Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Delist the Douglas County Population of Columbian White-Tailed Deer

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF43

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To

Delist the Douglas County Population of Columbian White-Tailed Deer

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) propose to remove the

Douglas County population of the Columbian white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) from the Lists of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife and Plant species (delist), pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.

Two populations of this subspecies exist, one in Douglas County,

Oregon, (Douglas County population), and the other in Columbia and

Clatsop counties, Oregon, and Wahkiakum County, Washington (Columbia

River population). The Columbian white-tailed deer was listed as

endangered in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act, and

subsequently listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended

(Act).

The Douglas County population has increased from a low of fewer

than 300 deer in 1940 to a current total of about 5,500 deer. The range

of this population also has increased. Habitat has been secured and/or

protected for the population, enabling it to increase in numbers and

range to the point where a change in status is appropriate.

The Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer meets

the recovery plan's criteria for delisting. The Columbia River

population numbers meet the criteria for downlisting to threatened, but

do not presently meet the objectives for secure habitat needed to

delist the population. We anticipate another proposed rule in the

future to downlist this population.

This proposed rule includes a proposed 5-year post-delisting

monitoring plan for the Douglas County population as required for

species that are delisted due to recovery. Monitoring will include

population trends and productivity.

DATES: We must receive your comments on the Douglas County population

of Columbian white-tailed deer delisting by July 12, 1999. Public

hearing requests must be received by June 25, 1999.

[[Page 25264]]

ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Oregon Field

Office, 2900 N.W. Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97470. Comments and

materials received will be available for public inspection, by

appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Tuss, Field Supervisor, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (See ADDRESSES section ), (telephone 541/957-

3474; facsimile 541/957-3475) for information pertaining to the Douglas

County population.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)

resembles other white-tailed deer subspecies, ranging in size from 39

to 45 kilograms (kg) (85 to 100 pounds (lbs)) for females and 52 to 68

kg (115 to 150 lbs) for males. Generally a red-brown color in summer,

and gray in winter, the species has white rings around the eyes and a

white ring just behind the nose. Its tail is long and triangular in

shape, and is brown on the dorsal (upper) surface and fringed in white

(Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1995). The species 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). It is the westernmost

representative of the 38 subspecies of white-tailed deer. Early

accounts suggested this deer was locally common, particularly in

riparian areas along the major rivers (Gavin 1978). The decline in deer

numbers was rapid with the arrival and settlement of pioneers in the

fertile river valleys. 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 1900's (Gavin 1978). Only a

small herd of 200 to 400 animals in the lower Columbia River area of

Clatsop and Columbia counties, Oregon, and Cowlitz and Wahkiakum

counties, Washington, and a disjunct population of unknown size in

Douglas County, Oregon, survived. These two remnant populations are

geographically separated by about 320 kilometers (km) (200 miles (mi))

of unsuitable or discontinuous habitat.

Population declines led to classification of this subspecies as

endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001). Prior to 1977, the Douglas County

population was considered a black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus

columbiana) or a hybrid between the black-tailed deer and the Columbian

white-tailed deer by the State of Oregon, and was managed accordingly,

including by a regulated harvest. In 1978, the State of 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 (ODFW 1995). The Columbian white-tailed deer was removed

from the State of Oregon list of threatened and endangered species in

1996 because the State considers the population to have recovered.

The Columbian White-Tailed Deer Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) was

approved by us in 1976, and a revised version was approved in 1983.

Because of the distance between these populations and differences in

habitats and threats, the Recovery Plan addresses the recovery of each

population separately.

Crews (1939) estimated the population in the 1930's in Douglas

County at 200 to 300 individuals within a range of about 78 square

kilometers (sq km) (30 square miles (sq mi)). In 1970, ODFW estimated

that 450 to 500 deer were present. By 1983, the number had increased to

about 2,500 (Smith 1985). The population has continued to grow and

presently numbers about 5,500 deer (ODFW 1995).

Along with this increase in numbers, the range also has expanded.

The deer have expanded to the north and west in the last 10 years, and

now occupy an area of approximately 800 sq km (308 sq mi)(ODFW 1995).

The highest densities of Columbian white-tailed deer are found along

the south bank of the North Umpqua River within about 1 km (0.6 mi) of

the river. Within this zone, browse lines are becoming evident in some

areas, and higher parasite loads and bacterial infections are beginning

to become apparent due to high concentrations of deer (Kistner and

Denney 1991). High internal parasite loads are generally considered to

be indicators of high deer densities (ODFW 1995).

Most habitat for the Douglas County population is on private lands,

and 3,713 hectares (ha) (9,191 acres (ac)) of suitable habitat are

presently considered secure on Federal, County and private lands. For

the purpose of delisting, habitat is considered secure if it is

protected by legally binding measures or law from adverse human

activities for the foreseeable future. The majority of this secure

habitat (2,804 ha) (6,941 ac) is managed by the U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Roseburg District. About

2,658 ha (6,581 ac) is managed as the North Bank Habitat Management

Area, which was acquired by the BLM in order to secure habitat for the

Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer, and its

primary purpose is to manage for the species (BLM 1998). BLM also

manages another 145 ha (360 ac) of for the species (Lowell Hayes, BLM,

in litt. 1998). Douglas County provides another 626 ha (1,550 ac) of

secure habitat, and includes the Kanipe Ranch property (444 ha) (1,100

ac), which was deeded to the County with the stipulation that it be

managed as a wildlife area and the County manages it in that manner;

Whistler Park (40 ha)(100 ac), which the County manages as a park; and

the Glide Transfer Site (141 ha)(350 ac) which is managed as an

experimental forest, with wildlife habitat as one of its objectives

(Frank M. Nielsen, Douglas County Public Works Department, in litt.

1998; David Peterson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.

1998). Several other organizations are providing secure habitat,

including the Nature Conservancy, which owns about 8 ha (20 ac) and

manages it as a natural area and will continue to do so into

perpetuity; 12 ha (30 ac) is provided by Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, which manages the land for wildlife and public fishing; and

Ramp Canyon (263 ha) (650 ac) is managed by the Ramp Canyon Board,

comprised of private citizens, as an outdoor recreation site which

provides habitat for the Douglas County population of Columbian white-

tailed deer (D. Peterson, pers. comm. 1998).

Though not considered secure, habitat on private lands within the

core range of this population that contains key foraging, hiding,

fawning, and travel corridors is also providing a measure of protection

for the subspecies. Douglas County has implemented land use plans and

zoning ordinances that apply to private land to protect habitat and

assist in recovery (Douglas County 1997). These protection 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 assure

maintenance of habitat and travel corridors (ODFW 1995; Douglas County

1997).

The Recovery Plan described the criteria for reclassification of

the Douglas County population to threatened status. This criteria was

maintenance of a total of 1,000 animals in the herd in combination with

[[Page 25265]]

moderate habitat protection (such as provided by Douglas County Land

Use Plans and zoning ordinances) (Service 1983). The Recovery Plan also

had an objective of at least 500 deer distributed on at least 2,222 ha

(5,500 ac) of suitable, secure habitat for the Douglas County

population to be considered recovered and subject to removal from the

Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (Service 1983). The figure

of 500 deer was calculated based on existing sex ratios and

distribution, and is theoretically required to eliminate the

potentially deleterious effects of inbreeding. The theory and formulas

for calculating this number were developed and discussed by Senner

(1980).

From 1994 to 1997, population estimates indicated that 507, 424,

558 and 618 deer have been present on secure habitat (S. Denney, ODFW,

in litt. 1997). The rest of the population is found on habitat not

considered secure. The current total population size is roughly five

times the population size required for downlisting, which greatly

reduces the risk to the population. It is also anticipated that as

habitat management and restoration activities are implemented by the

BLM in the North Bank Habitat Area, which contains the majority of

secure lands, the carrying capacity and numbers of deer on these lands

will increase accordingly. The Douglas County population has met the

objectives in the Recovery Plan, and greatly exceeded the habitat

objectives.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

The Douglas County and Columbia River populations of the Columbian

white-tailed deer qualify as distinct under our Policy Regarding the

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.), published in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR

4722). For a population to be listed under the Act as a distinct

vertebrate population segment, three elements are considered--(1) the

discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of

the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population

segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population

segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for

listing (i.e., is the population segment, when treated as if it were a

species, endangered or threatened?).

The Douglas County and Columbia River populations of Columbian

white-tailed deer are discrete as they are geographically isolated and

separated from each other. Historically, this subspecies ranged from

the south end of Puget Sound in Washington south to the Roseburg area

in Oregon (Bailey 1936). At the present time, only two locations for

this subspecies exist. The subspecies' range has been reduced to its

present locations along the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon and

in Douglas County, Oregon. The populations 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). As a result, the wide

geographic gap in suitable habitat between the Columbia River and

Douglas County populations identifies this subspecies as having two

discrete and isolated population segments.

Regarding significance, there are some recognized ecological

differences between the habitats of the Columbia River and Douglas

County populations, although both subpopulations are tied to riparian

areas. The Douglas County population occurs in a relatively dry area

that has rolling hills, grasslands, and oak forests (ODFW 1995). Smith

(1981) found that oak woodland/grassland habitat is important to this

population, and heavily used by Columbian white-tailed deer. The

Columbia River population, by contrast, occurs in wet bottomlands and

dense forest swamps where there is little elevational relief, and which

receive a large amount of precipitation (ODFW 1995).

As previously mentioned, the Columbian white-tailed deer was listed

as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001), and subsequently listed under the

Act (see Previous Federal Action section below). The Recovery Plan

addressed recovery objectives and criteria for each population, and

recognized them as two distinct populations because of differences in

location, habitats, land use, etc. (Service 1983). For the reasons

described herein, we believe that the Douglas County population has met

the criteria for delisting. The Columbia River population has met the

criteria for downlisting, and we anticipate another proposed rule in

the future to downlist this population.

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 (ESPA) of 1966 (32 FR 4001). The ESPA defined

listing factors and required publication of the names of fish and

wildlife species threatened with extinction. 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 threatened and endangered species when the

Endangered Species Act was authorized in 1973.

The processing of this proposed rule conforms with our listing

priority guidance published in the Federal Register on May 8, 1998 (63

FR 25502). This guidance clarifies the order in which we will process

rulemakings following two related events--(1) the lifting, on April 26,

1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed on April 10, 1995

(Public Law 104-6) and, (2) the restoration of significant funding for

listing through passage of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

following severe funding constraints imposed by a number of continuing

resolutions between November 1995 and April 1996. Under this guidance,

highest priority (Tier 1) is given to processing emergency listings and

second highest priority (Tier 2) to resolving the listing status of

outstanding proposed listings, resolving the conservation status of

candidate species, processing administrative findings on petitions to

add species to the lists or reclassify species from threatened to

endangered status, and delisting or reclassifying actions. The lowest

priority actions, processing critical habitat designations, are in Tier

3. This proposed rule falls under Tier 2.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(Act)(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 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. 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). These factors

should also be considered in any decision to delist a species, and

their application to

[[Page 25266]]

the Columbian white-tailed deer are as follows:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or

curtailment of its habitat or range. The preferred habitat of the

Columbian white-tailed deer includes grass-shrub, spruce-cottonwood

swamps, oak mottes, open and closed oak woodland within bottomland and

riparian zones, and some coniferous forest. The lowland riparian

system, however, is the key habitat component for the deer (Service

1983; Smith 1987). Conversion of these habitat types to residential and

intensive agricultural developments was a key factor leading to the

listing of this subspecies as endangered.

Within the range of the Douglas County population, 3,713 ha (9,191

ac) are now considered secure habitat, as previously described. These

lands were estimated to harbor 507, 424, 558 and 618 deer in each of

the years between 1994-1997, respectively (S. Denney, in litt. 1997).

The remainder of the species' preferred habitats are privately owned.

However, since 1983, prime habitat areas for Columbian white-tailed

deer have been designated by the Douglas County Land Use Plan (1997)

for rural residential, agriculture, grazing and forest, which protects

lands from urban development. Key travel corridors and fawning areas

along the North Umpqua River are now partly protected from intensive

and excessive development by Douglas County, which developed a habitat

protection program for the Columbian white-tailed deer within the

species' range in that county. Protective measures to conserve habitat

for the species include a 30 m (100 ft) structural development setback

from streams to preserve riparian corridors, a minimum parcel size of

32 ha (80 ac) within 96 percent of the protected habitat area, and

limit rural residential development along the western edge of the

protected habitat. The deer population has continued to increase in

this area. This sustained increase in numbers in conjunction with

habitat protection measures has resulted in a population of Columbian

white-tailed deer that is no longer threatened by habitat loss or

destruction.

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or

educational purposes. Prior to protection under the Act, the Columbian

white-tailed deer experienced intensive hunting pressure that, coupled

with habitat loss, resulted in a precipitous population decline. Since

protection under the Act and the securing of suitable habitat, the

Douglas County population has increased in numbers, and has increased

even during the periods of legal sport hunting. Scientific studies,

permitted under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, have resulted in the

take of as many as 40 deer within 1 year from the Douglas County

population. These permitted takings have not had measurable impacts on

population trends in this population.

Poaching of several Columbian white-tailed deer has been documented

annually, but it is not judged to have a significant impact on the

population (ODFW 1995).

Past overutilization was considered a threat to this population and

was one of several factors leading to its listing as endangered.

Columbian white-tailed deer cannot be legally hunted while the

subspecies is listed under the Act. Delisting of the Douglas County

population will allow the State of Oregon to regulate the harvest of

this subspecies, and may result in an increased level of utilization

(ODFW 1995). However, the population now numbers about 5,500 deer,

which is considered to be large enough to withstand some regulated

harvest. The regulated harvest objective would be to reduce the

population density in certain areas, and to expand the range of the

subspecies by trapping and transplanting individuals to unoccupied

range (ODFW 1995). Also, the population would be monitored for at least

5 years after delisting to ensure that the population remains stable

and there are no further risks to the subspecies' well-being.

Overutilization is no longer considered a threat to the population.

C. Disease or predation. At the time of listing, disease and

predation were not thought to be major limiting factors of this

population. Parasitism and some bacterial diseases are now beginning to

become apparent in areas where deer densities are highest. Continued

increases in numbers within the core range may lead to widespread

mortality from parasitism and disease (Kistner and Denney 1991).

Kistner and Denney's (1991) work included the permitted take of 40 deer

to analyze disease and parasite levels. Delisting would allow

management practices by the State of Oregon such as hazing to disperse

concentrations of deer and depredation permits to remove individual

deer. Sport hunting to regulate high-density populations would also be

possible. These actions would reduce the likelihood of a density-

dependent epizootic disease or infection. It would not, however,

totally eliminate the potential for such an occurrence. Predation has

not been identified or recognized as a controlling or limiting factor

of this population. In conclusion, disease and predation are not

considered threats to the population, and delisting of the population

would probably facilitate managers' ability to reduce existing problems

with disease.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The lack of

adequate regulatory mechanisms for protecting habitat and controlling

take was responsible for the decline of the deer. Listing the deer as

endangered under the Act protected individual animals from take, but

habitat degradation and destruction on private lands has continued,

which was a major factor contributing to the decline. For the Douglas

County population, securing 2,222 ha (5,500 ac) of habitat that

supports 500 deer assures that adequate habitat will be protected to

maintain a minimum viable population (Service 1983). The 3,713 ha

(9,191 ac) of habitat secured on BLM, Douglas County, and other lands

exceeds this minimum amount. BLM manages the North Bank Management Area

and several hundred other hectares (acres) for Columbian white-tailed

deer; Douglas County manages 624 ha (1550 ac) as parks, forests, and

wildlife areas that provide habitat; and The Nature Conservancy, ODFW,

and Ramp Canyon board also manage lands to benefit the species. In

addition, passage and implementation of the Douglas County Land Use

Plan in 1995 provided additional habitat protection for the population

on private land, although this level of habitat protection does not

meet the secure habitat criteria. That plan requires retention of

wooded habitat on farm and forest land, and 30 meter (100 feet)

setbacks for building construction along the North Umpqua River. This

portion of the river is the principal travel corridor and dispersal

route within the core area of this population. Securing of adequate

habitat on Federal and County lands, and the additional zoning

requirements have removed this threat to the Douglas County population.

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued

existence. With growth of the deer population, deer-human conflicts

have increased. Private croplands, gardens, and ornamental plantings

have been subject to varying degrees of depredation by the Douglas

County population. This has created serious problems because under the

Act it is illegal to haze, harass, disperse, or lethally take listed

deer, even where serious continued damage is occurring. Unregulated

indiscriminate illegal take is occurring and is likely to increase as

the herd increases. Illegal unreported forms of control do not allow

for

[[Page 25267]]

analysis of behavior, population changes or the subsequent formulation

of management strategies based on known population dynamics. Removal of

the Douglas County population of Columbian white-tailed deer from the

endangered and threatened species lists will allow development and

implementation of management procedures necessary to control and

enhance deer populations, while fostering better land manager-landowner

relationships that are necessary for 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 nutritious vegetation, and maintaining the oak/grassland that

the subspecies prefers (ODFW 1995). Columbian white-tailed deer evolved

with the occurrence of fire in the ecosystem, and prescribed burning of

their habitat would likely be beneficial. Currently, where this

population occurs, all wildfires are suppressed because of the

proximity of homes and businesses. Given the increasing Douglas County

population and resulting range expansion, it is unlikely that fire

would pose a significant threat to the population.

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial

information available regarding the past, present, and future threats

faced by this subspecies in determining to propose this rule. Based on

this evaluation, the proposed action is to delist the Douglas County

population of the Columbian white-tailed deer. The population currently

exceeds the minimum population number necessary to assure continued

viability. Sufficient suitable habitat has been secured in Douglas

County to support delisting that population.

Effects of the Rule

If the Douglas County population of the Columbian white-tailed deer

is removed from the Lists of Threatened and Endangered Species, 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 likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the

deer. The protection from take under section 9 of the Act would also be

eliminated. However, the 1988 amendments to the Act require that all

species which have been delisted due to recovery be monitored for at

least five years following delisting. We are responsible for

implementing a system, in cooperation with the states, to monitor the

status of a recovered species.

Delisting the Douglas County population could have several positive

effects. Individual deer could be legally controlled by hazing or

physical removal, or populations could be controlled where repeated

severe damage to agricultural crops, gardens, or ornamental plantings

was documented. If delisted, the population could also be regulated

through legal harvest. Biological data such as sex ratios, age,

reproductive status, and health status (parasitism and bacterial

infections) from individual deer taken through legal harvest or the

issuance of special permits would be available.

Monitoring

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that whenever a species has

recovered and been delisted, we must implement a system, in cooperation

with the states, to effectively monitor the status of any species that

has recovered to the point where the protective measures provided under

the Act are no longer necessary. 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 of the Act. This

monitoring program will continue for at least five years and, if at any

time during that period data indicates that the species' well-being is

under a significant risk, we can initiate listing procedures,

including, if appropriate, emergency listing.

The Recovery Team will coordinate monitoring activities and

annually review the status of the Douglas County population of

Columbian white-tailed deer. Within 6 months following the conclusion

of the mandated 5-year monitoring program, the Recovery Team will

conduct a comprehensive review of the Douglas County population of

Columbian white-tailed deer and forward a report to the Regional

Director for approval and release to the general public for review and

comment. The review will include a recommendation on whether to (1)

continue the monitoring program for an additional five years, (2)

terminate the monitoring program, or (3) reconsider the status of the

Columbian white-tailed deer.

We will use, to the fullest extent possible, information routinely

collected by researchers and land managers in a variety of

organizations and agencies, which will supplement data collected under

a systematic monitoring program, and consider relisting the species if,

during or after the 5-year monitoring effort, we have determined a

reversal of recovery has taken place.

If the report recommends, and we have determined, at the end of the

mandatory 5-year monitoring period that recovery is complete, and

factors that led to the listing of the Douglas County population, or

any new factors, have been sufficiently reduced or eliminated,

monitoring may be reduced or terminated. If the data show that the

Douglas County population is declining, or if one or more factors that

have the potential to cause decline are identified, monitoring will

continue beyond the 5-year period and the monitoring program may be

modified, based on an evaluation of the results of the initial 5-year

monitoring program.

The following minimum monitoring activities are necessary:

(1) Monitor Columbian white-tailed deer population parameters using

the following measures--

(a) Fall (November 15-December 31) and spring (March 1-April 15)

ground surveys of each population/subpopulation. Data collected on

these surveys will include--

(i) Sex and age ratios to estimate fawn production, overwinter fawn

survival, and genetic effective population size, i.e., the risk of

inbreeding.

(ii) Numbers of Columbian white-tailed deer counted to estimate

population trends and minimum population size.

(b) Aerial surveys--Aerial surveys using forward looking infra-red

scanners (or similar technology) are needed to obtain more precise

information on minimum deer numbers. Survey flights will be conducted

three times per year for three years over areas of secure habitat, and

then once every third year for the duration of the monitoring program

should a second five years of monitoring be required. Data from these

flights will be used to develop a correlation factor with the ground

surveys described in (a) above. The correlation factor will be used to

improve estimates of population sizes and trends obtained from ground

surveys.

(2) Develop Geographic Information System maps of Columbian white-

tailed deer range to use in monitoring habitat loss to human

development, habitat improvements, and the locations actually occupied

by the deer. This information will be used to encourage local land use

planning that protects the habitat of the Columbian white-tailed deer.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal to

remove

[[Page 25268]]

the Douglas County population 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 our Southwest Oregon Office (see

ADDRESSES section). Comments are particularly sought concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning

any threat (or lack thereof) to 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 subspecies;

(3) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their

possible impacts on Columbian white-tailed deer and its habitat; and

(4) Adequacy of the monitoring plan, and its ability to detect

changes in the population.

Our final decision regarding the delisting of the Douglas County

population of Columbian white-tailed deer will take into consideration

the comments and any additional information that we receive during the

comment period. Such communications may lead to adoption of a final

regulation that differs from this proposal.

The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings

on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45

days of the date of publication of the proposal in the Federal

Register. You must make such requests in writing and address them to--

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington Office,

510 Desmond Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503.

Executive Order 12866

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?

Required Determinations

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 approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The

information needed to monitor the status of the Columbian white-tailed

deer will be collected primarily by Service, ODFW, and the BLM. We do

not anticipate a need to request data or other information from the

public, other than the ODFW, to satisfy monitoring information needs.

If it becomes necessary to collect information from ten or more

individuals, groups, or organizations per year, we will first obtain

information collection approval from OMB.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an Environmental Assessment or an

Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in

connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining our

reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on

October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,

is available upon request from the Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Western Washington Office, 510 Desmond Dr., Suite 102, Lacey,

Washington 98503.

Author

The primary author of this proposed rule is John Grettenberger,

Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Washington

Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503, (360)

753-9440.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and

record keeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 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

the Columbian white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus leucurus, under

``MAMMALS'', to read as follows:

[[Page 25269]]

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

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)... Entire, except E 1,____.......... NA NA

virginianus Douglas County,

leucurus. OR.

* * * * * * *

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

Dated: April 16, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-11747 Filed 5-10-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P