[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42217-42229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF43
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Supplemental
Proposed Rule To Remove the Douglas County Population of Columbian
White-Tailed Deer From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife; Notice of a Public Hearing
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revision and notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is publishing a
revised proposal to establish two distinct population segments (DPS) of
the Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus): The
Douglas County DPS and the Columbia River DPS. We also propose to
remove the Douglas County, Oregon, population from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (Act), as amended. A previous proposed rule was issued on May 11,
1999. In this revised proposed rule, we provide new information and
clarify our reasons for proposing to delist the population.
Current data indicate that the Douglas County DPS of Columbian
white-tailed deer has recovered. This DPS has increased from about
2,500 animals in 1983, to over 5,000 today. The range of the population
has also increased. This robust population growth, coupled with habitat
acquired and protected for the population, have 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 deer population.
The proposed delisting of the Douglas County DPS will not change
the endangered status of the Columbia River DPS. It will remain fully
protected by the Act.
DATES: We will accept comments until the close of business on August
20, 2002. The public hearing will be held from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on
July 30, 2002, in Roseburg, Oregon. Prior to the public hearing, the
Service will be available from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. to provide information
and to answer questions. Registration for the hearing will begin at
5:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be held at the Holiday Inn Express,
375 West Harvard Blvd, Roseburg, Oregon. If you wish to comment, you
may submit your comments and materials at the hearing or by any one of
several methods:
(1) You may submit written comments and information to the State
Supervisor, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2600 S.E. 98th Ave., Suite 100, Portland, Oregon 97266.
(2) You may hand-deliver written comments to our Oregon Fish and
Wildlife Office at the address given above.
(3) You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
[email protected]. See the Public Comments Solicited section
below for file format and other information on electronic filing.
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 (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)
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).
[[Page 42218]]
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)) of 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 Columbian white-tailed deer in Douglas
County have demonstrated a fairly steady upward trend since management
for the population began (see Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1.--Annual Trend Counts (Based on Spring Censuses) and Population Estimates (Based on Linear Regression)
With Confidence Intervals (Lower and Upper Population Estimates) for Columbian White-Tailed Deer in Douglas
County, 1975-2001 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidence intervals
Annual trend -------------------------
Year count (deer/ Population Lower Upper
mile) estimate population population
estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975....................................................... 1.7 1230 407 2054
1976....................................................... 1.9 1400 528 2272
1977....................................................... 1.95 1570 650 2489
1978....................................................... 2 1740 771 2707
1979....................................................... 2.3 1910 892 2925
1980....................................................... 2.3 2080 1014 3143
1981....................................................... 2.2 2250 1135 3361
1982....................................................... 2.1 2420 1257 3579
1983....................................................... 2.5 2590 1378 3797
1984....................................................... 2.7 2760 1500 4015
1985....................................................... 2.6 2930 1621 4233
1986....................................................... 2.2 3100 1743 4451
1987....................................................... 4.1 3270 1864 4669
1988....................................................... 5.6 3440 1985 4887
1989....................................................... 5 3609 2107 5105
1990....................................................... 6.6 3779 2228 5322
1991....................................................... 7.7 3949 2350 5540
1992....................................................... 5.6 4119 2471 5758
1993....................................................... 6.6 4289 2593 5975
1994....................................................... 5.3 4459 2714 6194
1995....................................................... 4.3 4629 2835 6412
1996....................................................... 4.3 4799 2957 6630
1997....................................................... 5.5 4969 3078 6848
1998....................................................... 4.6 5139 3200 7066
1999....................................................... 7.7 5309 3321 7284
2000....................................................... 5.4 5479 3443 7502
2001....................................................... 6.9 5649 3564 7720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From D. Jackson, in litt 2001.
[[Page 42219]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN02.024
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 (km2) (31 square miles
(mi2)) (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 5,000 deer (Columbian White
Tailed Deer Recovery Team (Recovery Team), in litt. 2001; ODFW, in
litt. 2001; DeWaine Jackson, ODFW, in litt. 2001). 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
km2 (309 mi2) (ODFW 1995). In 2001, ODFW
estimated that there were about 6.9 deer per mile along their standard
census routes, with a sex ratio of 22 adult bucks to 100 adult does,
and about 35 fawns to 100 does. 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 population 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 white-tailed deer in Douglas
County was subsequently considered to be a black-tailed deer or a
hybrid between the black-tailed deer and the Columbian white-tailed
deer by the State of Oregon (ODFW 1995); 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, 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 thru December 15 in most years, on warmer, rainy nights
when the deer are most active. 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, 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, in litt.
2001).
The State also implements an active research program, in
coordination with the Service and 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,
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
[[Page 42220]]
park, accelerate 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, 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, 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 (OFWC), 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
Sensitive Species List for continued monitoring (OFWC 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 due to 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) of 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 is 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) 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) 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 and Columbia River populations 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.
Review of the Columbian White-Tailed Deer Recovery Plan
In accordance with the Act, we appointed a team of experts 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 Umpqua Basin of
Douglas County, while keeping the relative proportions of deer habitat
within the known range of the subspecies from further deterioration;
(2) Additionally, to delist the population, it recommended the
maintenance of a minimum population of 500 animals from the larger
population 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 which are
protected from adverse human activities (e.g., heavy, unregulated
grazing by domestic animals, clearing of woody plants) in the
foreseeable future, and which are relatively safe from natural
phenomena that would destroy their value to the subspecies (Service
1983:46). 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 1983:52). 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
1983:52).
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
1983:45-54). These tasks fall into five main categories: (1) Track
population status; (2) ensure viability of the population through
enforcement of existing laws and regulations; (3) secure and protect
habitat to allow the population to increase; (4) study the ecology of
the population and assess the threat of hybridization with Columbian
black-tailed deer; and (5) encourage public support for Columbian
white-tailed deer restoration. Nearly all of the tasks listed in the
Recovery Plan (Service 1983)
[[Page 42221]]
have been accomplished. We provide a summary of recovery tasks and
their implementation status below.
(1) Track population status. Tasks in this first category have been
fully implemented. ODFW, with funding from the Service, has surveyed
the population almost 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 5,000 in 2001 (Service
1983; ODFW, in litt. 2001). 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 Columbian white-tailed deer in
Douglas County is significantly larger than the objectives established
in the recovery plan (ODFW, in litt. 2001).
(2) Ensure 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. Service 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) Secure and protect 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 for values compatible with Columbian white-tailed
deer use (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 (DCPD) (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 the Service and ODFW develop a
long-term management plan for the Douglas County population of
Columbian white-tailed deer (Service 1983:50). Although a single,
population-wide plan has not been prepared, this task has been, or is
being, 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 (plan currently under development) (Jeff Powers,
Director, Douglas County Parks Department, pers. comm., 2001).
(4) Study the ecology of the population and assess 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 ODFW and Oregon
State University (Smith 1981; ODFW 1995; Ricca 1999; L. Whitney, pers.
comm., 2001). 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) Encourage public support for Columbian white-tailed deer
restoration. The final set of tasks in the Recovery Plan deals with
educating the public about the Columbian white-tailed deer restoration
program. This task continues to be implemented by biologists from the
Service and ODFW. ODFW has produced informational materials on the deer
population in Douglas County for the public and landowners. The Service
and 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 Columbian white-tailed deer
population is robust and expanding, and substantial habitat has been
protected by Federal acquisition and Douglas County's zoning and open
space regulations. We acknowledge that it is difficult to demonstrate
that the specific delisting objective of 500 deer on 5,500 ac of secure
habitat as stated in the Recovery Plan has been met (Service 1983).
Surveys consistently show that most deer depend on a combination of
public and private lands. Five hundred deer may live entirely on secure
and suitable lands managed for deer, but demonstrating that is not
feasible. However, 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.
[[Page 42222]]
On May 11, 1999, we published a proposed rule to remove the Douglas
County population of Columbian white-tailed deer from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (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), and the comment period closed on November 18, 1999. We opened
the public comment period again from December 29, 1999, to 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).
Summary of Comments on the First Proposal
In the May 11, 1999, proposed rule and associated notifications,
and subsequent comment period reopenings, 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 published
newspaper notices in the News-Review, Roseburg, Oregon, on May 30,
1999, and November 9, 1999, and in The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon, on
May 30, 1999, and November 7, 1999, which invited general public
comment. We received 89 comments, including those of 1 Federal agency,
the State of Oregon, 3 academic or agency scientists, the Recovery
Team, and 70 individuals or groups; 73 supported, 14 opposed, and 4
were neutral on the proposed action.
Comments included substantial new information regarding the
management status of parcels considered secure for deer, and some
commenters questioned our interpretation of population estimates for
deer on those parcels. In this supplemental proposed rule, we
acknowledge the merit of these comments, and have completely revised
the proposed rule to incorporate this information, as well as other new
information available since the publication of the proposed rule in
1999. We will seek peer review of this proposal during the public
comment period.
Comments received during the comment periods are addressed in the
following summary. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped
into a number of general issues.
Issue 1: One commenter raised questions about the quality of the
information used in preparing the original proposed rule. This
commenter provided information regarding the management status of
parcels considered secure for deer, and also criticized the
interpretation of population estimates for deer on those parcels.
Our Response: We have revised the proposed rule to better explain
the basis for delisting. The revised proposed rule incorporates the
information provided by the commenter, as well as new information
available since the publication of the proposed rule in 1999. We have
carefully re-examined all available information on current threats to
the population, the relevant management documents for parcels providing
habitat for the deer, and deer population estimates in revising the
proposed rule. Because of this new information, we are issuing this
supplemental proposed rule to delist the Douglas County population of
Columbian white-tailed deer, and are providing another opportunity for
the public to comment on this new proposal. We will also seek peer
review of this proposal during the public comment period.
Issue 2: One commenter asserted that the delisting criteria
specified in the Recovery Plan had not been met, and that we must
withdraw our proposal to delist until all of the goals identified in
the Recovery Plan had been fully attained.
Our Response: Recovery plans are intended to guide and measure
recovery, but the Act also provides for delisting a species whenever it
is no longer endangered or threatened based on an analysis of five
factors set forth in the Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(a)(i), see also 50
CFR Sec. 424.11(d)). The deer population is larger and more robust than
the Recovery Team envisioned in 1983, and over 2,830 ha (7,000 ac) of
habitat used by the deer has been acquired by Federal and local
government agencies.
We acknowledge that we do not know if the Columbian white-tailed
deer has met the delisting criterion specified in the Recovery Plan
(Service 1983) (e.g., 500 deer distributed on 5,500 acres of secure
habitat). However, the deer population is large, a substantial amount
of habitat in Douglas County is being managed for values compatible
with Columbian white-tailed deer needs, and threats to its continued
existence have been ameliorated. Our review of the five factors (see
discussion in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below) shows
that the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer has
recovered and no longer requires the protection of the Act. We have
reached this conclusion with the concurrence of the Recovery Team
(Recovery Team, in litt. 2001).
Issue 3: One commenter referred to a task in the Columbian White-
tailed Deer Recovery Plan which recommended completion of a long-term
management plan for the Douglas County population of the deer. The
commenter claimed that delisting should not be considered until this
task is completed.
Our Response: Although a single, population-wide plan has not been
prepared, this task has been accomplished, in part, through management
plans for the North Bank Habitat Management Area (NBHMA)(BLM 2001) and
Douglas County's Habitat Protection Program (DCPD 1995) for the
Columbian white-tailed deer. In addition, a management plan is
currently under development for Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park (J.
Powers, pers. comm., 2001). These large parcels, in concert with other
lands in public ownership and those governed by Douglas County through
zoning and open space regulations, ensure the population's continued
protection. See the full discussion of this issue under Factor A,
below.
Issue 4: We received 10 comment letters with recommendations
regarding the 5-year post-delisting monitoring plan. Peer reviewers of
the original proposed rule to delist the population unanimously
stressed the importance of a monitoring program based on rigorous
sampling procedures, in order to detect real trends in the population.
Our Response: Section 4(g) of the Act requires the Service to
implement a system, in cooperation with the State, to effectively
monitor the status of delisted recovered species for a minimum of 5
years. If we do delist the population, we will ask the Recovery Team
and stakeholders to work with Service biologists to design and
implement a statistically sound monitoring plan for the Douglas County
population of the deer immediately after the final rule is published.
We anticipate that the monitoring program will include spring and fall
census counts, analysis of sex ratios, and recruitment estimates to
determine population status. See the Monitoring section of this
proposed rule for more information.
Issue 5: We received three comment letters on the 1999 proposed
rule that recommended the Service monitor trends in habitat quality.
The commenters suggested that formulation of a habitat management plan
could improve existing riparian habitat, adjacent upland oak savannah,
and native grasslands within the range of the deer in Douglas County.
This
[[Page 42223]]
information could then be used to evaluate areas for potential
transplantation and population expansion.
Our Response: We acknowledge the critical importance of maintaining
and improving existing habitats used by the deer. We believe the
currently approved management plans provide excellent protection for a
substantial amount of occupied and potential habitats. The monitoring
plan (see the Monitoring section) will include an annual review of
habitat quality and trends, and will result in recommendations to the
Service and ODFW, if action is required. We will continue to work with
ODFW to identify additional parcels which may be protected and managed
through available mechanisms, such as conservation easements with
willing landowners.
Issue 6: Several commenters recommended that additional research
should be pursued after the Douglas County population of Columbian
white-tailed deer is delisted. Recommended research included: (1) A
study of the genetic relationship among the Columbian white-tailed deer
populations in Douglas County and along the lower Columbia River, and
the northwest white-tailed deer in Idaho; (2) a study of mortality
caused by parasites, diseases, and predators; (3) a study to determine
if Columbian black-tailed deer are competitively excluding Columbian
white-tailed deer from portions of the North Bank Habitat Management
Area; and (4) a study of Columbian white-tailed deer movements at
night, to determine if nocturnal spatial distribution is similar to
that observed in daytime and twilight hours.
Our Response: We will work with the Recovery Team to identify
needed research and potential funding sources that may assist in the
management of the population after delisting.
Issue 7: Several commenters recommended that we initiate a trap and
transplant program to reduce densities of Columbian white-tailed deer
in portions of their range in Douglas County, and to create new
populations in historic range.
Our Response: State guidelines direct ODFW to manage wildlife
populations to assure population health. An important component of the
State's continuing management of the subspecies will likely include a
translocation program of Columbian white-tailed deer to currently
unoccupied habitat within historic range. Present urban infrastructure
creates obstructions to deer movement and severs natural connectivity
between habitat areas. Interstate 5 and State and county highways
create hazards that impede deer movement because of traffic-induced
mortality and harassment. In addition, fences, commercial and
residential developments, and other urban features interfere with deer
movement and the availability of suitable habitat (Service 2001).
Over the past 3 years, ODFW has moved 18 Columbian white-tailed
deer to Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park from areas with high densities.
One of the objectives of this operation was to remove deer from areas
with perceived damage problems (S. Denney, in litt. 2001). We will work
with the Recovery Team and biologists at ODFW to determine if continued
translocation is an appropriate management tool to reduce deer
densities, and to evaluate its potential to create a new population in
currently unoccupied historic habitat in the Umpqua or Willamette
basins.
Issue 8: We received 65 comment letters on the proposed rule from
people concerned that delisting the deer would result in excessive
hunting, leading to the need to re-list the population. One other
commenter recommended that the Service monitor ODFW's proposed harvest
level for the population, and allow public input on the issue.
Our Response: If the Douglas County population of Columbian white-
tailed deer is delisted, the OFWC, with input from ODFW, would be
responsible for determining whether a sport hunting season is
justified. A recreational hunt could be considered as a tool to reduce
population densities and improve herd health in selected areas (ODFW,
in litt. 2001). We will monitor the population for at least 5 years
after delisting, and will work closely with ODFW to determine
appropriate management options for the population. If sport hunting is
determined to be an appropriate management tool, we would recommend
conservative harvest levels to maintain a healthy population.
Initially, 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
over 5,000 deer, which is considered to be large enough to withstand
some level of regulated harvest (ODFW, in litt. 2001). ODFW seeks
public input before setting big game harvest levels each year.
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. 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; these same five factors must be considered when a
species is delisted. A species may be delisted according to section
424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate
that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one of the
following reasons: (1) Extinction; (2) Recovery; or (3) Original data
for classification of the species were in error.
After a thorough review of all available information, we have
determined that the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed
deer 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 population of Columbian white-tailed deer, 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
population's recovery. Since 1978, over 2,830 ha (7,000 ac) have come
into public ownership within the range of the Douglas County population
of Columbian white-tailed deer. 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
[[Page 42224]]
since it lies within the population'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). There was no active management 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 population's
range. The delay in initiation of management activities was due to the
need to develop and approve a management plan for the parcel. A final
management plan was approved in June 2001 (BLM 2001).
Implementation of the NBHMA final management plan will improve
habitat quality for the deer (Service 2001). In October 2001, 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). We will track the
implementation of the NBHMA management plan through annual monitoring
reports from the BLM (Service 2001).
Under the final management plan, management objectives for the site
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 2000). Livestock
grazing, prescribed burning, thinning, and timber management are some
of the management tools that will be used to achieve these objectives
(BLM 2000); 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 1983:46), and 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, and 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
composition to be compatible with the deer (e.g., as adult/yearling
units as opposed to cow/calf units) (BLM 2001); also, the timing and
stocking rates would be based on vegetation manipulation to benefit the
deer, rather than maximize benefits to the cattle (BLM 2001).
The final management plan also calls for development of water
guzzlers, 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).
The management plan also provides for a range of recreational
opportunities within the NBHMA (non-motorized 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 area where disturbance may be avoided (Service 2001).
Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park, managed by Douglas County Parks
Department, is the second largest parcel of publicly owned land (445
ha) (1,100 ac) within the range of the Douglas County population of
Columbian white-tailed deer; 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 and the Douglas County Farm Lease
program (Kanipe 1983; Douglas County Parks Department 2001). 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 cutting then, only upon a sustained yield basis with all revenue
from timber cutting used by the county in capital improvements upon
this 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 2001). The annual farm
lease provisions are reviewed and approved by ODFW biologists (M.
Black, ODFW, pers. comm., 2001).
Douglas County is preparing a Coordinated Resource Management Plan
(CRMP) for Mildred Kanipe Memorial Park; a Steering Committee has been
established, which includes representatives from ODFW, local
environmental and recreation groups, the Douglas County Parks Advisory
Board, and individuals with forestry and range expertise (J. Powers,
pers.
[[Page 42225]]
comm., 2001). The management plan will cover a wide range of issues,
including recreation, wildlife, grazing, timber management, and
riparian conservation, and will address such issues as the appropriate
level of livestock grazing for the long-term (J. Powers, pers. comm.,
2001). In the past several years, Douglas County has explored options
for harvesting timber in the park, but these plans have been set aside
until appropriate options are developed as part of the Coordinated
Resource Management Planning process (J. Powers, pers. comm., 2001).
Since 1998, 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, 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, in litt. 2001). In 2001, 25 deer were counted in the
park (S. Denney, pers. comm., 2001).
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 popcornflower (Plagiobothrys
hirtus) (Service 2000b). 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, 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, and 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 ODFW and the Service, 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:6-19). 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 ODFW (DCPD
2000a). Land zoned as non-resource 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, 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).
Douglas County's application of zoning to protect Columbian white-
tailed deer has been an essential factor in the population'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, 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, 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 population of Columbian white-
tailed deer in Douglas County 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 5,000 deer
(Recovery Team, in litt. 2001; ODFW, in litt. 2001; DeWaine Jackson,
ODFW, in litt. 2001). 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 population of Columbian white-tailed deer, 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 less, and is
limited to one or two 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 Columbian white-tailed deer population in
this area (Service 2001).
Recreational hunting and the possession of loaded firearms is 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).
If the Douglas County population is delisted, the OFWC, with input
from ODFW, would be responsible for determining whether a sport hunting
season is justified. State guidelines direct ODFW to manage wildlife
populations to assure population health for present and future
generations of Oregonians to enjoy (ODFW, in litt. 2001). Initially,
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
[[Page 42226]]
numbers over 5,000 deer, which is considered to be 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 this population (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
State Police, ODFW, local Service 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 proven to be intentional poaching, whereas four were cases of mis-
identification (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
population (Kistner and Denney 1991). These permitted takings have not
had measurable impacts on population trends in this population. If the
population is delisted, 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)
will track the status of the population for 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 population of Columbian
white-tailed deer, 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). Necropsies revealed pneumonia, lungworms, and
high levels of ecto-parasite 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).
Diseases noted in fawn necropsies also included pneumonia and
occasional instances of bacterial or viral infections (Ricca 1999). An
earlier study by 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 due to high density (Ricca 1999). Delisting
the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer 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 increased herd
health.
Deer hair-loss syndrome has been a concern in the Columbia River
population of Columbian white-tailed deer, but has not been prevalent
in the Douglas County herd. This disease is believed to be caused by
the parasite Parelaphostrongylus, which invades the lungs of infected
deer resulting in a low-grade pneumonia (Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999). The pneumonia infection suppresses the
deer's immune system, which may make 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). Spotlight
surveys by 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
population, but the proposed post-delisting monitoring of the Douglas
County population 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.D.A.
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 (Tapscott 1998). Therefore, it has been determined that
disease is not a significant threat to the species. However, since its
existence had been confirmed in the Douglas County Columbian white-
tailed deer population, we will coordinate with State and Federal
wildlife biologists and agencies to track the incidence of the disease
to assist in effective management of the species.
Predation is known to be a leading cause of death in white-tailed
deer populations (Halls 1978). Ricca (1999) 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 1999). Coyotes (Canis latrans) are frequent predators of white-
tailed deer elsewhere (Halls 1978), but Ricca's (1999) study found no
evidence of fawns killed by coyotes. The apparent absence of coyote
predation may be due in part to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services
predator control program. 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 population of Columbian white-tailed deer by
reducing the number of potential predators on fawns. In
[[Page 42227]]
summary, disease and predation are not considered threats to the
population.
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 1995:45,
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). State-wide 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 (1999) concluded that
road kill was the second most frequent cause of death in his study; he
determined that five deer (17 percent of his 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 this population, it has not been a limiting
factor for population growth (D. Jackson, ODFW, pers. comm., 2001).
Hybridization between Columbian white-tailed deer and 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
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 population of Columbian
white-tailed deer (Kistner and Denney 1991). Gavin (1988) conducted
laboratory analyses of muscle samples from Columbian white-tailed 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 found that 28 percent of the
deer that died during the study were emaciated and diseased (see
disease discussion in Factor B, above) (1999). 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 (R. Klein, pers comm., 2001).
With growth of the deer population, deer-human conflicts have
increased. From 1996 to 2000, 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 population of Columbian
white-tailed deer will allow more flexibility in development and
implementation of a management plan in order 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 prefers (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 wild fire 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.
For the reasons discussed above, we feel that none of these threats
pose a serious threat to the persistence of the Douglas County
population of Columbian white-tailed deer.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available concerning the past, present, and future threats
faced by this population in determining to propose this rule. Based on
this evaluation, we propose to remove the Douglas County population of
Columbian white-tailed deer from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife. The population is robust, and abundant habitat used by the
deer has been protected in Douglas County to justify delisting the
population.
Effects of the Rule
Finalization of this proposed rule will affect the protection
afforded to the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed
deer under the Act. Taking, interstate commerce, import, and export of
deer from this population will no longer be prohibited under the Act.
In addition, if the Douglas County population of the Columbian white-
tailed deer is removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, Federal agencies would no longer be 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
[[Page 42228]]
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the deer.
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 would be available to
inform future management. Delisting the Douglas County population could
have positive effects in terms of management flexibility to State and
local governments. Deer densities in selected areas could be reduced by
management actions. Individual deer could be controlled by hazing, and
targeted individuals could be moved where repeated severe damage to
agricultural crops, gardens, or ornamental plantings was documented.
Thus, delisting would allow managers greater flexibility to take
actions to reduce overcrowding in selected areas, which could result in
a healthier deer population.
The proposed 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 will remain 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 5-year monitoring
period, data indicate that protective status under the Act should be
reinstated, we can initiate listing procedures, including, if
appropriate, emergency listing.
The Service with the State and the Recovery Team will develop and
implement a statistically sound, 5-year monitoring program designed to
assess the sustainability of the population through tracking of
population parameters that may include the population size, trend,
recruitment, and distribution. We will publish in the Federal Register
a notice of availability of the draft monitoring plan, in order to
provide the public the opportunity to comment on the content of the
plan. We will issue a final monitoring plan and annually assess the
results of the post-delisting monitoring of the Douglas County
Columbian white-tailed deer population.
At the end of the 5-year monitoring period, we will decide if
relisting, continued monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is
appropriate. If warranted (e.g., data shows a significant decline or
increased threats), we will consider continuing monitoring beyond the
5-year period and may modify the monitoring program based on an
evaluation of the results of the initial 5-year monitoring program.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal to
remove the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife will be as accurate
and effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit any comments or
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning any aspect of this proposal. Comments should be sent to the
Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires
that a public hearing be held if it is requested within 45 days of the
publication of a proposed rule. Given the high likelihood of requests,
and the need to proceed as expeditiously as possible, the Service will
hold a public hearing on the date and location described in the DATES
and ADDRESSES sections above.
Comments are particularly sought concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to the Douglas County population of the
Columbian white-tailed deer and its habitat that would result from
implementing the measures outlined in this proposed rule;
(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this population;
(3) Current or planned activities in the range of the population
and their likely impacts on the population and its habitat; and
(4) Appropriate parameters to monitor and to assess the population
status.
If you submit comments by e-mail, please submit them as an ASCII
file and avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Please also include ``Attn: [RIN-AF43]'' and your name and
return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a
confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message,
contact us directly by calling our Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office at
telephone number 503/231-6179.
Our practice is to make comments available for public review during
regular business hours, including names and home addresses of
respondents. 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 some 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 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.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that
are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this
proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
proposal? (2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon
that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposal
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce its clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal
easier to understand?
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 record keeping activities (see 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, record keeping, or
disclosure requirements imposed on ten 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
[[Page 42229]]
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
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
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this designation in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this proposed rule
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement
of Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Cat Brown, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to 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 propose to amend section 17.11(h) by revising the entry for
Columbian white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus leucopareia under
``Mammals'' 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,---- NA NA
virginianus (Pacific,
leucurus. Wahkiakum,
Cowlitz, Clark and
Skamania Counties,
WA, and Columbia,
Clatsop and
Multnomah
Counties, OR).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: May 31, 2002.
Steve Williams,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 02-15189 Filed 6-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P