa County, in west-
central Colorado, may still harbor a remnant local population, but the 
last confirmed sightings of birds in this area are from around 1985.
    The State of Colorado maintains a fall hunting season in the 
northwestern region, with bag and possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, 
respectively. During the late 1990s, the annual State harvest estimate 
averaged 218 birds.
    The petition states that the metapopulation in Moffat, Routt, and 
Rio Blanco Counties may have consisted of approximately 6,080 birds in 
approximately 2004, based on Hoffman (2002) (pp. 34-35 of the 
petition). The petition also states that population estimates for 
Colorado (based on the average number of males per lek) fluctuated 
widely from 2000 to 2004.
    Idaho. Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is 
taken from Mallet (2000). The southeastern region of the State contains 
many interacting local populations with multiple leks, which constitute 
a distinct metapopulation that totaled, as of 2000, roughly 6,000 to 
13,000 birds in the spring breeding population. This population occurs 
primarily south of Rexburg and east of Rupert, Idaho (Meints 1995, 
1998), and is continuous with local populations in northern Utah (see 
following discussion under Utah). The upper Snake River region, 
including the Sand Creek and Tex Creek areas, harbored, as of 2000, 
roughly 600 birds in the spring breeding population (approximately 300 
in each area). Birds from these two areas likely interact with one 
another and with the larger population in the southeastern region 
(Meints 1995, 1998). Washington and Adams Counties, in the west-central 
region, harbored, as of 2000, roughly 200 to 300 birds in the spring 
breeding population, which supports approximately 7 leks. This area is 
isolated from other regional populations. Translocation efforts began 
in the Shoshone Basin area of extreme south-central Idaho in 1992, and 
resulted in establishment of an isolated local population supporting at 
least three leks in 2000. This area may be continuous with a small 
population of reintroduced birds in northeastern Nevada (see following 
discussion under Nevada).
    The State of Idaho maintains a fall hunting season, with bag and 
possession limits of 2 and 4 birds, respectively. The available 
information indicates that roughly 3,000 birds are harvested annually 
from the southeastern and upper Snake River regions.
    The petition states that the Shoshone Basin population may have 
consisted of 200 to 400 birds in 2004 (pp. 29-31 of the petition). The 
petition also states that population estimates for Idaho (based on 
average number of males per lek) fluctuated widely from 1999 to 2004.
    Montana. Except where noted, the information in this paragraph is 
taken from McCarthy (2000). Two small local populations may still occur 
in the northwestern region of the State, one in Lincoln County near the 
international boundary with British Columbia, and one in Powell County. 
The Lincoln County area supported fewer than 20 birds on a single lek 
in the 2000 spring breeding population. From 1987 through 1991, and 
again in 1996 and 1997, the Lincoln County population was augmented 
with birds translocated primarily from central British Columbia (one 
effort included birds translocated from southeastern Idaho). The Powell 
County area supported fewer than 50 birds on a few leks in the 2000 
spring breeding population. Based on the evaluation of a limited number 
of specimens, birds in the Powell County population show a greater 
morphological affinity to the plains subspecies (T. p. jamesi); 
however, these birds show a greater genetic affinity to the Columbian 
subspecies (Warheit and Schroeder 2003, p. 5). Therefore, the taxonomic 
status of this population remains in question. The two local Montana 
populations are isolated from one another and from other regional 
populations. During the early 1970s and again in 1980, limited efforts 
to reintroduce sharp-tailed grouse to the National Bison Range (roughly 
50 km northwest of Missoula) were conducted with birds translocated 
from southeastern Idaho. It is unlikely that any of these birds or 
their offspring persisted in the area (Wood 1991, p. 6).
    The State of Montana does not have an open hunting season for 
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
    The petition states that Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may have 
been extirpated in Montana by 2004 (p. 35 of the petition).
    Nevada. The information in this paragraph is taken from Morros 
(1999) and Crawforth (2000). During the spring of 1999, 54 birds from 
the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho were translocated to the Snake 
Mountains in Elko County. Census information from 2000 indicated there 
were roughly 20 to 40 birds remaining from this initial effort.
    No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in 
the State of Nevada.
    According to a source cited in the petition (Stiver et al. (2002), 
cited on p. 32 of the petition), 196 birds were reintroduced between 
1999 and 2002. No additional population estimates were provided. This 
reintroduced local population may be continuous with reintroduced birds 
in south-central Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho).
    Oregon. The information in this paragraph is taken from Crawford 
and Coggins (2000). From 1991 through 1997, a total of 179 birds were 
translocated into Wallowa County in northeastern Oregon. Translocated 
birds originated from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho. Census 
information in 2000 indicated that roughly 15 to 30 individuals, 
supporting one or a few leks, existed in the spring breeding population 
in an area several miles from the initial release site.

[[Page 67321]]

    No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in 
the State of Oregon.
    According to a source cited in the petition (ODFW (2001), cited on 
p. 29 of the petition), an additional 33 birds were translocated in 
2001, and the estimated population at that time was 80 birds. The 
petition, citing personal communication with C. Braun, states that 
translocation efforts in Oregon have likely failed and that the 
population appears to be extirpated from the State.
    Utah. The information in this paragraph is taken from Mitchell 
(2000). The northern region of the State contains numerous, interacting 
local populations with multiple leks, which constitute a distinct, 
interacting metapopulation totaling roughly 5,000 birds in the spring 
breeding population. This population is continuous with the population 
in southeastern Idaho (see previous discussion under Idaho).
    The State of Utah reopened its hunting season in 1998, and, over 
the first 3 years, issued 663, 2-bird permits in a limited-entry hunt. 
The State harvest estimates for 1998, 1999, and 2000 were 201, 462, and 
233 birds, respectively.
    The petition states that the Utah population (based on estimates of 
average number of males per lek) fluctuates widely from year to year, 
and may have declined by 50 percent over the 4-year period from 1998 
through 2001 (pp. 33-34 of the petition).
    Washington. Except as noted, the information in this paragraph is 
taken from Schroeder (2000) and Cawston (2000). Eight local populations 
occur in the north-central region of the State; four likely have 
multiple leks, and four consist of single or few leks (Schroeder et al. 
2000, p. 98). In 2000, the overall estimate was approximately 860 
individuals in the spring breeding population; the 2005 estimate was 
578 individuals (Schroeder 2005, p. 16). Some minimal interaction may 
occur between a few local populations, while others are isolated. The 
Washington population is isolated from other regional populations. 
Recent genetic analyses indicate that the State population was likely 
experiencing inbreeding, and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from other 
stable populations have been translocated to Washington to address this 
potential threat. The genetic analyses indicate that the birds in 
Washington may have a different genetic profile than other populations, 
and that they may currently be on a different evolutionary trajectory 
(Warheit and Schroeder 2001, p. 5) due to these genetic differences and 
their isolation from other populations. Because the genetic differences 
may result from isolation and inbreeding, translocation efforts are 
targeted at preserving any genetic uniqueness while increasing genetic 
diversity. During the spring of 1998, 1999, and 2000, translocation 
efforts were conducted to augment one of the remnant local populations 
in north-central Washington. Translocated birds originated from the 
metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and from one of the larger local 
populations in Washington. Additional translocation efforts were 
undertaken during the spring of 2005 and 2006, to augment three 
additional Washington populations (Hays 2006). Current plans call for a 
third consecutive year in 2007 to complete these augmentation efforts. 
Roughly half of the translocated birds for these efforts originated 
from the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho, and the rest originated 
from the metapopulation in central British Columbia (see following 
discussion under British Columbia).
    The State of Washington has not had a hunting season for Columbian 
sharp-tailed grouse since 1988.
    According to the petition (p. 28), the total Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse population in the State of Washington was estimated to be 618 
birds in 2002.
    Wyoming. The information in this paragraph is taken from Kruse 
(1999). Available information indicates that one population exists in 
the south-central region of the State that consisted of roughly 100 to 
500 birds in the spring breeding population and supported multiple leks 
in 2000. The population occurs in Carbon County and is continuous with 
the metapopulation in northwestern Colorado (see previous discussion 
under Colorado).
    No open hunting season for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse exists in 
the State of Wyoming.
    The petition cites personal communication with T. Wooley (no 
affiliation given) that the Wyoming population may have totaled 
approximately 600 to 700 birds in 2004 (pp. 31-32 of the petition).
    British Columbia, Canada. The information in this paragraph is 
taken from M. Chutter, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 
Wildlife Branch (1995). The central region of British Columbia (Fraser 
Plateau) contains numerous interacting local populations with multiple 
leks, which comprise a distinct interacting metapopulation totaling 
roughly 5,000 to 10,000 birds in the spring breeding population. The 
area directly south of Cranbrook (southeastern region) may contain one 
local population with a single to few leks. This population is isolated 
from other regional populations. The area south of Merritt to the 
Washington border (south-central region) contains individual birds or 
small flocks during the winter, with no breeding behavior (i.e., leks) 
apparent.
    British Columbia currently prohibits hunting of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse in native grassland habitats (i.e., the southern portion 
of the subspecies' Provincial distribution). Accurate harvest estimates 
for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse throughout the remainder of the 
Province are not available.
    The petition cites Leupin's (2002) estimate that the population in 
British Columbia may have consisted of approximately 10,100 birds in 
2002, based on extrapolations of estimated densities across potentially 
suitable habitats (pp. 36-37 of the petition).

Summary of Subspecies' Status

    Based on the best available scientific information in 2000, the 
rangewide estimate for the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's spring 
breeding population was approximately 22,500 to 35,500 individuals, 
with approximately 18,000 to 25,500 individuals occurring within the 
conterminous United States. This total population occupied 
approximately 79,500 km2 (31,000 mi2) rangewide, 
and approximately 38,500 km2 (15,000 mi2) within 
the conterminous United States, in 2000 (Bart 2000, p. 5). Currently, 
roughly 95 percent of all Columbian sharp-tailed grouse occur within 
the 3 remaining metapopulations: In northwestern Colorado and south-
central Wyoming; southeastern Idaho and northern Utah; and central 
British Columbia (Bart 2000, p. 8). By comparing information provided 
in the petition (pp. 30-37) with data we have in our files, we 
determined that the petition indicates that the metapopulation in 
northwestern Colorado and south-central Wyoming may have increased by 
roughly 25 percent between 2000 and 2004; the metapopulation in central 
British Columbia may have increased by roughly 5 percent during the 
same period; and the metapopulation in southeastern Idaho and northern 
Utah may have increased slightly (no percentage estimate available).
    By comparing the available information in our files with 
information contained in the 2004 petition, the estimated minimum net 
increase in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance between 2000 and 
2004 would be roughly 9 percent, both rangewide and within the 
conterminous United States, as indicated by the petition (Bart 2000, p. 
8; pp. 30-37 of the petition). If we were to assume a

[[Page 67322]]

worst case analysis, i.e., that there was no increase in areas occupied 
by the metapopulations, the total area occupied by Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse, both rangewide and within the conterminous United 
States, may have decreased by less than 1 percent between 2000 and 2004 
due to the possible extirpation of several discrete populations (Bart 
2000, p. 8; p. 38 of the petition). These estimates of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse are derived from data provided in the petition, and do 
not represent our estimates of trends. We and the petitioners 
acknowledge that reliable trends are not determinable from available 
data (Bart 2000, p. 8; pp. 31-35, 38 of the petition).
    The petition indicates that abundance estimates for several of the 
discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse fluctuate widely 
between years, and therefore the populations cannot be considered 
stable (pp. 31, 34-35 of the petition). However, species of prairie 
grouse, with intrinsically high reproductive potential and low 
survival, periodically undergo wide fluctuations in numbers (e.g., 
seasonally, yearly), as is demonstrated by spring versus fall 
population estimates for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. This 
variability in abundance does not necessarily indicate instability in 
these species, but rather represents an inherent component of their 
life history strategy. Little documentation exists concerning possible 
ranges of natural seasonal or yearly variation in Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse populations, so we are unable to provide estimates of 
fluctuations due to existing threats. The various survey methodologies 
and population indices used throughout the subspecies' range make it 
difficult to obtain accurate or consistent population estimates for 
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 8). In some instances, 
apparent fluctuations in population abundance may be an artifact of the 
survey methodology used, survey effort expended, or reliance on 
variable population estimators. As indicated in the petition (pp. 31-35 
of the petition), the available information does not reveal reliable 
trends (neither positive nor negative) in abundance for the larger 
metapopulations.
    Most of the small, isolated populations of Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse, i.e., populations outside the three metapopulations, may be 
extirpated within a decade or two due to existing threats and current 
management scenarios (Wisdom et al. 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 
9). These discrete populations represent less than 1 percent of the 
area historically occupied, and 4 percent of the current occupied 
range. Three regional populations, including the Nespelem population in 
Washington, the west-central Idaho population, and the south-central 
Idaho and northern Nevada population, were stable in 2000 (Bart 2000, 
p. 9).
    The metapopulations of the subspecies have persisted for the last 
several decades with no discernable downward trend, and the available 
information indicates they may now be increasing, along with the 
habitats available to them (Bart 2000, p. 8). The available information 
indicates that the three metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse are relatively secure, although conclusive data regarding recent 
trends in these populations appears to be lacking (Bart 2000, p. 8; 
petition pp. 31-35). Given the level of threat to these populations and 
ongoing conservation measures (e.g., translocations, habitat protection 
and restoration), (Bart 2000, p. 9-10) concluded that, in the near term 
(i.e., less than 100 years), the large metapopulations of Columbian 
sharp-tailed grouse would likely remain stable or increase in abundance 
and area of occupied range. In addition, one small population is likely 
to remain stable in west-central Idaho (Bart 2000, p. 10).
    According to Bart (2000, pp. 9-10), the three metapopulations will 
likely also remain stable in the long term (i.e., 100 years), although 
the Utah portion of one of the metapopulations may experience some 
decline as a result of predicted future urban expansion in the Salt 
Lake City and Ogden metropolitan area. Of the smaller populations, only 
the west-central Idaho population is likely to remain stable, while the 
long-term outlook for reintroduced populations of Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse is uncertain (Bart 2000, p. 10).

Threats Analysis

    In our determinations of whether to list a species, subspecies, or 
any distinct vertebrate population segment of these taxa under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, we must consider the following five factors: (A) 
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above factors, either singly or in 
combination.
    The information presented in the petition with regard to the five 
factors established by the Act and the information in our files as it 
relates to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is considered below.

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Habitat or Range

    The petition (pp. 39-40) states that habitat destruction, primarily 
due to extensive agricultural development, is one of the main reasons 
for the decline of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse's rangewide 
population, and that agriculture and other activities that result in 
habitat destruction (e.g., residential development) are continuing, or 
possibly increasing, within the subspecies' historic distribution. 
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are negatively impacted by loss of 
habitat and associated human disturbances, such as the introduction of 
pets, some of which (e.g., dogs) may prey upon or otherwise disturb 
local populations, and by potential increases in the abundance and 
distribution of certain natural predators, such as coyotes and ravens.
    The petition also states that habitat degradation, primarily due to 
excessive livestock grazing, contributed to past declines in Columbian 
sharp-tailed grouse distribution and abundance, and that grazing and 
other activities (e.g., chemical and mechanical treatments, increases 
in nonnative invasive vegetation) continue to threaten the subspecies 
(pp. 40-43 of the petition). Threats from these activities mainly 
result from modifications to existing vegetation communities that make 
the sites less suitable, or unsuitable, for use by Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse.
    We concur with the petitioners that human influences are primarily 
responsible for the destruction and degradation of suitable habitats, 
resulting in declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse abundance and 
occupied range. However, most large-scale habitat conversions within 
the subspecies' historic distribution took place during the early to 
mid-1900s (Hart et al. 1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 
185-187; Miller and Graul 1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-
4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 
1998, p. 34; Connelly et al. 1998, pp. 2-3).
    Implementation of light or moderate grazing levels, or varied 
grazing systems, may maintain or improve forage conditions on range 
lands (Mattise et al. 1982, p. 131; Nielsen and Yde 1982, pp. 159-163), 
and do not necessarily adversely affect Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
populations. The information provided in the petition

[[Page 67323]]

and in our files does not further address actual grazing levels (e.g., 
livestock numbers, timing, duration) or grazing effects specific to the 
discrete populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
    We concur with the petitioners that conversion and degradation of 
suitable habitats within the subspecies' historic distribution 
continues. However, these impacts are occurring at much reduced rates 
compared to historic levels (see above). The petition did not provide 
any information that further quantifies or qualifies these potential 
ongoing impacts, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse populations.
    Given the lack of information in the petition that further 
quantifies or qualifies habitat impacts, and the fact that the three 
metapopulations of the grouse are stable or increasing, we find that 
the petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that 
the destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range 
threaten the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
such that listing under the Act may be warranted.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    The petition states that excessive hunting likely contributed to 
past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed grouse distribution and 
abundance, and presents a discussion addressing whether contemporary 
hunting pressure may be additive or compensatory to natural mortality. 
The petition cautions that, under certain circumstances, excessive 
hunting pressure may result in population declines. The petition 
summarizes recent hunting seasons, bag limits, and potential adverse 
impacts from hunting in several U.S. States and in British Columbia, 
Canada. The petition also indicates that certain research activities 
(e.g., radio-marking) may make Columbian sharp-tailed grouse more 
susceptible to mortality factors (e.g., predation) (pp. 43-44 of the 
petition).
    We concur with the petitioners that excessive hunting pressure is 
partially responsible for past declines in Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse abundance and occupied range, and that, under certain 
circumstances, contemporary hunting pressure may be additive to natural 
mortality. We also concur that various research activities may increase 
the risk of mortality to Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, 
current estimated harvest rates are not likely to adversely affect the 
metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the States with 
hunting seasons (Bart 2000, pp. 11-12). In addition, large 
metapopulations are not likely to be significantly impacted by various 
future research activities (capture, translocation, radio marking, 
genetic sampling) (Bart 2000, p. 11).
    The petition did not provide any information that further 
quantifies or qualifies the potential ongoing impacts of hunting or 
research, or their specific effects on extant Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse populations. Therefore, we find that the petition has not 
presented substantial information to indicate that overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes threatens 
the continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that 
listing under the Act may be warranted.

C. Disease or Predation

    The petition states that some Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
populations may carry heavy ectoparasite loads that could limit already 
stressed populations (pp. 44-45 of the petition). The petition also 
presents a discussion of the impacts of West Nile virus infection on 
greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and indicates that 
this rapidly emerging disease may represent a significant threat to 
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, especially to the smaller, isolated 
populations of the subspecies. The petition indicates that human 
activities may have increased the vulnerability of some Columbian 
sharp-tailed grouse populations to predation.
    No documentation exists that indicates disease or predation have 
played a significant role in the population declines and range 
reduction of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. We agree that West Nile 
virus could become a threat to the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in the 
future. However, there is currently no information available that 
addresses the potential occurrence, infection rates, or virulence of 
West Nile virus in the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, or its potential 
effects on extant populations of the subspecies. We also agree that 
episodes of disease and altered predation patterns may play a role in 
the dynamics of the smaller, isolated populations.
    The petition did not provide any information that quantifies or 
qualifies the potential impacts of disease or predation, or their 
specific effects, on extant Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. 
Therefore, we find that the petition has not presented substantial 
information to indicate that disease or predation threatens the 
continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that 
listing under the Act may be warranted.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The petition asserts that we inappropriately relied on formal State 
conservation planning efforts in our previous 12-month finding that 
determined the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse did not warrant listing 
under the Act (65 FR 60391). The petition also provides summary 
assessments of formal State conservation planning efforts in Colorado, 
Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming, and identifies U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) management designations 
for the subspecies (pp. 45-52 of the petition).
    Our previous determination was not based on the identified formal 
State and local working-group planning efforts; we considered them to 
be rudimentary planning efforts at that time (65 FR 60391). In 
addition, we specifically did not address these preliminary planning 
efforts under factor D, because they are non-regulatory in nature. Bart 
(2000, p. 7) indicated that: (1) Implementation of these plans was 
uncertain; (2) the plans provided no legally binding commitments; and 
(3) the conservation measures prescribed by the plans did not have much 
impact on analyses addressing the viability of the various extant 
populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. Other ongoing foreign, 
Federal, State, and local management measures contributing to 
conservation of the subspecies were identified in our previous status 
review. These management measures include habitat maintenance and 
enhancement (e.g., that provided through the Federal Conservation 
Reserve Program (CRP) or through land acquisition and protection 
actions), reintroduction and augmentation programs, and State survey 
and monitoring initiatives. In accordance with section 4(b)(1) of the 
Act, we based our previous 12-month determination on the combined 
weight of the five threat factors and conservation benefits realized 
through ongoing management measures (65 FR 60391). The additional 
information provided in the petition that addresses the preliminary 
nature of formal State and local planning efforts does not substantiate 
that this is a factor that threatens the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
such that listing under the Act may be warranted.
    We concluded above that State hunting regulations appear to be 
sufficient to control harvest levels of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse 
(both legal and illegal) in States where they

[[Page 67324]]

are hunted, and to avoid adverse impacts to the subspecies (see 
previous discussion under factor B).
    In addition, revegetation and reclamation standards under the CRP 
and Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Act promote the improvement of 
habitat conditions for the subspecies' metapopulations. The petition 
(pp. 56-60) indicates that potential benefits provided by the CRP may 
be limited, especially considering that ``emergency'' haying and 
grazing are allowed on lands enrolled under the program. The new 
information referenced in the petition (Table 2, pp. 57-58) indicates 
that, on average, less than 10 percent of CRP acreage within the 
historic range of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse may be open to 
emergency grazing and haying on an annual basis. The petition also 
indicates that the CRP may expire in 2007, which may represent a 
significant threat to various Columbian sharp-tailed populations that 
have come to rely on these lands. The CRP has been authorized on a 
recurrent 10-year time frame since 1987, with subsequent ``sign-ups'' 
of eligible lands occurring after each reauthorization. While the 
available information does not conclusively demonstrate that the 
program will be continued in 2007 or beyond, it likewise does not 
indicate that it will be terminated or otherwise significantly altered 
under future reauthorizations. The available information does not 
address the actual extent of haying and grazing activities (e.g., 
livestock numbers, timing, duration) or potential effects to the 
subspecies under the haying and grazing provisions, and does not 
address other conservation implications of potential future changes to 
the CRP.
    Further, the metapopulations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are 
stable or improving in status, and there are approximately 22,500 to 
35,500 birds. Because the status is stable, it is likely that threat 
levels are low enough in the metapopulation areas, such that regulatory 
mechanisms are not necessary to prevent declines. We find that the 
petition has not presented substantial information to indicate that the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms threatens the continued 
existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that listing under 
the Act may be warranted.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    The petition presented discussions addressing potential adverse 
impacts to the extant populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse from 
other influences, including the use of insecticides, reduced genetic 
fitness, drought and climate change, prescribed fire and fire 
suppression, other human-related disturbances (e.g., fences, increased 
noise), dependence on artificial habitats (e.g., lands enrolled under 
the CRP), and utility lines and roads (pp. 44-52).
    We concur with the petitioners that some of the other threats 
identified in the petition (e.g., insecticide use, reduced genetic 
fitness, fire management, other human-related disturbances) may impact 
local populations of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse. However, the three 
metapopulations and the larger regional populations have persisted in 
the presence of these ongoing factors for decades. Because 
metapopulations are more resilient to localized impacts, these factors, 
either singly or in combination, are not expected to significantly 
affect future trends in the overall status of the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse (Bart 2000, p. 10).
    Other possible future threats identified in the petition (e.g., 
climate change, extended drought) have the potential to impact the 
three metapopulations and the larger regional populations of Columbian 
sharp-tailed grouse. The petition provides speculation (p. 55 of the 
petition) that temperature increases in combination with altered 
precipitation could cause changes in species composition and habitat. 
While a petition does not have to provide conclusive evidence, we find 
that substantial evidence requires more than speculation. No additional 
information regarding how these potential threats may affect Columbian 
sharp-tailed grouse, now or in the future, is contained in our files.
    We find that the petition has not presented substantial information 
to indicate that other natural or human-caused factors threaten the 
continued existence of the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse such that 
listing under the Act may be warranted.

Significant Portion of the Range

    The petition states that the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is 
absent from 92 to 95 percent of its historic distribution (p. 52 of the 
petition), and claims that this area represents a significant portion 
of the subspecies' range.
    We concur with the petitioners that the Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse currently occupies less than 10 percent of its estimated 
historic distribution (Bart 2000, p. 8), and that most of the 
subspecies' small, isolated populations may be extirpated within 10 to 
20 years due to existing threats and current management scenarios 
(Wisdom et al. 1998, pp. 305-313; Bart 2000, p. 9). However, range 
contractions by themselves do not relegate species to certain 
extinction or suggest that the species require protections under the 
Act. Nearly all species have experienced range contractions due to 
anthropogenic effects. While for many species even small range 
contractions are incompatible with recovery, reduction in a species' 
range or population numbers does not automatically suggest that the 
species is in peril, sometimes even when the reduction appears 
significant.
    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse population core areas, where 95 
percent of the grouse have occurred for the last 50 years or more, have 
remained relatively constant, with recent slight increases (Bart 2000, 
pp. 8-10). Most broad-scale impacts to the Columbian sharp-tailed 
grouse (e.g., loss and degradation of suitable habitats, over-hunting) 
that led to past declines in the subspecies' abundance and distribution 
took place during the late 1800s through the mid-1900s (Hart et al. 
1950, pp. 55-58; Buss and Dziedzic 1955, pp. 185-187; Miller and Graul 
1980, pp. 20-22; Marks and Marks 1987, pp. 1-4; Braun et al. 1994, p. 
38; WDFW 1995, pp. 21-27; McDonald and Reese 1998, p. 34; Connelly et 
al. 1998, pp. 2-3). The petitioner concludes that lack of proactive 
management by State and Federal agencies will allow the species to fade 
into extinction (p. 61 of the petition); however, available information 
shows that hunting is either regulated or not authorized in all States 
with populations, and reintroduction actions are ongoing. The 
subspecies remains stable in three metapopulations, and no current data 
indicates declining trends. The petition does not provide substantial 
information suggesting that the portion of the range where the 
subspecies no longer occurs is significant to the long-term persistence 
of the subspecies.
    In addition, while in general we are concerned with the continued 
loss of range and the potential contribution small populations may play 
in a species' recovery, the petition does not present substantial 
information that the small, islolated populations that may be 
extirpated in a few decades constitute a significant portion of the 
range. We made this determination based on a combination of factors. 
First, the extent of habitat outside the three metapopulations is small 
relative to the overall range of the subspecies, roughly 4 percent of 
the subspecies' current occupied range. Second, there is no scientific 
evidence suggesting that the small, isolated populations of

[[Page 67325]]

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are genetically, behaviorally, or 
ecologically unique, or that they contribute individuals to other 
geographic areas through emigration. Finally, there is no scientific 
evidence suggesting that these habitats are important to the survival 
of the species because of any unique contribution to the species' 
natural history, e.g., for reasons such as feeding, migration, or 
wintering.

Finding

    We have reviewed the petition and literature cited in the petition, 
and evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent 
information available in our files. The two main causes for historic 
declines of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, (1) loss and degradation of 
habitats and (2) over-hunting, occurred in the early 1900s. At present, 
these factors occur at much reduced levels, or not at all, within the 
areas currently occupied by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations. 
The subspecies' metapopulations have persisted for the last several 
decades with no discernable downward trend, and recent information 
indicates they may now be increasing, along with the habitats available 
to them (Bart 2000, p. 9).
    After review of the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we conclude that substantial information has not been 
presented to indicate that listing the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse as 
a threatened or endangered species may be warranted.
    Although we are not commencing a new status review in response to 
this petition, we will continue to monitor the subspecies' population 
status and trends, potential threats, and ongoing management actions 
that might affect the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
    We encourage interested parties to continue to gather data that 
will assist with conservation of the subspecies. If you wish to provide 
information regarding the Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, you may submit 
your information or materials to the Field Supervisor, Upper Columbia 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

References Cited

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

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Chris Warren of the Upper 
Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section above).

Authority

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

    Dated: November 13, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E6-19681 Filed 11-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P