[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 250 (Thursday, December 28, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82310-82312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-33089]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of
Designation of the Gunnison Sage Grouse as a Candidate Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of designation of a candidate species.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, we present information on the recent
addition of the Gunnison sage grouse (Centrocercus minimus) found in
Colorado and Utah to the list of candidates for listing under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Identification of candidate
taxa can assist environmental planning efforts by providing advance
notice of potential listings, allowing resource managers to alleviate
threats and, thereby, possibly remove the need to list taxa as
endangered or threatened. Even if we subsequently list this candidate
species, the early notice provided here could result in fewer
restrictions on activities by prompting candidate conservation measures
to alleviate threats to this species.
We also announce the availability of the candidate and listing
priority assignment form for this candidate species. This document
describes the status and threats that we evaluated to determine that
Gunnison sage grouse warrants consideration for listing, and to assign
a listing priority to this species.
We request additional status information that may be available for
the Gunnison sage grouse. We will consider this information in
evaluating, monitoring, and developing conservation strategies for this
species.
DATES: We will accept comments on this document at any time.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and data regarding the Gunnison sage
grouse to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Colorado Field
Office, 764 Horizon Drive, South Annex A, Grand Junction, Colorado
81506-3946.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Ireland, at the above address,
e-mail [email protected]>, or telephone (970) 243-2778.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), requires that we list taxa of wildlife and plants that
are endangered or threatened, based on the best available scientific
and commercial information. As part of this program, we also identify
taxa that we regard as candidates for listing. Candidate taxa are those
taxa for which we have on file sufficient information to support
issuance of a proposed rule to list under the Act. In addition to our
annual review of all candidate taxa (64 FR 57534; October 25, 1999), we
have an on-going review process, particularly to update taxa whose
status may have changed markedly.
Section 3 of the Act generally defines an endangered species as any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, and a threatened species as any
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act.
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation affecting the species;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the
species; and
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
continued existence.
We are required to make the listing determination ``solely on the
basis of the
[[Page 82311]]
best scientific and commercial data available'' and ``taking into
account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign
nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to
protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of
habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any
area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas.'' Sections 4(a)(1)
and 4(b)(1)(A) and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(f) require us to
consider any State or local laws, regulations, ordinances, programs, or
other specific conservation measures that either positively or
negatively affect a species' status (i.e., efforts that create,
exacerbate, reduce, or remove threats identified through the section
4(a)(1) analysis).
We maintain the list of candidate species for a variety of reasons,
including--to provide advance knowledge of potential listings that
could affect decisions of environmental planners and developers; to
solicit input from interested parties to identify those candidate taxa
that may not require protection under the Act or additional taxa that
may require the Act's protections; and to solicit information needed to
prioritize the order in which we will propose taxa for listing. We
encourage consideration of candidate taxa in environmental planning,
such as in environmental impact analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (implemented at 40 CFR parts 1500-
1508) and in local and Statewide land use planning.
According to our 1983 Listing Priority System (48 FR 43098;
September 21, 1983), all species that are candidates for listing are
assigned a listing priority number. This system ranks species according
to--(1) the magnitude of threats they face, (2) the immediacy of these
threats, and (3) the taxonomic distinctiveness of the entity that may
be listed. Listing priority numbers range from 1 (highest priority) to
12 (lowest priority). We will complete proposals to list candidate
species, based on their listing priority, to the extent that our
resources for listing activities and our workload for other listing
activities will allow.
This document provides specific explanation for the classification
of Gunnison sage grouse as a candidate. It is important to note that
candidate assessment is an ongoing function and changes in status
should be expected. If we remove taxa from the candidate list, they may
be restored to candidate status if additional information supporting
such a change becomes available to us. We issue requests for such
information in a Candidate Notice of Review published in the Federal
Register every year.
Findings
In 1977, Dr. Clait Braun, formerly with the Colorado Division of
Wildlife, noticed that sage grouse (Centrocercus sp.) wings collected
in the Gunnison Basin of southwestern Colorado were smaller than sage
grouse wings collected in northern Colorado. Over the 2 decades since
then, Dr. Braun and others have been studying the morphological (Hupp
and Braun 1991), behavioral (Young et al. 1994, Braun and Young 1995)
and genetic differences (Quinn et al. 1997, Kahn et al. 1999, Oyler-
McCance 1999) between the sage grouse. The differences are great enough
that the American Ornithologists' Union has determined that the sage
grouse in southwestern Colorado are a distinct species, the Gunnison
sage grouse (C. minimus). The American Ornithologists' Union included a
footnote about the Gunnison sage grouse potentially becoming a distinct
species in their latest list of bird species. The July 2000 issue of
Auk is planned to contain the American Ornithologists' Union's next
list of bird species that will formally include the Gunnison sage
grouse as a distinct species (Dr. Richard Banks, National Museum of
Natural History, pers. comm. 2000).
Through museum specimens or written accounts, Braun (1995)
determined that the Gunnison sage grouse's historic range occurred in
southwestern Colorado, southwestern Kansas, northwestern Oklahoma,
northern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, and southeastern Utah. There
are currently believed to be seven population areas in Colorado and one
population in Utah. The Gunnison Basin breeding population is the
largest with up to 3,000 birds. The other 6 populations in Colorado
only have 6 to 300 breeding birds, and the Monticello, Utah, population
also is only around 120 birds for a total breeding population around
4,000. Long-term trends since at least the 1970s have shown steady
declines in the number of males/lek, and one area, Sims Mesa, may have
recently been extirpated. The overall population numbers have increased
the last 2 to 3 years in the Gunnison Basin; however, this may be
attributed to increased survey efforts. The number of males/lek in the
Crawford Area population has increased since 1993, though the overall
population estimate is no greater than about 320. Other populations
appear to be stable in the last 3 to 4 years but remain small.
The Gunnison sage grouse uses a variety of habitats throughout the
year but the primary component necessary is species of Artemisia spp.
(sagebrush) (Braun 1995). The most important sagebrushes are subspecies
of A. tridentata (big sagebrush). Sagebrush is used for hiding and
thermal cover as well as a major source of food in the winter (Hupp and
Braun 1989). From mid-March to early June males will display on leks
(strutting grounds) that are open areas with good visibility (for
predator detection) and acoustics (for transmission of male display
sounds). After mating, females will select nest sites, typically in
relatively tall and dense stands of sagebrush from 200 yards (183
meters) to 5 miles (8 kilometers) away from the leks. Nest sites
selected have residual grass and forbs that provide additional hiding
cover. Hens with chicks remain in sagebrush uplands if hiding cover is
adequate and if food consisting of succulent forbs and insects are
available. As chicks mature and vegetation in the uplands desiccates,
hens will move their broods to wet meadow areas that retain succulent
forbs and insects through the summer (Klebenow 1969, Wallestad 1971).
Preferred wet meadow areas also contain tall grasses for hiding and at
least 165-yard (150-meter) wide sagebrush stands (Dunn and Braun 1986)
along the periphery for hiding and foraging areas. From mid-September
into November all sage grouse will use upland areas with 20 percent or
greater sagebrush cover and some green forbs. As winter progresses and
snow cover is extensive (greater than 80 percent) and deep (greater
than 12 inches (30 centimeters)), sage grouse forage in tall sagebrush
(greater than 16 inches (41 centimeters)) in valleys and lower flat
areas (Hupp and Braun 1989) and roost in shorter sagebrush along ridge
tops. Roosting and foraging is typically restricted to south or west
facing slopes where snow is often shallower and less extensive (Hupp
and Braun 1989). Small foraging areas that have 30-40 percent big
sagebrush canopy cover also are important.
Potential threats include reduction in habitat by direct habitat
loss, fragmentation, and degradation from building development, road
and utility corridors, fences, energy development, conversion of native
habitat to hay or other crop fields, alteration or destruction of
wetland and riparian areas, inappropriate livestock management,
competition for winter range by big game, and creation of large
reservoirs.
[[Page 82312]]
Other factors affecting the Gunnison sage grouse include fire
suppression allowing encroachment of its habitat by Pinus edulis
(pinyon) and Juniperus spp. (juniper) invasion, fire suppression
resulting in decadent stands of the sagebrush community, overgrazing by
elk (Cervus elaphus) and deer (Odocoileus hemionus), drought,
disturbance or death by off-highway-vehicles, disturbance by
construction projects, harassment from people and pets, continuous
noise that impairs acoustical quality of leks, genetic depression,
herbicides, pesticides, pollution, and competition for habitat from
other species.
Despite development of the Conservation Plans and numerous actions
implemented under those Plans to date, all of the threats to the
Gunnison sage grouse, under the five listing factors, should be
considered non-imminent threat with a high magnitude of occurring, or
have potential to occur. In addition, the reduction of about 75 percent
of the range and uncertain continued existence of the small, disjunct,
populations outside of the Gunnison Basin population, leads us to
believe that listing the Gunnison sage grouse as threatened is
warranted. Therefore, we have assigned the Gunnison sage grouse a
listing a priority of five under our Listing Priority System.
Request for Information
We request you submit any further information on the Gunnison sage
grouse as soon as possible or whenever it becomes available. We are
seeking the following types of information:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to the Gunnison sage grouse;
(2) Reasons why any habitat of this species should or should not be
determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species; and,
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impacts on this species.
Information regarding the range, status, habitat needs, and listing
priority assignment for the Gunnison sage grouse is available for
review by contacting the Service as specified in the ADDRESSES section.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. In certain circumstances, we would
withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as
allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of
your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will
make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their
entirety.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Marine Mammals Management Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
References Cited
Braun, C.E. 1995. Distribution and status of sage grouse in
Colorado. Prairie Naturalist 27:1-9.
Braun, C.E., and J.R. Young. 1995. A new species of sage grouse
from Colorado. Proceedings of the Joint Meeting of The Wilson
Ornithological Society and the Virginia Society of Ornithology.
Williamsburg, Virginia. Abstract #23.
Commons, M.L., R.K. Baydack, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse
response to pinyon-juniper management. USDA Forest Service
Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999:238-239.
Dunn, P.O., and C.E. Braun. 1986. Late summer-spring movements
of juvenile sage grouse. Wilson Bulletin 98:83-92.
Hupp, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1989. Topographic distribution of
sage grouse foraging in winter. Journal of Wildlife Management
53:823-829.
Hupp, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1991. Geographic variation among
sage grouse in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 103:255-261.
Kahn, N.W., C.E. Braun, J.R. Young, S. Wood, D.R. Mata, and T.W.
Quinn. 1999. Molecular analysis of genetic variation among large-
and small-bodied sage grouse using mitochondrial control-region
sequences. Auk 116:819-824.
Klebenow, D.A. 1969. Sage grouse nesting and brood habitat in
Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:649-662.
Oyler-McCance, S.J. 1999. Genetic and habitat factors underlying
conservation strategies for Gunnison sage grouse. Abstract of PhD
Dissertation. Colorado State University, Fort Collins. 162 pp.
Quinn, T.W., N.W. Kahn, J.R. Young, N.G. Benedict, S. Wood, D.
Mata, and C.E. Braun. 1997. Probing the evolutionary history of sage
grouse Centrocercus urophasianus populations using mitochondrial DNA
sequence. Wildlife Biology 3: 291.
Wallestad, R.O. 1971. Summer movements and habitat use by sage
grouse broods in central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management
35:129-136.
Young, J.R., J.W. Hupp, J.W. Bradbury, and C.E. Braun. 1994.
Phenotypic divergence of secondary sexual traits among sage grouse,
Centrocercus urophasianus, populations. Animal Behaviour 47:1353-
1362.
Author
The author of this notice is Terry Ireland (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
Dated: December 19, 2000.
John A. Blankenship,
Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-33089 Filed 12-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P